MLS - May 31 - Cincinnati (Home)
- Thread starter LionNYC
- Start date
Nick Cushing pointed out in the press conference that Keaton Parks decides to head the ball because there's a Cincinnati player in front of him, who is clearly offside. Cincinnati player doesn't make play on the ball, because he's offside, but still Keaton Parks has to head the ball because the AR2 didn't raise the flag. Then the PK foul occurs.
My argument against the PK is that you can't call it in a vacuum. You already gave one 50/50 call against us (the disallowed goal), you can't give another one against us, too. That's taking the game away from a team. If you're going to have marginal calls made, they shouldn't all go against the same team. That's game management, and this referee did not manage the game at all.
My other argument against the PK is that it's incredibly soft, and in a 2-1 game you shouldn't decide the game on such a marginal call. Again, game management which Villarreal had none of on Wednesday.
Once it gets reviewed the ref can't do that. Which goes back to my "why VAR is bad actually" hobbyhorse. When Villlareal gets his performance reviewed, he can justify this VAR call. Not giving the PK (putting aside the offside issue) is hard to justify because Mosquera got ball and then Alfaro kicked him. Villareal can't write "I didn't want to give this PK because I took away a goal earlier on a close call" and the people who grade refs can't put that in a report either.
We don't know if Villareal didn't give the PK initially because of game management or because he didn't see the contact. But under the VAR microscope he's not allowed to play game management.
The bigger question is why VAR was not even consulted on the foul called on the disallowed goal. That is what VAR is supposed to be used for - If Armandito saw a foul where there isn’t one, that is a clear an obvious error.
This is an incredible inconsistency as on offside calls the instruction is to let it go and then will be able to review while it is onside or not vs an incredibly subjective call such as a foul - whistled very quickly, that then essentially kills the play.
This is an incredible inconsistency as on offside calls the instruction is to let it go and then will be able to review while it is onside or not vs an incredibly subjective call such as a foul - whistled very quickly, that then essentially kills the play.
From what I gather, Armando blew the whistle before the ball went into the net. So VAR can't review it. Double fucked.
VAR is also just another ref. all anyone wants is consistency. the on field ref has to make split second decisions based on what he can see. i can understand villareal calling a push with mosquera selling it, but i think VAR should have stepped in here. Of course, the "clear and obvious" standard isn't very clear nor obvious and it gets applied in varying degrees, which is what drives everyone bonkers. I believe the vast majority of neutrals watching that play would not have said that was a push. IMO, that's clear and obvious it was the wrong call. But in this case, the ref saw contact, no matter how slight, and deemed it was NOT clear and obviously wrong by villareal to call the foul. this is unfortunately the problem and there is no easy way to really fix it.
oh? i don't remember and didn' twatch the replay. if this is the case then yea... VAR has hands tied.
Exactly. Having judged Segal to have fouled the defender in the first half, then on VAR the consistent call would have been to judge Mosqueria fouled Alfaro before the contact when Mosqueria went over his back and clearly impacted what Alfaro did next. The Mosqueria contact was much heavier and more impactful. Having all the borderline calls go in our favor is too much to ask. Calling a consistent game is not too much to ask.
You can hear the whistle blow on the broadcast -- it comes after the ball is in the net.
That's the other thing - shouldn't watching the VAR show that Alfaro was fouled before he got fouled? Alfaro was the one who got kicked first.
I think VAR may have been consulted. The ref does initially tell the keeper to wait on restarting play, and does put his hand to his ear as if the VAR official is talking to him about it.
Then later, right before the restart, Gabby has a big reaction towards the ref as if reacting to the official signaling to restart play following consulting the VAR official. It's not clear because the camera is on Gabby and not the ref.
Then later, right before the restart, Gabby has a big reaction towards the ref as if reacting to the official signaling to restart play following consulting the VAR official. It's not clear because the camera is on Gabby and not the ref.
I interpreted the same way. I think the VAR reviewed, saw there was a push, however slight, and determined that severity of the push can't meet the clear and obvious standard. Which is a fair, except clear and obvious is not consistent.
Was just watching the MLS highlight show on Apple TV. Mosquera got the slightest shove and threw himself to ground dramatically. Both pundits said it was embarrassing and he should have been carded for a flop. I guess the fine didn’t teach him much of a lesson…
