Phil Neville was furious after a PK no-call. Wait until he sees the data. | OneFootball

The Portland Timbers were left settling for a 1-1 draw against the visiting LA Galaxy on Sunday after referee Lukasz Szpala declined to award a penalty kick for what appeared to be an obvious foul by Galaxy center back Emiro Garces in second-half stoppage time.

Afterward, Timbers manager Phil Neville was absolutely fuming at what he believed was the worst decision he's seen during his time managing across what is portions of five seasons in Major League Soccer with Portland and previously Miami.

And what makes his anger particularly intriguing is that it may not be Szpala's judgement, but rather his interpretation of the advantage clause in the laws of the game that is in question.

"The referee told our captain it was a penalty, but because Ari Lassiter had the shot, he played the play on," Neville said. "I have nothing to say. I don’t want to get in trouble. I have a lot of respect for the referees, but he told our captain it was a penalty. And that’s probably why we were really emotional, we were really angry. Because this is not good enough on any level.

"I think today just tops off one of the worst decisions I’ve ever seen in the MLS, that I’ve been involved in. So maybe we don't invest in VAR and give that money to charity."

Here's the sequence below:

The guidance from IFAB on a referee playing the advantage clearly states that an official should do so only when there is a clear benefit to the non-offending team. And if Neville's account of the incident's aftermath is accurate, then Szpala's decision to invoke the advantage clause is pretty concerning.

The data from Opta bears this out pretty plainly.

While it's true that Lassiter did register a shot in the immediate aftermath of the potential foul, it's also pretty clear that permitting the shot was not adventageous.

The expected goals (xG) value of Lassiter's attempt was only 6% -- i.e. a shot from Lassiter's position would be expected to result in a goal about 6% of the time. By contrast, the current standard xG value of a penalty kick is about 79%, meaning they are converted roughly four out of five times.

Unfortuately this wasn't the only VAR-relasted penalty controversy on the weekend. The Philadelphia Union felt aggrieved when referee Pierre-Luc Lauzier declined to award a penalty for Daniel Lovitz's sliding challenge on Quinn Sullivan midway through the second half, despite being called to the video monitor, then awarded a penalty to Nashville following a review of Jakob Glesnes' aerial challenge with Hany Mukhtar several minutes later.

But Lauzier's decisions were at least about judgment -- i.e. whether a foul occurred or not -- rather than the interpretation of how to apply the law following what was judged to be a foul.

In Major League Baseball, managers used to be allowed to play games under protest when they believed an umpire had erred in interpretation (but not jugment). That ability has since been rescinded. But it highlights how much more concerning an incorrect interpretation of the law should be. Incorrect judgement calls are inevitable as a fact of human existence. Incorrect interpretation is a failing of education.