Nice piece. I couldn't agree with you more on the stutter step PK (jorginho is the worst and gets praised for being a great PK taker when he does that hop crap). If you can't score a PK without it then you don't deserve the goal.
Can I ask something that I struggle with?
What is the purpose of PRO commenting at all (on any decision). They have a vested interest in aligning with their referees. Even in cases if an egregious error was identified, what would the outcome be, they aren't going to take away or add points and change the result.
I guess you can argue transparency as well as reinforcing confidence in the referee community and the astute fan will see that. The casual fan will retain the belief they were cheated and simply say PRO are just covering their ass. Coaches like arena will say they are cheated either way
I am of the opinion they should just review these and use them for internal evaluation of the suitability of individuals to referee at the highest level but do that behind closed doors. Let their actions do the talking
I think PRO only needs to comment on plays that result in extreme confusion/wierd or calls that affect goal related decisions. The extra VAR review a few weeks ago to correctly catch an error made on an offside call in MTL-PHI was a good example (wide camera angle found a player on the endline IIRC). The other specific issue here is that Bruce spilled the beans...and whether he should have done that or not, I think at that point just for clarity there should be a statement.
But overall you aren't wrong, PRO goes through a lot of these every week and it's impossible to comment on all of them. Sticking to the VAR segment is a really good baseline because that technology is new and evolving, but at the same time more transparency and understanding is never a bad thing. For me, it's not about correcting a result or the standings, but about learning the intricacies of the game because everyone sees the game differently and understanding someone else's thought process and decision making helps me learn.
I wonder if PRO felt compelled to speak up since Bruce cited them directly in his comments later in the week.
As for the var check on the Montréal handball, I thought it might be because they wanted to make sure the ball didn’t come off the defender’s knee before contacting his hand. In the stadium, watching the replay repeatedly on the big screens, that seemed to be the only reason for running it back so many times. (Also, it was refreshing actually getting to see a controversial replay played in stadium. I’m used to us all being left in the dark)
The ball off the knee would have been a good check, but it seemed pretty clear on the first few broadcast angles that it was off the hand for sure and it was a good call. I don't know if the replays at Gillette are in-house or actual broadcast angles but yes, getting to see the replays in stadium is very helpful until we start getting Ed Hochuli/Wes McCauley explanations on the field.
Jake,
Nice piece. I couldn't agree with you more on the stutter step PK (jorginho is the worst and gets praised for being a great PK taker when he does that hop crap). If you can't score a PK without it then you don't deserve the goal.
Can I ask something that I struggle with?
What is the purpose of PRO commenting at all (on any decision). They have a vested interest in aligning with their referees. Even in cases if an egregious error was identified, what would the outcome be, they aren't going to take away or add points and change the result.
I guess you can argue transparency as well as reinforcing confidence in the referee community and the astute fan will see that. The casual fan will retain the belief they were cheated and simply say PRO are just covering their ass. Coaches like arena will say they are cheated either way
I am of the opinion they should just review these and use them for internal evaluation of the suitability of individuals to referee at the highest level but do that behind closed doors. Let their actions do the talking
What do you think?
I think PRO only needs to comment on plays that result in extreme confusion/wierd or calls that affect goal related decisions. The extra VAR review a few weeks ago to correctly catch an error made on an offside call in MTL-PHI was a good example (wide camera angle found a player on the endline IIRC). The other specific issue here is that Bruce spilled the beans...and whether he should have done that or not, I think at that point just for clarity there should be a statement.
But overall you aren't wrong, PRO goes through a lot of these every week and it's impossible to comment on all of them. Sticking to the VAR segment is a really good baseline because that technology is new and evolving, but at the same time more transparency and understanding is never a bad thing. For me, it's not about correcting a result or the standings, but about learning the intricacies of the game because everyone sees the game differently and understanding someone else's thought process and decision making helps me learn.
I wonder if PRO felt compelled to speak up since Bruce cited them directly in his comments later in the week.
As for the var check on the Montréal handball, I thought it might be because they wanted to make sure the ball didn’t come off the defender’s knee before contacting his hand. In the stadium, watching the replay repeatedly on the big screens, that seemed to be the only reason for running it back so many times. (Also, it was refreshing actually getting to see a controversial replay played in stadium. I’m used to us all being left in the dark)
The ball off the knee would have been a good check, but it seemed pretty clear on the first few broadcast angles that it was off the hand for sure and it was a good call. I don't know if the replays at Gillette are in-house or actual broadcast angles but yes, getting to see the replays in stadium is very helpful until we start getting Ed Hochuli/Wes McCauley explanations on the field.