Did the LA Galaxy deserve a late PK in the Cali Clásico?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ค. 2024
- Andrew Wiebe is back and he dissects the most controversial plays from Matchday 22!
For more information on becoming a referee, go to US Youth Soccer’s website: tinyurl.com/33ahek5a
You can also watch every match with MLS Season Pass on Apple TV: apple.co/MLS
Want to see similar content to this? Subscribe to our channel for more: / subscription_c. .
Follow us on:
- TikTok: www.tiktok.com/@mls?lang=en
- Instagram: / mls
- Twitter: / mls
- Like us on Facebook: / mls
For more information about MLS, go to the league's official website: www.MLSsoccer.com
#mls #highlights #mlsseasonpass
00:00 Instant Replay Matchday 22
00:20 VAR overturns Mensah penalty
02:01 Yeuill tackle on Douglas Costa
02:57 Facundo Torres down in the box
03:45 Kei Kamara scored a goal?
04:09 Herbers handball leads to ORL PK
04:30 Guiterrez taken down by Smith
04:39 Crafty play or offside goal?
06:15 Souquet second yellow
06:31 VAR rescinds ATL penalty
07:13 Giorgos Giakoumakis fouled outside the 18
07:51 Walker Zimmerman second yellow card - กีฬา
The fact that penalty was rescinded tor LAG was ridiculous. So full on running into players is acceptable now as long as a deflection or something touches the ball, got it
Yup. Prison-style soccer! 😂
1:24 EXACTLY! He touches the ball, but just look at the way he hits Aguirre. Some BS calls, they don’t want us to have wins. 😑😭
Tough not being the league's darling anymore. Wah wah.
@@fadedtoblack That’s not point I’m trying to make! I can care less about that, I just want more consistent calls. Same thing happened in different matches. 😭
More of the player than more of the ball.
@@TelltaleBytes precisely, but I don’t why they say it’s not a PK. Poor decision…
@@imalexxmusic I don't put this all on the center ref. VAR is telling him it's not a foul. I don't think they had any business sending that for review.
I love these videos. They provide insight on the process of officiating.
The Orlando game was a crazy game ngl
Studs up tackle from behind into the player's calf....in what universe is that not a red?!?!?!
Refs should have to sit through a post-game interview like players and coaches have to, so that they can explain in detail why they made certain calls. The calls against the Galaxy were ridiculous
We do
@@Speed2000 “We do” what?
@CrunchyLeafVillage this is a good point.. there should be an explanation from the refs.. specially on plays that impact a game.
They do sit through post game interviews. I have personally been assessed for a lower league game. All MLS games are watched by an assessor and they have to sit with said assessor after the game and justify all there calls.
@@kcsniper1243 the point is that this is not public.. just like the coaches and players are interviewed, the refs should give their answers too.. at least if they made a game changing decision
The Orlando player went for the ball until the linesman held his flag up. Then when he saw that he stopped going for the ball. That’s 100% offsides. This is coming from someone who hates Chicago Fire.
I wish the phrase "influence the defender" could be eliminated from the lexicon of commentators, as it is nowhere in the Laws of the game and just confuses the issues. It has been pretty clear, from various leagues, that as long as the player does not prevent a defender from getting to the ball, it is not an offside offence. Just changing what a defender might do is not offsides. I might agree that it should be, but that is not how the law is written or enforced.
It is in the laws…
“making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball” Law 11 section 2
Acting like your going to play the ball when in an offside position impacts the ability of the defender to play the ball (I.e. not be in position) this is covered in refereeing courses.
Not surprised that wasn't a red in the Crew game. Considering what Pekmic thought it took to get a yellow (17 fouls by NY, 3 yellows, including the one shown), I don't think NY could get a red card in that game without a knife or gun being involved. I was particularly amused when Yeboah got hacked down mid first half, the 3rd of 4th hard foul in a row. Yeboah jumped up and got in the NY players face. Ref came over, gave yet another "warning" to the NY player, then turned to Yeboah and clearly said "I will take care of things". I was laughing, he hadn't "taken care" of anything so far, just let NY hack players with impunity.
