Bouanga makes contact with Nealis clear sd day and VAR is literally telling the ref and showing it clearly on the angles. There is no reason the penalty should have been awarded short of the refs on ego getting in the way. It was a tough call to see during the run of play, but clear as day on VAR.
Amazing that this ref ego stuff also always keeps happening with Bouanga. The ref lecturing VAR saying he sees a "sweep" of the defenders leg is crazy. There is no sweep. The defender is just taking a normal stride through
Thats insane that LAFC gets the penalty there. Yes, Bouanga is doing nothing wrong, but so is Nealis. Nealis is just running and Bouanga turns to chase the ball and sticks his legs between Nealis. I hope all the strikers in the league start sticking their legs between defenders running, because that's what you deserve for calling that a foul I also dont appreciate the ref's attitude towards the VAR. "I'm gonna tell you something right now" just utterly disrespectful and unwilling to listen to reason. Shameful
@ArgonWolf1 You are misreading what you think is an "attitude". Having known Guido since he was a 20 year old grade 8 referee and working youth, amateur, and college games with him, he is as humble, kind, and friendly a guy as you will ever meet. His primary focus is ensuring the entire crew does the best they can individually and collectively. He had a completely different angle of the play than all of the replays, and his angle was the best to have seen which player moved into the space of the other player. He saw that the defender was the one moving into the space of the attacker, while the attacker was trying to turn back to go to the ball he had just played the other way. The attacker did not "put his leg in between the legs of the defender"; his leg was swept out from underneath him by the defender reaching out for the ball late and missing it, tripping the attacker instead.
@@bhamsoxfan72 It's amazing to me that we can all be watching the same video and see things so differently. The first contact I see is Bouanga kicking the back of Nealis' right leg. Then Nealis' left leg kicks Bouanga second. But you somehow see it the opposite way. The one consistency is that the refs always see it in favor of Bouanga.
@@lukeharper8926 Get a room full of disinterested referees, a roomful of disinterested coaches, a roomful of disinterested players, and a roomful of disinterested fans, and each room will be split just the same. And I guarantee you referees do not favor players. One of my good friends I played with on an amateur team liked when I refereed his high school games, but he told me he felt our relationship influenced my decisions in his games - he felt that more of my 50\50 decisions went to his opponents, and that it was a subconscious effort on my part to appear that I was not biased toward his team by being a little more strict on his players. I have met enough of those guys to know they are no different.
@@lukeharper8926 Put a bunch of referees in a room, and they'll be split. Put a bunch of coaches in a room, and they'll be split as well. Put a bunch of players in a room, and they'll have the same split. Put a bunch of fans that have nothing to do with either team in a room, and you'll find the same split. No two people have the same background, experiences, thought processes, understanding of the laws, understanding of tactics, and everything else that goes into foul recognition and selection. So it's pretty easy to understand why there's no unanimity over situations like this. But I can guarantee you that referees don't favor players - they have no reason to. It may be your perception that they do (maybe he plays on the team that is the biggest rival of your favorite team), and your perception is reality to you, but an individual's reality is subjective, and may differ from objective reality. I have a friend I played with on an amateur team. He coaches high school soccer. He likes me to referee because he likes my balance of allowing physical play and safety of the players. But he doesn't like that, since we are friends, more 50\50 calls go to his opponents because I subconsciously make those decisions so I don't appear to be favoring his team - or that's his perception and his reality. The objective reality is that I have asked several colleagues to monitor my performance in his games, and they have all said both teams get about the same number of 50\50 decisions. And I'm just one person. For all of the referees that do this players games to favor him, you're claiming that they have all conspired together to make decisions that favor him - that they have all met together and agreed to do it together, or secretly emailed each other and hatched a plot to do this. That's utterly ludicrous and absurd. The objective reality is a combination of factors - he's good enough to put himself in situations where he is going to get fouled, his opponents make bad decisions, he's in the middle of a string of decisions that go his way (like flipping a coin, it's possible and likely to see strings of different lengths of heads results and about the same number of strings of similar lengths of tails results), and it's possible you have a bias against him that clouds your judgement so that you see him getting 50\50 decisions when they're actually 52\48 or 53\47b decisions.
Don't drop the announcement, ADD TO THE ANNOUNCEMENT. "Serious foul play, studs to the calf by Seattle [Ragen's number] on Vancouver [Gauld's number]. Decision is red card." The announcements would be great if they actually clarified what the decision was or what changed.
