On the Dallas/Seattle shirt pull, "never going to get there" is IRRELEVANT unless the referee knows the result of that play will be a successful GK catch 100% of the time - and I don't believe that referee is Doctor Strange. The defenders/keeper could misplay, they could crash into each other, or miss - if Ruidiaz had not been impeded, they might have been more likely to misplay the ball due to his pressure. The funny thing is the VAR (Kevin Stott, one of the most experienced officials) HEARD the CR make that statement and STILL recommended he reconsider.
10:43 By the characterization of the incident as a “holding foul” then a PK should have been awarded, correct? If there is something in the Laws to justify the CR opinion on “the ball is never going to get there” I would like to see it. I suppose in games he officiates then no fouls are to be called when holding players well off the ball. Probably explains why the VAR earned his FIFA badge and CR has not.
yea, sounds like they didn’t want to say that a serious error had happened (esp in a playoff game) so they said it was ‘subjective’ so not certainly an incorrect decision
This ref just justified a tripping take down in the same scenario. (I've literally seen a two hand shove in the back, in the box no less, and it was let go because it was off the play. The player was sprawled face-first into the grass. No VAR check, nothin) Or other fouls. With this ref in charge you can deck a player off the ball whenever you want. Just dumb logic. Where does he come up with this? I often say "if it's not a big deal to the play, why did the defender need to do it?" Not that it actually is used to determine a foul but still. If they are dumb enough to foul off the ball they can get the dumb call against them. This ref needs to unlearn/relearn some things. That's just crazy talk, not the laws and bad for the game. And agreed about labeling it ‘subjective’ 😂😂 but did admit the possibility to pressure was taken away.
@9:50 I think the referee would do better to stick to the laws of the game rather than making up a standard where clear fouls are ignored when, in his opinion, the player is "never going to get there." And PRO should be more clear whether or not their referees should abide by the laws of the game or use their own subjective standards to make game-changing calls.
10:43 Is it your opinion that a penalty should have been awarded given what is said here? 12:46 Is it normal for PRO assistant referees to indicate when goalkeeper offenses occur during a penalty shoot-out?
@@bemusedalligator I can see that's what is stated in The Laws of the Game. But I thought different instruction was being passed down to referees in this (my) region to allow the referee to take that decision during a shoot-out, since he/she would not be worried about encroachment by other players.
As a referee myself it is honestly quite laughable that another referee would think a clear holding offence is not a foul simply because the player is not going to make it to the ball. You won't find that anywhere in the laws of the game.
So on the last call in the Dallas game- basically it sounds like a foul can made as long as the player is deemed to not have a chance to be directly involved in a play. Hmmmmmmm. Come on PRO… that is a joke.
What bothers me about the shirt tug is that, at the moment of the foul, the ball is still in the air... how things occur after a foul does not negate the foul in any other circumstance. If you launch a shot way off-target and it hits someone's hand in an unnatural position, that's a penalty. The fact that the ball would have gone out for a goal kick is irrelevant. If you commit a DOGSO, it doesn't matter if the goal keep had him closed down and 99% would have saved it. From the moment of the foul, time freezes and the future is irrelevant because the play has been corrupted by an illegal act. (Also, if VAR says check it, that means another professional is telling you that you were clearly wrong. Change your mind.)
Agreed. That guy in the VAR booth, who has ref'd in a World Cup, is telling you that you are clearly (and obviously) wrong. Ego ended up making this call in the end.
Your video controllers still need work/practice and frankly teamwork. Why can't the decision maker control the video? It isn't actually that hard. "Backup... one" (Lets it go forward) "Frame" "No" "Backup" "Back" (Never goes that one previous frame ever) Still asking for the actual contact/"play" point, and again... - "One... frame" "Full frame... There" (but not actually there) Gives up , "ok"
The PK not awarded to Sounders for the pulling of the jersey against Ruidiaz is BLATANT match fixing by the MLS. Is pulling on the jersey a foul? Yes! Did this happen in the 18-yard box? YES! Then it MUST be a PK. There is no judgement on whether Ruidiaz can get to the ball. This is not like an "uncatchable" ball in the NFL offsetting a pass interference call. Pulling on the jersey is a foul. PERIOD! This is the last straw with MLS and crooked games. I am not watching another MLS match. I will definitely not pay to watch matches on Apple+! MLS has gone the way of NBA and NFL. Money controls the outcomes of matches, not the players.
