He seemed pretty inconsistent as to what constituted a foul. Mostly he let pretty harsh contact go, with Ertz's uncalled crash into Bixby as Exhibit A, but other times he would call pretty minor contact. You could see players on both teams were frustrated.
Until VAR makes a bold call one of these days, "looking at it" isn't much. We all know that different head refs give VAR referees different instructions, some tell them to put the bar for obvious error in the stratosphere, others are willing to be wrong and look at plays again. While you knew the ref was looking at goals (the kickoff was held after all 6 goals (even the PK), anywhere between 30 an 90 seconds for the check, but the VAR didn't feel it necessary to tell the CR maybe he should look at Ertz clattering into and pulling Bixby down. That just isn't good refereeing when there is a pretty obvious foul on a goal scoring play.
It may make some CRs less likely to blow the whistle in real time, assuming if they really mess it up, they will get bailed out.
Any VAR call is essentially saying to the CR that "I think you blew it". We have seen many examples of that being absolutely true but the CR's pride is so strong and they are so convinced they made the correct call in real time that they are unwilling to be open minded (we have seen obvious hand balls in the box blocking a shot on goal where the CR still insists not a hand ball - mostly because he should be embarrassed he missed it in real time. The flip side is that MOST plays that are sent from VAR to the CR are overturned because the CR knows another referee thinks they missed something --- which then puts a very high bar in the VAR's mind.
There is no clear rule on how much contact constitutes a foul (mostly it is did you gain an advantage from more than just incidental contact that wasn't legal - shoulder to shoulder). But there is no league in the world where you are allowed to back into a keeper going to the ball, put your arm over hers to hold it down then run into her knocking her over ... in the goal box and it not be a foul. That was just silly because both the CR and VAR were essentially saying there was no contact or it was completely incidental / minimal. I do get it that a CR might have missed the full extent of the arm block and running into the keeper in real time, but VAR should have at least told him to take a look.
The things VAR have overturned this year have mostly been bizarre (The Endo goal for ACFC the first weekend) but this is generally how VAR is. They'll call the marginal stuff that no one wants because they can say it's clear and obvious (Leon's handball last week, offside) but most stuff they'll let go because it's subjective.
I reserved judgement until I got home from the stadium and could look at a replay on the highlights. No question that was a very obvious foul on Bixby by Ertz. That goal should have been overturned. If VAR can't get such a "clear and obvious" thing right, what use is it?
Yeah, here's some shots of Ertz bulldozing Bixby. She can't even get her hands up because Ertz's arms and body are above hers....she doesn't even come anywhere near playing the ball.
VAR looked at it, as they look at all goals. They just didn't see enough to overturn the on-field decision, or even to call the Ref over for a look. Baffling.
You can watch the VAR process for the Weaver 2nd goal against Louisville being overturned. It starts 4:22 to the end of the video.
It probably won't help explain the 2nd ACFC goal. It will probably help you understand the process. By the point they have the Center Ref is told look at the video they have already decided there is something wrong. It isn't the CR seeing it again it is the VAR saying look at the right hand. Would be interesting to hear what the booth said about this game.
I haven't looked at any of the other inside the video reviews but #4 only covered calls overturned by VARz both handballs. I figured as none of the Thorns calls were overturned they wouldn't be selected for the week 5 video. I hope it will be.
Any thoughts on the head ref? It sure appeared to me that Bixby got knocked down by Ertz on the 2nd LA goal.
Oddly officiated game. Very inconsistent and not good enough, especially in key moments.
He seemed pretty inconsistent as to what constituted a foul. Mostly he let pretty harsh contact go, with Ertz's uncalled crash into Bixby as Exhibit A, but other times he would call pretty minor contact. You could see players on both teams were frustrated.
Until VAR makes a bold call one of these days, "looking at it" isn't much. We all know that different head refs give VAR referees different instructions, some tell them to put the bar for obvious error in the stratosphere, others are willing to be wrong and look at plays again. While you knew the ref was looking at goals (the kickoff was held after all 6 goals (even the PK), anywhere between 30 an 90 seconds for the check, but the VAR didn't feel it necessary to tell the CR maybe he should look at Ertz clattering into and pulling Bixby down. That just isn't good refereeing when there is a pretty obvious foul on a goal scoring play.
I thought VAR would help way more, but it seems to be more of a hinderance. Really unfortunate.
The psychology of VAR is always interesting.
It may make some CRs less likely to blow the whistle in real time, assuming if they really mess it up, they will get bailed out.
Any VAR call is essentially saying to the CR that "I think you blew it". We have seen many examples of that being absolutely true but the CR's pride is so strong and they are so convinced they made the correct call in real time that they are unwilling to be open minded (we have seen obvious hand balls in the box blocking a shot on goal where the CR still insists not a hand ball - mostly because he should be embarrassed he missed it in real time. The flip side is that MOST plays that are sent from VAR to the CR are overturned because the CR knows another referee thinks they missed something --- which then puts a very high bar in the VAR's mind.
There is no clear rule on how much contact constitutes a foul (mostly it is did you gain an advantage from more than just incidental contact that wasn't legal - shoulder to shoulder). But there is no league in the world where you are allowed to back into a keeper going to the ball, put your arm over hers to hold it down then run into her knocking her over ... in the goal box and it not be a foul. That was just silly because both the CR and VAR were essentially saying there was no contact or it was completely incidental / minimal. I do get it that a CR might have missed the full extent of the arm block and running into the keeper in real time, but VAR should have at least told him to take a look.
The things VAR have overturned this year have mostly been bizarre (The Endo goal for ACFC the first weekend) but this is generally how VAR is. They'll call the marginal stuff that no one wants because they can say it's clear and obvious (Leon's handball last week, offside) but most stuff they'll let go because it's subjective.
Sure looked that way. We will in the Riveters nine rows behind goal. NWSL refs appear afraid of using VAR.
I reserved judgement until I got home from the stadium and could look at a replay on the highlights. No question that was a very obvious foul on Bixby by Ertz. That goal should have been overturned. If VAR can't get such a "clear and obvious" thing right, what use is it?
Who could have ever predicted the NWSL's VAR refs would be just as incompetent as their on-field refs? Oh wait, everybody!
As the league grows and the fan base with it, lousy reffing continues to tarnish its image.
Yeah, here's some shots of Ertz bulldozing Bixby. She can't even get her hands up because Ertz's arms and body are above hers....she doesn't even come anywhere near playing the ball.
https://twitter.com/tayvincent6/status/1652528167834513409
VAR looked at it, as they look at all goals. They just didn't see enough to overturn the on-field decision, or even to call the Ref over for a look. Baffling.
https://youtu.be/yvt5TMyG3j4
You can watch the VAR process for the Weaver 2nd goal against Louisville being overturned. It starts 4:22 to the end of the video.
It probably won't help explain the 2nd ACFC goal. It will probably help you understand the process. By the point they have the Center Ref is told look at the video they have already decided there is something wrong. It isn't the CR seeing it again it is the VAR saying look at the right hand. Would be interesting to hear what the booth said about this game.
It should be covered in PRO's Inside Video Review NWSL #5, probably next weekend on YouTube.
I haven't looked at any of the other inside the video reviews but #4 only covered calls overturned by VARz both handballs. I figured as none of the Thorns calls were overturned they wouldn't be selected for the week 5 video. I hope it will be.