I'm assuming you're referring to the Seattle Red. It's fair to criticize how long the review took, but do you disagree that Ragen did in fact commit a foul, and that that foul endangered the safety of his opponent?
@@michaeldunn1754 I disagree that it was a red card, and if it took the ref 5 minutes to review an upgrade from a yellow to red, then it wasn't obvious to them.
@@parkercaldwell2631If the time it took is your objection, then the Seattle players need to BACK THE FUCK OFF AND LET HIM DO HIS JOB. The only Sounder who should have been near him is Frei, the captain. And that goes for every team. If you have something that needs to be addressed with the ref, tell your captain and let him communicate it.
Minor League Soccer. Somehow the PRO refs are worse than the scabs. The VAR refs continue to want to be the stars of the match, hence why they will waste 5 minutes looking for reasons to ruin games with questionable red cards. What happened to "CLEAR AND OBVIOUS"?
Even if it is a general statement at the end, it would be good to say, “There were no incidents that PRO determined should have been reviewed which were not.”
I mean, it's only in the actual VAR rules that the VAR officials watch all plays and only intervene when they believe one of the four reviewable instances was a clear and obvious error, so not sure what else people want. (I partly blame TV commentators who erroneously state that if a play isn't sent back to the field for CR review that it wasn't reviewed by the VAR officials.)
@@TheMichaelCox I understand. My comment was based on comments that VAR should have sent incidents for on field review that were not. This video doesn’t address if that was the case or not.
@@foley256 He does clearly say there were three reviews in this round of play. The videos show that the first two changed the call on the field, the last one did not change the CR's decision. If the VAR official sends it down to the CR he can't just say no, he has to go look. He can keep his decision after looking, but refusing to look isn't an option. People have a lot of weird ideas about how VAR is supposed to work, but it's pretty clearly spelled out.
@@TheMichaelCox I’m not disagreeing with anything you’re saying but that is not my point. I’m saying PRO should clarify if the VAR SHOULD have sent any incidents for review that they didn’t send down.
Nice job not even mentioning anything from the sporting KC game. We KNOW you sent the second goal to review, so I’m really curious what the reasoning the VARs had for not giving a foul on Klaus. Pretty curious you guys don’t let us know what those discussions were. PRO is an absolute joke they should have never let these clowns come back
You're confused. This series is only for patting themselves on the back, and maybe acknowledging that one call was obviously wrong if enough people cause a fuss. But they only do those once in a blue moon to seem more objective
I would love for them to give the reasoning as well as the decision live. for instance with the handball decision "Blue 30 whilst defending the wall, moved his elbow into the path of the ball. This moved his arm into an unnatural position. The result will be a penalty kick." "Green 25 whilst making a challenge mistimes his tackle and lands on the Achilles of blue (idk number). He contacts with studs above the ankle with both speed and force. This constitutes serious foul play. The result will be a red card to Green 25 and a direct free kick"
No wonder there are so many red cards and penalty kicks in MLS. They pre-determine it feels like a red or penalty and talk themselves into very harsh decisions. They obsess over the unfortunate step on the achilles while ignoring the fact the Vancouver player steps right in front and blocks the defender as the ball rolls past. The Sounders player is trying to get to the ball and the Vancouver player is shielding the defender from the ball. There is no deliberate stomping motion, just normal movement. The Vancouver player puts himself in danger. His legs are way behind him and the ball is several feet in front. The last play is an insane penalty decision. Both players overrun the ball and their feet get tangled. That should be a nothing to see here move along. The LACF player actually trips the Red Bulls player because his feet are between the defenders feet while the defender is in mid-stride. Calling the action a controlled cut back from the forward is laughable. He barely brushes the ball and overruns the ball. The VAR in MLS consistently looks at the point of contact in slow motion so many times they forget to look at context or mitigating factors. So, most of the time they miss the forest for the trees and do not circle back to discussing previous assumptions when a new angle or speed is presented. They jump to assigning total blame on one player when sometimes in sports people fall or step or land certain ways when competing. It is does not necessarily have to be a foul or dive whenever two people fall down.