Although I agree this was a previous obvious foul, I don't think it amounts to match fixing. I think it's more about ego and incompetence of the head official. He made a bad call and didn't want to admit it so he's rationalizing it after the fact. If it were match fixing, I don't think you would have had VAR even recommend a review. Also, Seattle ultimately ended up winning the series. So, I don't think MLS wanted them out. But, we can definitely agree that this was an awful call. I can understand a ref missing this call live if he was looking at the other side where most of the action was taking place. But, to not make the call after reviewing the video shows this guy isn't ready for this moment. Perhaps he never will be.
@@lukeharper8926 If this were the only case of "ego and incompetence" by the head official, I might believe you. MLS and PRO fixing matches is not new. It has gotten worse over time. Video Review was supposed to get rid of all of these bad calls. It has not. Look at the first years Atlanta was in the league. Look at all of the BS penalties called in their favor. If there was a stiff breeze, their forwards would fall over and the result would be a PK. The worst case was against Kendall Waston in Vancouver. It was early in the game. Waston was called for a foul and given a red card/PK. Look at when Toronto FC was headed to MLS Cup. I think it was 2017. Altidore put two hands in the chest of the defender and launched him several feet and onto his backside. Altidore then received a pass and scored a game winning goal. It was a clear and obvious foul. (I think this was pre-video review.) MLS is a crooked league. I have stopped following it. It is sad, because I have been a Sounders fan since the 1970s.
Why are you asking if the keeper touches the ball? The correct question is "Did he commit a foul?" Yes he did. He could have touched/kicked the ball and still committed a foul. So it's a useless question here. (I understand about "attempting playing the ball" for intent purposes, card/no card. etc yes, but that's not what was being "thought" through) But you basically never ask if they touched the ball concerning a foul. That's why it isn't in the Laws. Possibly for discerning who has positioning first or something? Or it proves that they were in fact "within playing distance" because they actually played it? But if the goalie had touched the ball you make it seem like you would have allowed a very clear take out. [Careless, reckless, tackle or challenge, impedes, you name it on this one] Oh, but if he touched the ball...???? What am I missing?
Hmm. No review on the questionable call of Matt Miazga entering the referees locker room. Video must not exist for you to review so it must have been fabricated by your officials.
On the Dallas/Seattle shirt pull, "never going to get there" is IRRELEVANT unless the referee knows the result of that play will be a successful GK catch 100% of the time - and I don't believe that referee is Doctor Strange. The defenders/keeper could misplay, they could crash into each other, or miss - if Ruidiaz had not been impeded, they might have been more likely to misplay the ball due to his pressure. The funny thing is the VAR (Kevin Stott, one of the most experienced officials) HEARD the CR make that statement and STILL recommended he reconsider.
10:43 By the characterization of the incident as a “holding foul” then a PK should have been awarded, correct? If there is something in the Laws to justify the CR opinion on “the ball is never going to get there” I would like to see it. I suppose in games he officiates then no fouls are to be called when holding players well off the ball. Probably explains why the VAR earned his FIFA badge and CR has not.
yea, sounds like they didn’t want to say that a serious error had happened (esp in a playoff game) so they said it was ‘subjective’ so not certainly an incorrect decision
This ref just justified a tripping take down in the same scenario. (I've literally seen a two hand shove in the back, in the box no less, and it was let go because it was off the play. The player was sprawled face-first into the grass. No VAR check, nothin) Or other fouls. With this ref in charge you can deck a player off the ball whenever you want. Just dumb logic. Where does he come up with this? I often say "if it's not a big deal to the play, why did the defender need to do it?" Not that it actually is used to determine a foul but still. If they are dumb enough to foul off the ball they can get the dumb call against them. This ref needs to unlearn/relearn some things. That's just crazy talk, not the laws and bad for the game.
And agreed about labeling it ‘subjective’ 😂😂 but did admit the possibility to pressure was taken away.
@9:50 I think the referee would do better to stick to the laws of the game rather than making up a standard where clear fouls are ignored when, in his opinion, the player is "never going to get there." And PRO should be more clear whether or not their referees should abide by the laws of the game or use their own subjective standards to make game-changing calls.
10:43 Is it your opinion that a penalty should have been awarded given what is said here?
12:46 Is it normal for PRO assistant referees to indicate when goalkeeper offenses occur during a penalty shoot-out?
very normal, that is the specified JOB of the AR on the goal line during kicks - ref watches the kicker, AR watches the keeper.
@@bemusedalligator I can see that's what is stated in The Laws of the Game. But I thought different instruction was being passed down to referees in this (my) region to allow the referee to take that decision during a shoot-out, since he/she would not be worried about encroachment by other players.
