Leagues Cup - July 28 - Querétaro (Home - YS)

[mgarbowski]

I watched the first half, went to bed, got up watched some highlights and the shootout.

Talles looked good, but a lot of his long passes misfired. A lot of it was the failure of anyone to run into the open space where he sent the ball, which I guess is a function of him not getting playing time so nobody expects it, but OTOH just run into open space anyway. Also, as the half went on more of his passes were just intercepted by Queretaro players who seemed to learn faster than Magno's teammates did.

Did Ilenic get hurt from a ball hitting him in the hip?

Jovan watched Escamilla hit the crossbar and was just "well I guess I better shoot it 3 inches lower then." I also liked his bicycle attempt on a corner.

Very happy that Barazza got his moment. A shame he didn't stop the other shot he got both hands on. But really, almost every shootout attempt by both teams was absolutely slammed. Even Maxi. Maybe he got a bionic hip.

ETA: Does anyone remember way back in the early internet some guy built a website that was just ads with no content and he sold it all for I think $1 million, sometimes pixel-by-pixel? Something reminded me of that last night.

Also, was the announcer correct that a keeper needs only one foot on the line to be in a legal position?

 

[Shwafta]

Also, was the announcer correct that a keeper needs only one foot on the line to be in a legal position?

Yep. Idk where to source it but I know it to be true.

The FA (England) has it written and I believe it's just an extension of the actual fifa rule:

Law 14 - The Penalty Kick

IFAB Laws of the Game

www.thefa.com

 

[Shwafta]

It was a Costa Rican refereeing crew. They let a lot on fouls uncalled and let them just play. But it was a weird flow to the game at times.

They left a lot of fouls uncalled, but we're very inconsistent on both side with what they let go and what not. Like on one side someone gets tapped and he said get up, and then five seconds later the same exact tap happens on the other side and he stopped play.

It was hard to figure out what exactly his methodology was other than the standard concacaf "if there isn't a shotgun involved it ain't a yellow"

 

[mgarbowski]

It was hard to figure out what exactly his methodology was other than the standard concacaf "if there isn't a shotgun involved it ain't a yellow"

In the first half at least I thought he was a bit extra responsive to "ooh I got hit in the face" gestures, both real and faked.

 

[Shwafta]

In the first half at least I thought he was a bit extra responsive to "ooh I got hit in the face" gestures, both real and faked.

There was a play, i think it was in the first half, where it looked like one of their players bear-hugged ours and he didn't call it? Was a bit hard to see from our angle (105). Not long after one of their players went down and got a foul. But then again the ref was also constantly giving us perfect-range free-kick chances from fouls that I wouldn't have called a foul at all.

 

[moogoo]

ETA: Does anyone remember way back in the early internet some guy built a website that was just ads with no content and he sold it all for I think $1 million, sometimes pixel-by-pixel? Something reminded me of that last night.

ha. i remember this. these days, i think it's just called google search.

Yep. Idk where to source it but I know it to be true.

The FA (England) has it written and I believe it's just an extension of the actual fifa rule:

Law 14 - The Penalty Kick

IFAB Laws of the Game

www.thefa.com

IFAB:

Penalty kick | IFAB

Penalty kick

www.footballrules.com

 

[SoupInNYC]

Ok, I have a question about VAR and not sure if anyone here will have a good answer or not, but it's something that came to my mind last night when they were reviewing the potential handball penalty and ultimately determined Bakrar was offsides so it was moot.

It wasn't clear to me that Bakrar was clearly offsides, but I was also just kind of watching on my phone at that point, so didn't really have the best vantage. I also want to be clear that I don't feel like NYCFC were screwed in that decision at all, but it did lead to this thought experiment inside my head.

First, let's assume for argument's sake, that there was clearly and obviously a hand ball in the box that wasn't initially called AND let's assume that Bakrar was not clearly and obviously offsides and he was not called offsides live.