That ref was awful. He also stopped the game for a non head injury when we were attacking on the 18 yard box. It ended up working for us because we scored on the replay. Cucho was dribbling into the box and the ref blew the whistle when he was about to make a pass. He can’t stop play if it’s not a head injury. And like you said, he would not give a yellow to any Energy Drink players. It was like he was pulling for them to win. That elbow was 100% deliberate. Not in a natural position for the motion he took.
I lost my mind when he stopped play. I am almost always on the side of player safety even when I suspect players are faking an injury, but being hit with maybe a medium power shot in the stomach is a pretty weak case.
I was livid it didn't come back as a red. LIVID. It's clear to see Frankie violently elbows him in the neck. That should be a straight red, a fine, and possibly a suspension.
6:37 Giakoumakis does not need actual possession of the ball under the current laws, Law 12 reads "likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball" given that if he is not fouled he will likely gain control of the ball with a one on one opportunity with the keeper DOGSO would apply and the Philadelphia player should have been sent off. No argument about the call being outside the box.
I caught that as well. If possession were required, then defenders could hold the attacker back at midfield on a ball over the top that was clearly going to be won by the attacker for a 1v1. That said, I don't think this was DOGSO. The ball was going to the right of goal. The attacker would have had to control that in the air to have a clear chance at goal before other defenders recovered or the keeper beat him to it. Possible? Sure, I've seen it. Just not that clear cut.
@@MrCho14 let’s break it down by the criteria in the law, point for point:
-Distance between the offence and the goal: he is fouled just outside the penalty area, distance to goal is not an issue
-General direction of the play: The ball is being played down the center line of the field towards goal and the attack is following the same path, so no issue there
-Likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball: see above but to be clear, the keeper is retreating towards goal, no defender in front of the attacker, as for other defenders standby by that is next
-Location and number of defenders: other than the defender committing the foul the next closest defender is > 10 yards from the attacker either to the side or behind with the attack in a full sprint outpacing both.
All 4 criteria have been met as the law is currently written and applied in MLS.
The law is for denying and obvious goal scoring “opportunity” not for denying and obvious goal. Too many folks will say “well the attacker would not have scored even if they had not been fouled so it is not DOGSO” but likelihood of scoring a goal is nowhere in the law and souls not be a factor when considering DOGSO (ie the bounce of the ball, the quality of goal scoring chance, etc…)
It will be interesting to see if PRO avoids this call on inside video review, makes up their own version of the law or admits that the referee and VAR made an error in applying the law.
@@GregoryHanthornJr I understand the criteria, but it's probably good for others that you laid them out. For me the direction and likelihood of gaining possession are in question. The ball is not "played down the center line". It's crossed at an angle away from the attacker. You can see it is 10 yards from the center of the field on it's 2nd bounce. The angle and speed of both the attacker and the ball is far from a clear that he'd gain possession enough to have a good goal scoring opportunity.
That said, if this were called DOGSO on the field, I'd be okay with that as well. I just don't think it's cut and dry enough for VAR to recommend a review. Given the location of the foul was reviewed, DOGSO was looked at by the CR as well (or should have been) and he didn't think he'd made a clear error either.
That's a pen. He takes out the player
5:49 impacting the ability of an opponent to play the ball and impacting and opponent's decision about where to run are different concepts
And anyone in an offsides position still can't affect the play in anyway including what's going on in the mind of the defense
And the guy saw the linesman raise up his flag which means he was obviously offsides then he let his teammate get the ball 😭
The no pen for the Galaxy is a terrible call. That's a horrible challenge and should be a yellow.
6 plays in the Orlando match (Including the Smith pen nobody is complaining about) Dagur Dan giving away a foul and getting a yellow for one of the cleanest tackles you'll see.
It was such a bad call even the commentator called the ref out live.
not gonna talk about how Zimmerman's first card wasn't even a foul???
It sucks... but whether deserved or not... when you are on a yellow, you gotta be smarter.
My 2 cents on the Orlando offsides call, I think if the defender continued with the play the offsides call would have been up held. But since the defender didn’t play to the whistle, and the attacking player ultimately didn’t play the ball, it was a smart play within the grey-ness of the rules.
i agree. not offside violation
Nah! 6:09 is not an offside. The defender gave up and could have chase the attacker but decided not to. Crafty player for sure and great goal!
Because there's 2 players there so he made the better choice for that scenario. If there was 1, he would've chased that 1. The offsides guy did affect his decision
I'm not following. How does the defender deciding not to pursue the play make it not offside?