As a referee myself it is honestly quite laughable that another referee would think a clear holding offence is not a foul simply because the player is not going to make it to the ball. You won't find that anywhere in the laws of the game.
Agreed. The refs are suppose to review the foul itself....not what could or couldn't happen.
Absolutely awful call
So on the last call in the Dallas game- basically it sounds like a foul can made as long as the player is deemed to not have a chance to be directly involved in a play. Hmmmmmmm. Come on PRO… that is a joke.
What bothers me about the shirt tug is that, at the moment of the foul, the ball is still in the air... how things occur after a foul does not negate the foul in any other circumstance.
If you launch a shot way off-target and it hits someone's hand in an unnatural position, that's a penalty. The fact that the ball would have gone out for a goal kick is irrelevant. If you commit a DOGSO, it doesn't matter if the goal keep had him closed down and 99% would have saved it.
From the moment of the foul, time freezes and the future is irrelevant because the play has been corrupted by an illegal act.
(Also, if VAR says check it, that means another professional is telling you that you were clearly wrong. Change your mind.)
Agreed. That guy in the VAR booth, who has ref'd in a World Cup, is telling you that you are clearly (and obviously) wrong. Ego ended up making this call in the end.
Some subtitles of who is talking would be helpful.
Your video controllers still need work/practice and frankly teamwork. Why can't the decision maker control the video?
It isn't actually that hard.
"Backup... one" (Lets it go forward) "Frame" "No" "Backup" "Back" (Never goes that one previous frame ever)
Still asking for the actual contact/"play" point, and again... - "One... frame" "Full frame... There" (but not actually there)
Gives up , "ok"
The PK not awarded to Sounders for the pulling of the jersey against Ruidiaz is BLATANT match fixing by the MLS.
Is pulling on the jersey a foul? Yes!
Did this happen in the 18-yard box? YES!
Then it MUST be a PK. There is no judgement on whether Ruidiaz can get to the ball. This is not like an "uncatchable" ball in the NFL offsetting a pass interference call. Pulling on the jersey is a foul. PERIOD!
This is the last straw with MLS and crooked games. I am not watching another MLS match. I will definitely not pay to watch matches on Apple+!
MLS has gone the way of NBA and NFL. Money controls the outcomes of matches, not the players.
Although I agree this was a previous obvious foul, I don't think it amounts to match fixing. I think it's more about ego and incompetence of the head official. He made a bad call and didn't want to admit it so he's rationalizing it after the fact. If it were match fixing, I don't think you would have had VAR even recommend a review. Also, Seattle ultimately ended up winning the series. So, I don't think MLS wanted them out. But, we can definitely agree that this was an awful call. I can understand a ref missing this call live if he was looking at the other side where most of the action was taking place. But, to not make the call after reviewing the video shows this guy isn't ready for this moment. Perhaps he never will be.
@@lukeharper8926 If this were the only case of "ego and incompetence" by the head official, I might believe you.
MLS and PRO fixing matches is not new. It has gotten worse over time. Video Review was supposed to get rid of all of these bad calls. It has not.
Look at the first years Atlanta was in the league. Look at all of the BS penalties called in their favor. If there was a stiff breeze, their forwards would fall over and the result would be a PK. The worst case was against Kendall Waston in Vancouver. It was early in the game. Waston was called for a foul and given a red card/PK.
Look at when Toronto FC was headed to MLS Cup. I think it was 2017. Altidore put two hands in the chest of the defender and launched him several feet and onto his backside. Altidore then received a pass and scored a game winning goal. It was a clear and obvious foul. (I think this was pre-video review.)
MLS is a crooked league. I have stopped following it. It is sad, because I have been a Sounders fan since the 1970s.
Why are you asking if the keeper touches the ball?
The correct question is "Did he commit a foul?" Yes he did. He could have touched/kicked the ball and still committed a foul.
So it's a useless question here. (I understand about "attempting playing the ball" for intent purposes, card/no card. etc yes, but that's not what was being "thought" through) But you basically never ask if they touched the ball concerning a foul. That's why it isn't in the Laws. Possibly for discerning who has positioning first or something? Or it proves that they were in fact "within playing distance" because they actually played it? But if the goalie had touched the ball you make it seem like you would have allowed a very clear take out. [Careless, reckless, tackle or challenge, impedes, you name it on this one] Oh, but if he touched the ball...???? What am I missing?
Hmm. No review on the questionable call of Matt Miazga entering the referees locker room. Video must not exist for you to review so it must have been fabricated by your officials.
Not within the scope of VAR.