How is "clear and obvious" applied? Is it to the whole play in total? Or to each individual "call" as part of a play?

What I mean by this is:

• In this scenario, is a penalty kick correctly not given because it isn't clear and obvious that the play was deserving of it?
  • ie, clearly a handball in the box, but they can't clearly determine that Bakrar was onsides, so they can't award it
• OR, would a penalty kick be deserved to be given because "Clear and obvious" applies to each individual instance?
  • There was clearly and obviously a handball in the box and so that would naturally result in a PK
  • Then they go back to the offsides which was not given and they can't determine that Bakrar was clearly and obviously offsides and because of that, they can't make that decision and thus the resulting handball brings on the PK

Does this thought process make sense? I seriously don't know how this is supposed to be applied.

 

[ZYanksRule]

Ok, I have a question about VAR and not sure if anyone here will have a good answer or not, but it's something that came to my mind last night when they were reviewing the potential handball penalty and ultimately determined Bakrar was offsides so it was moot.

It wasn't clear to me that Bakrar was clearly offsides, but I was also just kind of watching on my phone at that point, so didn't really have the best vantage. I also want to be clear that I don't feel like NYCFC were screwed in that decision at all, but it did lead to this thought experiment inside my head.

First, let's assume for argument's sake, that there was clearly and obviously a hand ball in the box that wasn't initially called AND let's assume that Bakrar was not clearly and obviously offsides and he was not called offsides live.

How is "clear and obvious" applied? Is it to the whole play in total? Or to each individual "call" as part of a play?

What I mean by this is:

• In this scenario, is a penalty kick correctly not given because it isn't clear and obvious that the play was deserving of it?
  • ie, clearly a handball in the box, but they can't clearly determine that Bakrar was onsides, so they can't award it
• OR, would a penalty kick be deserved to be given because "Clear and obvious" applies to each individual instance?
  • There was clearly and obviously a handball in the box and so that would naturally result in a PK
  • Then they go back to the offsides which was not given and they can't determine that Bakrar was clearly and obviously offsides and because of that, they can't make that decision and thus the resulting handball brings on the PK

Does this thought process make sense? I seriously don't know how this is supposed to be applied.

I think the clear and obvious standard doesn't apply to offside calls. Either you're on or you're off.

 

[Shwafta]

Ok, I have a question about VAR and not sure if anyone here will have a good answer or not, but it's something that came to my mind last night when they were reviewing the potential handball penalty and ultimately determined Bakrar was offsides so it was moot.

It wasn't clear to me that Bakrar was clearly offsides, but I was also just kind of watching on my phone at that point, so didn't really have the best vantage. I also want to be clear that I don't feel like NYCFC were screwed in that decision at all, but it did lead to this thought experiment inside my head.

First, let's assume for argument's sake, that there was clearly and obviously a hand ball in the box that wasn't initially called AND let's assume that Bakrar was not clearly and obviously offsides and he was not called offsides live.

How is "clear and obvious" applied? Is it to the whole play in total? Or to each individual "call" as part of a play?

What I mean by this is:

• In this scenario, is a penalty kick correctly not given because it isn't clear and obvious that the play was deserving of it?
  • ie, clearly a handball in the box, but they can't clearly determine that Bakrar was onsides, so they can't award it
• OR, would a penalty kick be deserved to be given because "Clear and obvious" applies to each individual instance?
  • There was clearly and obviously a handball in the box and so that would naturally result in a PK
  • Then they go back to the offsides which was not given and they can't determine that Bakrar was clearly and obviously offsides and because of that, they can't make that decision and thus the resulting handball brings on the PK

Does this thought process make sense? I seriously don't know how this is supposed to be applied.

I believe the way VAR is implemented is the second of hwat you said - once something is under review they are able to check everything in that sequence - that's why we've also seen VAR checks for one thing that somehow end up with yellow cards being given out or a penalty on one side being overturned to become a penalty on the other side bc of a prior infraction.