Regan's challenge is never a red. Even more so that it took 5mins to review which means it obviously wasnt clear and obvious. Joke of a decision. The temp refs were better
@@michaeldunn1754 It's a red once every 20-30 times it happens (it happens multiple times in every game at every level). Usually refs keep the red in their pocket unless it's a pretty apparent stomping motion - i.e. excessive force and not just a guy running normally and accidentally stepping on the other guy
@@lukeharper8926same. Seattle fan, I was at the game and boo-d my vocal cords out, and I’m 100% in agreement with you now. This is a red card, even without malice or intent.
Why did you edit the Seattle Vancouver VAR review for time? It took 5 minutes after he got to the screen, not 2 including the runup. "Clear and obvious"
It took 4 mins 50 seconds from when Touchan stopped the game until he announced the foul. Time at the monitor was 1 min 50 sec. I’m a Seattle fan, but I don’t know where this “5 mins at the monitor” thing is coming from.
@@AndersMcA I believe your time is correct...but still we need some sort of time limit for something that is supposed to be "Clear and Obvious" error. 5 minutes total (4 minutes since the player actually got up and off the field) is pretty ridiculous. There should have been comment that they took way too long to make their decision. The decision is fine if that's their take but why sooooo long if it's a "Clear and Obvious" error?
@@chrismitchell2059 if you watch from the time he gets to the monitor (3:14) to the time he first says "Okay, I'm gonna go red card to 25" (3:51), that's a pretty dang short time. 35sec to change it from yellow to red. Any time he spends after that was him confirming his own decision from the different angle. He felt it was clear & obvious enough to call it within 35sec of seeing a replay.
Bouanga makes contact with Nealis clear sd day and VAR is literally telling the ref and showing it clearly on the angles. There is no reason the penalty should have been awarded short of the refs on ego getting in the way. It was a tough call to see during the run of play, but clear as day on VAR.
Amazing that this ref ego stuff also always keeps happening with Bouanga. The ref lecturing VAR saying he sees a "sweep" of the defenders leg is crazy. There is no sweep. The defender is just taking a normal stride through
They should start every game with Bouanga being awarded a penalty for no reason. It would at least save time.
Either that or a caution for simulation
Thats insane that LAFC gets the penalty there. Yes, Bouanga is doing nothing wrong, but so is Nealis. Nealis is just running and Bouanga turns to chase the ball and sticks his legs between Nealis. I hope all the strikers in the league start sticking their legs between defenders running, because that's what you deserve for calling that a foul
I also dont appreciate the ref's attitude towards the VAR. "I'm gonna tell you something right now" just utterly disrespectful and unwilling to listen to reason. Shameful
it was the right call, nealis trip him as he was turning back
@ArgonWolf1
You are misreading what you think is an "attitude". Having known Guido since he was a 20 year old grade 8 referee and working youth, amateur, and college games with him, he is as humble, kind, and friendly a guy as you will ever meet. His primary focus is ensuring the entire crew does the best they can individually and collectively.
He had a completely different angle of the play than all of the replays, and his angle was the best to have seen which player moved into the space of the other player. He saw that the defender was the one moving into the space of the attacker, while the attacker was trying to turn back to go to the ball he had just played the other way. The attacker did not "put his leg in between the legs of the defender"; his leg was swept out from underneath him by the defender reaching out for the ball late and missing it, tripping the attacker instead.
@@bhamsoxfan72 It's amazing to me that we can all be watching the same video and see things so differently. The first contact I see is Bouanga kicking the back of Nealis' right leg. Then Nealis' left leg kicks Bouanga second. But you somehow see it the opposite way.
The one consistency is that the refs always see it in favor of Bouanga.
@@lukeharper8926
Get a room full of disinterested referees, a roomful of disinterested coaches, a roomful of disinterested players, and a roomful of disinterested fans, and each room will be split just the same.
And I guarantee you referees do not favor players. One of my good friends I played with on an amateur team liked when I refereed his high school games, but he told me he felt our relationship influenced my decisions in his games - he felt that more of my 50\50 decisions went to his opponents, and that it was a subconscious effort on my part to appear that I was not biased toward his team by being a little more strict on his players. I have met enough of those guys to know they are no different.
@@lukeharper8926
Put a bunch of referees in a room, and they'll be split. Put a bunch of coaches in a room, and they'll be split as well. Put a bunch of players in a room, and they'll have the same split. Put a bunch of fans that have nothing to do with either team in a room, and you'll find the same split. No two people have the same background, experiences, thought processes, understanding of the laws, understanding of tactics, and everything else that goes into foul recognition and selection. So it's pretty easy to understand why there's no unanimity over situations like this.
