Andrew Wiebe breaks down the biggest and most controversial calls from around MLS in this week’s episode of Instant Replay.
source
Andrew Wiebe breaks down the biggest and most controversial calls from around MLS in this week’s episode of Instant Replay.
source
개잡리그 수준 참 아프리카하고 사우디 저질 축구 하고 썩어놓은 리그 이기고 있으면 공격 안 하고 끝날때 까지 공만 처 돌리고 유럽 3부리그 수준
Toronto FC was robbed. Such a dumb call. He was offside and moving back into an offside position and the Charlotte player ran into his back. Refs in MLS are so finicky and inconsistent. Soccer is already low scoring enough
red bulls goal was offside, but somehow when nycfc gets wronged this series never bats an eye
Are we not gonna show the no pen Im the revs game
Where's the review of Ruvalcaba's goal against NYCFC? Julian Hall clearly in an offside position forces Martins to make a defensive play on the ball that deflects off the goal post and bounces to the feet of Ruvalcaba. In my opinion, even though Hall doesn't touch the ball, his presence gains an advantage for his team that leads directly to a goal. I think VAR missed this one.
Oso “hold.” Both players with outstretched arms doesn’t tell us much but look at their feet. Oso’s feet are not digging in as though he is preventing forward movement (holding). They are behind him and shuffling like he is getting pulled on top to draw foul. Fooled ref, fooled host. And last week host didn’t even mention review Etienne foul in the box? Didn’t realize this show was to justify bias.
that first call is the lamest thing i’ve ever seen.
Oso pick. Host mentions “is he doing x?” “Is he doing y?” If you have to question intention it is not clear and obvious. Host justification is Oso “looks” at another player before the ball is kicked…that’s his job. Unless you can read minds you are GUESSING which is not CLEAR AND OBVIOUS.
Takaoka’s reaction did him in. He pulls back his hands like “nothing to see here” then sits up and pauses as if he’s thinking, “uh oh, here comes the red card.” Referee is way behind the play but sees the reaction and thinks, “yeah, must be red”
How could you call foul on that Minnesota pen?! The attacker clearly initiated the contact and flopped to the ground…
Since when is an empty goal a factor in DOGSO? If that was the case any foul committed by a goalkeeper in a 1 on 1 situation is immediately a red card DOGSO because guess what – the keeper is no longer in the goal.
Since when is blocking a defender a foul?
I understand running into them intentionally and knocking them over, but if attempting to hinder a players path to the ball with your body is a foul, then im going to stop watching the MLS.
Either this needs to be called CONSISTENTLY, or not at all. Especially not as a clear and obvious error to pull back a goal.
You want to see a foul in the box? Look later at what the ref should have called on the field when the Charlotte defender went with a full arms extended shove to the back on the TFC striker, no call and no VAR on the play.
Both get called or none get called.
Consistency within a match at the very least. Human error is understandable, but this isn’t well beyond human error.
This guy is wrong 99% of the time
Houston vs Vancouver, the ref bought the Houston player's overacting, yellow card at most. MLS players chronically exaggerate knowing the refs will buy it 99% of the time. Gives soccer a black eye.
Clearly not dogso
I'm a Charlotte FC STM…Toronto's overturned goal made absolutely no sense to me live – nor once I got home and watched the highlights…so thank you for that explanation…I feel much better about the W now…
San Jose PK, he grabbed his face because the other defender's hand caught him there. Not major, but it wasn't grabbing the face as a result of contact on the foot as Andrew makes it sound.
never in a million years is that DOGSO lmao no wonder MLS refs are a laughing stock
#4 on Charlotte pushed Oso 2-handed.
Want about the non-DOGSO call on Binyamin in the FCD vs. SJ game?
Thanks on that pick. Took me many re-plays to see that.
As an RSL fan that is bitter about the missed red card at the season opener against the Vancouver whitecaps, that was not a red card. It doesn’t meet any of the criteria for DOGSO or serious about play. Touch is not in the general direction of the goal anymore (more toward the corner than the goal), by the time he gets to it, he’s going to be maybe 10 feet outside of the penalty box, nearly in the corner, you have two recovering defenders that would have been in place by the time he tried that shot. The angle alone is brutal, especially if he tries to hit it at that Pace. That is the definition of a promising attack. Stupid challenge either way, but clear and obvious error to me.
I think if you try and play possum and you still got fouled it should be a yellow card bc techinally by the letter of the law it's a dive, ya he got fouled on the leg but he dived and grabbed his head
2nd goal he pushes the ball way out of the goal scoring opportunitie
You said the first guy got pushed so he was getting back on side? HE DIDN'T GET PUSHED LOL ! 100% a pic
My favorite thing about Instant Replay is no longer the video itself, but the wonderful interpretability of physics by many commenters – especially "clear" directions and positions that to a normal human eye are not so clear.
Looked more like a red card for serious foul play rather than dogso. Clearly touching the ball away from the net with 2 defenders tracking back. The foul itself is definitely ignoring the safety of the player and can be considered serious if the ref thinks its with force. You can even see the referee waiving the trainer onto the field after the play.
Some people in the comments are mentioning the touch away from goal. Some are mentioning the number of defenders. I think the combination of both makes it a yellow. I don’t think a rational player is likely to shoot, but cross the ball. So, I agree with those saying yellow!
Weibe, for #1 don’t use the term “intent”. You never know what a players “intention” is and it has no bearing on the call. All you judge is what happened.
It may sound pedantic but making calls thinking you know what a players “intention” was will get you in a lot of trouble. There are players who “intend” to not trip someone but do it anyway, so should they not be penalized?
This show is becoming a joke if your only 5 min and dont even show a player loosing a tooth with a no call. We shouldn't have to tell you about calls. You should have each team submitted game times not us. Make this a real change to the league no just a show
Everyone: in DOGSO, remove the fouling defender. Freeze the video at 3:04 when the GK fouls. Attacker is barely outside the box, almost at top of box. Defenders are in no position to defend a possible shot. Clear red card, especially when you factor in its an OPEN goal
Not DOGSO and should've been a yellow. This is coming from a Houston Dynamo fan.
As a ref, I wouldn't have given Red for Dogso with the 2 recovering defenders. I think it's one of those situations where half of the refs in the room say red, and the other half say yellow for stopping a promising attack! It can be annoying, but that's soccer!
Direction is perhaps the stronger consideration. In this case he was clearly moving away from goal. No way this can be a DOGSO situation.
Dogso is crazy…
When evaluating DOGSO, is there different guidance when the foul is committed by the GK (potentially leaving an attacker 1 v 1 with a field player) vs a foul committed by a field player (leaving 1 v 1 with GK)?
This being the former, I would think that the other criteria can be evaluated a little looser as any shot would come against a player that cannot use their hands, but I don't know for sure if there is guidance to that effect.
Sorry Andrew lad, it's just never a red for me. As you mentioned, Bogusz' touch take him away from goal, therefore it wouldn't be DOGSO for me.