IMHO, the game should never be stopped for VAR to recommend a review. Wait until ball is out of play, even if the ball enters either net, then recommend a review.
@MrCho14
5 күн бұрын
Generally I agree with you and generally that is what happens. When it does happen, play needs to be not in an attacking 3rd with no immediate threats. It also is generally for cases where going to the monitor is just a formality because the play is so obvious on video.
@chadgoldstein180
6 күн бұрын
Please include the no review “offside” FCC no goal from the end of the first half in the next episode (even though they didn’t call it into review)… even the commentators said it was pretty “harsh” and possible offside had no impact on the play.
@jackson857
6 күн бұрын
The referee on the red card incident was way too certain of "what he saw" that he refused to believe he could possibly be wrong. There is no way that is a red card. The player that dived to the ground got him hook, line and sinker.
@MrCho14
5 күн бұрын
He was very confident in what he saw. The lack of evidence to back up what he saw doesn't mean it wasn't true. I understand him sticking to his call given the complete lack of video with any clarity on the play.
@GregoryHanthornJr
7 күн бұрын
The first call was not “clear and obvious” and the VAR again bullied a referee into changing a call when the referee on first review wanted to stick with his original decision. The player’s body was in a natural position for someone jumping in the air and was in close proximity to the attacking player playing the ball into the defender with no time to react (see Law 12).
@stharriman
7 күн бұрын
Have you ever jumped? How is it a natural position to jump where you bring your elbow above head level?
@mcborgors7766
7 күн бұрын
How is that not clear and obvious, it’s in the penalty area my dude
@AndersMcA
7 күн бұрын
It’s natural for the arms to rise somewhat, but a chicken-wing above the head? Nah, that’s unnatural, creates a barrier. Good review, good PK.
@GregoryHanthornJr
7 күн бұрын
@@stharriman he’s coming down from the jump. The momentum is taking his body which has more mass down faster than his extremities. What is frustrating is the referee looked at the replay twice. Said he wanted to stick with his original decision because he felt that the player was in a natural position and it was in close proximity where the player did not have time to react. The VAR continued the review, even after the referee said he was going to stick with his original decision until a reversal was made. That makes it not clear and obvious. If the referee has to have a continued discussion with the VAR and the VAR is having to work to convince the referee then it is not clear and obvious and the review should end and stick with the original decision.
@GregoryHanthornJr
7 күн бұрын
@@AndersMcA also remember close proximity no time to react under law 12. Position is irrelevant as it is a situation of ball to hand, not hand to ball. This is one of the reasons they have continued to clarify year after year, including putting specific language about a player, extending an arm going towards the ground. Regardless of the determination of the slow Mo position, the referee viewed it twice said it was not a penalty and the VAR persisted to continue the review until the referee change their mind. This means it is not clear and obvious because if it was “clear and obvious“ in the first two viewings the referee would have changed their mind. It was only after continuous pressure from the VAR that the decision was changed.
@williamsampson4460
6 күн бұрын
Not a fan of either team in the first video but VAR consistently only looks at one part of a play. They replay the same thing 12 times and fail to see obvious fouls or an action from an attacker that creates contact in an unexpected way in the build up. The VAR is way too driven to hand out penalties and red cards. The San Jose player pushed the other nearby defender in the back. Plus, the ball would have hit the defenders head if his elbow was not there. Saying San Jose was controlling the ball is dubious when there are 3 defenders between the ball and the nearest San Jose attacking player. I do not think the second play is a penalty either. How can someone expect a winger to plant and slide their foot sideways like that after a simple cross. The defender was obviously trying to block the cross with his right foot but the cross was actually kicked towards out of the 18 yard box. I am really not a fan of rewarding mediocre and awkward offense with penalties. I also disagree with the third call because the defender jumps into the attacker with no play on the ball, steps in front to block for no reason, and then he flops on a chicken wing elbow with very little force. I am a Sounders fan but that is an obvious offside. The goalie clearly hesitates and changes his approach to the save because of Morris's kick towards the ball.
@PeterSoeth
7 күн бұрын
The red card for Yapi was BS. No way it rose to a card. The referee is full of himself.
@maason1379
6 күн бұрын
The delay from the minimal contact to the player flopping... Should've been red on the player in white for simulation.
@heidimark
6 күн бұрын
@@maason1379yellow for simulation, but yeah
@heidimark
6 күн бұрын
"I saw the whole thing 100%" - you saw nothing
@DukeTrout
5 күн бұрын
You all have nothing because you have no angle. The ref was looking at it from 90 degrees and saw one player punch another in the back. That’s violent conduct, period.
@tylercarson8718
5 күн бұрын
Ref was so sure telling the players, dismissed the VAR from the beginning of the sequence. Had to stick with his decision as to not embarrass himself for how wrong he was.
Пікірлер: 24