But I can guarantee you that referees don't favor players - they have no reason to. It may be your perception that they do (maybe he plays on the team that is the biggest rival of your favorite team), and your perception is reality to you, but an individual's reality is subjective, and may differ from objective reality.
I have a friend I played with on an amateur team. He coaches high school soccer. He likes me to referee because he likes my balance of allowing physical play and safety of the players. But he doesn't like that, since we are friends, more 50\50 calls go to his opponents because I subconsciously make those decisions so I don't appear to be favoring his team - or that's his perception and his reality. The objective reality is that I have asked several colleagues to monitor my performance in his games, and they have all said both teams get about the same number of 50\50 decisions.
And I'm just one person. For all of the referees that do this players games to favor him, you're claiming that they have all conspired together to make decisions that favor him - that they have all met together and agreed to do it together, or secretly emailed each other and hatched a plot to do this. That's utterly ludicrous and absurd.
The objective reality is a combination of factors - he's good enough to put himself in situations where he is going to get fouled, his opponents make bad decisions, he's in the middle of a string of decisions that go his way (like flipping a coin, it's possible and likely to see strings of different lengths of heads results and about the same number of strings of similar lengths of tails results), and it's possible you have a bias against him that clouds your judgement so that you see him getting 50\50 decisions when they're actually 52\48 or 53\47b decisions.
Can we drop the NFL style announcement that tells the crowd nothing and just show this on the screen or something
Don't drop the announcement, ADD TO THE ANNOUNCEMENT. "Serious foul play, studs to the calf by Seattle [Ragen's number] on Vancouver [Gauld's number]. Decision is red card." The announcements would be great if they actually clarified what the decision was or what changed.
@@dangerdanadv1445 Even that would be better, I agree. I just feel like the ref doesnt want to deal with talking to the crowd nor should he have to
@@Zachhhx the crowd, both on TV and in the stadium, are what gets him paid. Fans absolutely to know what the call is.
VAR should never use the phrase , "Clear and obvious." Clear and obvious does not take more than 10 seconds.
Ramy Touchan is a disgrace. He is incompetent and incapable of serving as an MLS referee
The Bouanga bias is an absolute joke
Agree. Seems like ever week he gets a pk call. He is good at causing himself to get calls. But he’s the one initiating contact
you guys are a joke, taking 5 minutes to VAR is not clear and obvious.
Absolute joke. “We have audited ourselves and found we’ve done nothing wrong”
But they cleverly edited the review to make it look way faster than it was.
I'm assuming you're referring to the Seattle Red. It's fair to criticize how long the review took, but do you disagree that Ragen did in fact commit a foul, and that that foul endangered the safety of his opponent?
@@michaeldunn1754 I disagree that it was a red card, and if it took the ref 5 minutes to review an upgrade from a yellow to red, then it wasn't obvious to them.
@@parkercaldwell2631If the time it took is your objection, then the Seattle players need to BACK THE FUCK OFF AND LET HIM DO HIS JOB. The only Sounder who should have been near him is Frei, the captain. And that goes for every team. If you have something that needs to be addressed with the ref, tell your captain and let him communicate it.
Minor League Soccer. Somehow the PRO refs are worse than the scabs. The VAR refs continue to want to be the stars of the match, hence why they will waste 5 minutes looking for reasons to ruin games with questionable red cards. What happened to "CLEAR AND OBVIOUS"?
Even if it is a general statement at the end, it would be good to say, “There were no incidents that PRO determined should have been reviewed which were not.”
"The call on the field stands."
I mean, it's only in the actual VAR rules that the VAR officials watch all plays and only intervene when they believe one of the four reviewable instances was a clear and obvious error, so not sure what else people want. (I partly blame TV commentators who erroneously state that if a play isn't sent back to the field for CR review that it wasn't reviewed by the VAR officials.)
@@TheMichaelCox I understand. My comment was based on comments that VAR should have sent incidents for on field review that were not. This video doesn’t address if that was the case or not.
@@foley256 He does clearly say there were three reviews in this round of play. The videos show that the first two changed the call on the field, the last one did not change the CR's decision.
If the VAR official sends it down to the CR he can't just say no, he has to go look. He can keep his decision after looking, but refusing to look isn't an option. People have a lot of weird ideas about how VAR is supposed to work, but it's pretty clearly spelled out.