In this case, since the offside was part of that sequence, it's okay for review in general

 

[moogoo]

Ok, I have a question about VAR and not sure if anyone here will have a good answer or not, but it's something that came to my mind last night when they were reviewing the potential handball penalty and ultimately determined Bakrar was offsides so it was moot.

It wasn't clear to me that Bakrar was clearly offsides, but I was also just kind of watching on my phone at that point, so didn't really have the best vantage. I also want to be clear that I don't feel like NYCFC were screwed in that decision at all, but it did lead to this thought experiment inside my head.

First, let's assume for argument's sake, that there was clearly and obviously a hand ball in the box that wasn't initially called AND let's assume that Bakrar was not clearly and obviously offsides and he was not called offsides live.

How is "clear and obvious" applied? Is it to the whole play in total? Or to each individual "call" as part of a play?

What I mean by this is:

• In this scenario, is a penalty kick correctly not given because it isn't clear and obvious that the play was deserving of it?
  • ie, clearly a handball in the box, but they can't clearly determine that Bakrar was onsides, so they can't award it
• OR, would a penalty kick be deserved to be given because "Clear and obvious" applies to each individual instance?
  • There was clearly and obviously a handball in the box and so that would naturally result in a PK
  • Then they go back to the offsides which was not given and they can't determine that Bakrar was clearly and obviously offsides and because of that, they can't make that decision and thus the resulting handball brings on the PK

Does this thought process make sense? I seriously don't know how this is supposed to be applied.

for potential penalties and goals, VAR will review the entire phase of attack. VAR has to determine there was no clear and obvious error by the ref leading up to the incident. Here, the incident is the potential penalty and the decision found to be a "clear and obvious error" was the offsides call. There doesn't seem to be a limit to how many decisions can be reviewed for "clear and obvious error" when reviewing an attacking phase. I think the only controversy in these cases is how far back an attacking phase goes from the time of the goal or potential PK.

I think the clear and obvious standard doesn't apply to offside calls. Either you're on or you're off.

clear and obvious error is always applied. offsides is considered a factual call instead of subjective. In these cases, it is not required for the ref to go to the monitor. For subjective calls, the ref is recommended to go to the monitor, but is not absolutely required to.

 

[BC19]

Haak has really come along as a ball wining defensive midfielder. Though not surprised we struggled to generate much offensively with Sands and Haak as the midfield pivot. Just not a facet of either of their games.

 

[mgarbowski]

for potential penalties and goals, VAR will review the entire phase of attack. VAR has to determine there was no clear and obvious error by the ref leading up to the incident. Here, the incident is the potential penalty and the decision found to be a "clear and obvious error" was the offsides call. There doesn't seem to be a limit to how many decisions can be reviewed for "clear and obvious error" when reviewing an attacking phase. I think the only controversy in these cases is how far back an attacking phase goes from the time of the goal or potential PK.

View attachment 13457



clear and obvious error is always applied. offsides is considered a factual call instead of subjective. In these cases, it is not required for the ref to go to the monitor. For subjective calls, the ref is recommended to go to the monitor, but is not absolutely required to.

I think this is all correct. Just want to add it would be absurd to weaken the standard for the second element on compound reviews , especially when they cut opposite ways with the potential overturns favoring different teams. Not that sports and other ventures are immune from absurd rules at times.
Also FWIW I thought Bakrar was offside live and while I was disappointed he could not score I momentarily faced the dread he would score and have it called back. I think he's had more goals called back for offside this year than actual scores.

 

[Gotham Gator]

If it is clear and obvious that there was a handball that wasn't called, then it needs to be clear and obvious that there was an offsides call that was missed too. If you overturn the refs, it needs to be clear and obvious on each and every instance - even when there is more than one on the same play.

I thought the ref last night was poor and was getting rather upset about it. I think we knew all we needed to know when Talles Magno took a forearm to the face when dribbling toward the opponent's box. The ref called the foul but didn't think either the forearm to the face or the breaking up of a promising attack warranted a yellow. Meanwhile, he cards us at least twice for hands to the face that weren't nearly as bad.