@@TheMichaelCox I’m not disagreeing with anything you’re saying but that is not my point. I’m saying PRO should clarify if the VAR SHOULD have sent any incidents for review that they didn’t send down.
Nice job not even mentioning anything from the sporting KC game. We KNOW you sent the second goal to review, so I’m really curious what the reasoning the VARs had for not giving a foul on Klaus. Pretty curious you guys don’t let us know what those discussions were. PRO is an absolute joke they should have never let these clowns come back
You're confused. This series is only for patting themselves on the back, and maybe acknowledging that one call was obviously wrong if enough people cause a fuss. But they only do those once in a blue moon to seem more objective
the keeper is wild at the start why is he complaining, the the fouls showed this week i agree
I would love for them to give the reasoning as well as the decision live. for instance with the handball decision "Blue 30 whilst defending the wall, moved his elbow into the path of the ball. This moved his arm into an unnatural position. The result will be a penalty kick."
"Green 25 whilst making a challenge mistimes his tackle and lands on the Achilles of blue (idk number). He contacts with studs above the ankle with both speed and force. This constitutes serious foul play. The result will be a red card to Green 25 and a direct free kick"
No wonder there are so many red cards and penalty kicks in MLS. They pre-determine it feels like a red or penalty and talk themselves into very harsh decisions. They obsess over the unfortunate step on the achilles while ignoring the fact the Vancouver player steps right in front and blocks the defender as the ball rolls past. The Sounders player is trying to get to the ball and the Vancouver player is shielding the defender from the ball. There is no deliberate stomping motion, just normal movement. The Vancouver player puts himself in danger. His legs are way behind him and the ball is several feet in front.
The last play is an insane penalty decision. Both players overrun the ball and their feet get tangled. That should be a nothing to see here move along. The LACF player actually trips the Red Bulls player because his feet are between the defenders feet while the defender is in mid-stride. Calling the action a controlled cut back from the forward is laughable. He barely brushes the ball and overruns the ball.
The VAR in MLS consistently looks at the point of contact in slow motion so many times they forget to look at context or mitigating factors. So, most of the time they miss the forest for the trees and do not circle back to discussing previous assumptions when a new angle or speed is presented. They jump to assigning total blame on one player when sometimes in sports people fall or step or land certain ways when competing. It is does not necessarily have to be a foul or dive whenever two people fall down.
Regan's challenge is never a red. Even more so that it took 5mins to review which means it obviously wasnt clear and obvious.
Joke of a decision. The temp refs were better
Lol, what? Do you disagree that his challenge was studs to calf/achilles? That's a red every day in every league.
@@michaeldunn1754 if that was a red, then Brian White should have been sent off later for studs to Frei's arm after he stepped on him.
@@michaeldunn1754 It's a red once every 20-30 times it happens (it happens multiple times in every game at every level). Usually refs keep the red in their pocket unless it's a pretty apparent stomping motion - i.e. excessive force and not just a guy running normally and accidentally stepping on the other guy
I'm a Sounders fan... but I think this is a red. I don't think it's intentional. I don't think it's malicious. But that doesn't mean it's not a red.
@@lukeharper8926same. Seattle fan, I was at the game and boo-d my vocal cords out, and I’m 100% in agreement with you now. This is a red card, even without malice or intent.
Why did you edit the Seattle Vancouver VAR review for time? It took 5 minutes after he got to the screen, not 2 including the runup. "Clear and obvious"
It took 4 mins 50 seconds from when Touchan stopped the game until he announced the foul. Time at the monitor was 1 min 50 sec.
I’m a Seattle fan, but I don’t know where this “5 mins at the monitor” thing is coming from.
@@AndersMcA I believe your time is correct...but still we need some sort of time limit for something that is supposed to be "Clear and Obvious" error. 5 minutes total (4 minutes since the player actually got up and off the field) is pretty ridiculous. There should have been comment that they took way too long to make their decision. The decision is fine if that's their take but why sooooo long if it's a "Clear and Obvious" error?
@@chrismitchell2059 if you watch from the time he gets to the monitor (3:14) to the time he first says "Okay, I'm gonna go red card to 25" (3:51), that's a pretty dang short time. 35sec to change it from yellow to red. Any time he spends after that was him confirming his own decision from the different angle. He felt it was clear & obvious enough to call it within 35sec of seeing a replay.
Dear Pro, you are a complete joke!
Here I thought red was reserved for actually serious misconduct. Did the ref forget that yellows exist?