And that was after he had already kept his card in his pocket very early in the game when Magno was held from behind while dribbling toward the box.

 

[moogoo]

If it is clear and obvious that there was a handball that wasn't called, then it needs to be clear and obvious that there was an offsides call that was missed too. If you overturn the refs, it needs to be clear and obvious on each and every instance - even when there is more than one on the same play.

I thought the ref last night was poor and was getting rather upset about it. I think we knew all we needed to know when Talles Magno took a forearm to the face when dribbling toward the opponent's box. The ref called the foul but didn't think either the forearm to the face or the breaking up of a promising attack warranted a yellow. Meanwhile, he cards us at least twice for hands to the face that weren't nearly as bad.

And that was after he had already kept his card in his pocket very early in the game when Magno was held from behind while dribbling toward the box.

i seemed to think he had made up his mind that our players were faking/diving, so anything that wasn't an obvious foul was waved off as going down too easy. magno especially, seemed to have things waved off a lot.

that being said, i would like to see our young guys play with more strength and not just fall over looking for a foul. if you get tripped up/kicked.. okay, go down. if you're just being physically bodied up, play stronger. building a reputation as a flopper doesn't help anybody.

 

[SoupInNYC]

I think the clear and obvious standard doesn't apply to offside calls. Either you're on or you're off.

But that standard has to apply in MLS when the technology doesn't exist to be able to say it definitively.

Because of the odd angles, it isn't always going to be clear and obvious or "black or white" regarding an offsides call.

 

[SoupInNYC]

I believe the way VAR is implemented is the second of hwat you said - once something is under review they are able to check everything in that sequence - that's why we've also seen VAR checks for one thing that somehow end up with yellow cards being given out or a penalty on one side being overturned to become a penalty on the other side bc of a prior infraction.

In this case, since the offside was part of that sequence, it's okay for review in general

I understand that and agree with reviewing the offsides as part of this review.

My question moreso had to deal with how "clear and obvious" is applied to within the review that involves multiple aspects.

 

[LionNYC]

I'm not sure if "clear and obvious" is applicable for Leagues Cup like it is in MLS.

For example, the clock stopped at 45' and 90', unlike it does now for the MLS regular season.

Leagues Cup is probably a mix of rules from MLS and Liga MX, so who knows.

 

[ZYanksRule]

I'm not sure if "clear and obvious" is applicable for Leagues Cup like it is in MLS.

For example, the clock stopped at 45' and 90', unlike it does now for the MLS regular season.

Leagues Cup is probably a mix of rules from MLS and Liga MX, so who knows.

Clear and obvious is a worldwide standard for VAR, though.

 

[moogoo]

I understand that and agree with reviewing the offsides as part of this review.

My question moreso had to deal with how "clear and obvious" is applied to within the review that involves multiple aspects.

what i found interesting was the VAR for leagues cup was able to draw lines for the offsides call decision, but i've never seen them draw for MLS VAR. not sure why?

I understand that drawing the lines by the ref is also a bit subjective, but i thought it at least gave a visual indicator of what the ref is basing the decision on instead of everyone just wondering and arguing that the ref is wrong.

i really like the semi-automated offsides being used in europe and i really hope MLS can get there sooner rather than later.

 

[mgarbowski]

i seemed to think he had made up his mind that our players were faking/diving, so anything that wasn't an obvious foul was waved off as going down too easy. magno especially, seemed to have things waved off a lot.

that being said, i would like to see our young guys play with more strength and not just fall over looking for a foul. if you get tripped up/kicked.. okay, go down. if you're just being physically bodied up, play stronger. building a reputation as a flopper doesn't help anybody.

McFarlane was knocked down early just to the left of the box and drew the free kick; then he spent too much time looking for calls the next few times he was bodied.