Angulo sfill beats Pineda in a foot race anyways easily. If anything Ramiro making the run made it better for Chicago.
2:43 left leg of yueill initiates contact with the leg of the attacker and therefore is where the foul takes place. everything after is negligible. (Is what I assume remmy sees)
Yeuill is dirty as the day is long. Blatant red, and it’s not the first time this year.
Every game the LA Galaxy play, it seems like the "Pro" Referees have to screw us on at least one big call without fail. It has gotten to the point that every time we get a PK call, I immediately know that they are going to reverse it.
Man these refs really need to be held accountable.
They are assessed every match and recommended for more training or dropped down to a lower level for the future games. They are held accountable, you're just ignorant about it.
@@dustinedwards7821MLS refs aren’t dropped to a “lower level”. They may just have a worse MLS matchup to referee
@@dustinedwards7821if that were true, the majority of MLS refs wouldn’t be MLS refs anymore
I agree that's a penalty to the LA Galaxy, sometimes referee dictate the game.
Sporting club tuvo buen partido Pulido es el mejor goledor de la MLS ☺😀👍
3:46 My biggest gripe with this one is that its the most obvious example of not having a good camera angle, having one camera on the goal line would make this a clear decision. But why does the MLS not invest in more cameras for VAR. I’m tired of not being able to change calls just because there isn’t a good camera angle.
Under the IFAB VAR Protocol, the VAR can use only the broadcast TV footage (i.e., all of the feeds that the broadcaster implements), so I don't think it's just a matter of MLS investing in more cameras. Contracts specify minimums, the cameras have to be calibrated each game, and it would certainly cost more for relatively little value to the broadcaster. In addition, IIRC some stadiums (e.g., the Rapids') physically lack an appropriate secure location to put cameras on the goal lines. My guess is that there are probably less than a handful of games per season where a goal line camera would be uniquely definitive, so I'm not holding my breath that the owners are going to shell out more money.
@@johnmcgimpsey1825well that’s a stupid ass rule!
The first yellow wasnt a yellow, the ref should never ref again, almost every call he made was 3-5 seconds after the play, players jumping on a back of player standing there and the player standing there getting the foul called. its like he had to think about every call before he made it
Not PK period
Should’ve gone over Houston second yellow
I'm surprised they didn't review the calls in the Revolution match. Gil getting a yellow for getting tackled was the worst call I've seen all year.
How, after all of this "technology" do we NOT have goal line technology nor the "right" angles? Am I the only one who doesn't understand this?!?!
How would having goal line technology increase the return on the owner's investment?
the leg that he came into the tackle w did not touch the ball! that’s a bs call has to be a pen
I kinda agree with the refs on the disallowed penalty. As a good rule of thumb I always agree with any and all calls against LAG
Some particularly bad officiating this week. Refs need to do better
Nothing new
HOT TAKES HOT TAKES HOT TAKES - not the no-pen, which was borderline, but the RBNY take - no matter how much you and proven horrible official Daniel Radford may wish it, the collarbone is not the head, that's why no red there. Never ever, unless the guy actually pulled a knife. Glad I could clear that up, and maybe you can get Christina Unkel back to return us to sanity rather than hot takes.
I clicked this video hoping to have my feelings about the two ref decisions for the galaxy Justified and they were thank you! Such BS.
If you hit the ball before the body is not a foul or a PK. Soccer needs to add hockey rules 😂
The fact that we dont have goal line technology yet is blasphemy. Just like tennis uses to judge if the ball is in or out. All they need is technology in the ball and on the line between post. The technology already exist
In what world would this be a penalty kick? Correct call by ref. A defenders job is to prevent the goal. He clearly made contact on the ball. Had he come from behind and swept the leg after challenge, I would say yes. But no way!
Too many noob refs
I don’t like this guy reviewing the play
4:40 You may want this to be offside, Andrew... but it is not. It's totally okay to want the laws to change, but that does not change how the IFAB laws read right now.
A player is allowed to be in an offside position in soccer, without it being called offside. Gaining an advantage from being in an offside position is what "completes" an offside call. AND the IFAB laws have descriptions and points that determine what is and what is not "gaining an advantage."
In this case, simply running in the direction of a ball after being in an offside position does not fit the IFAB description of gaining an advantage. If a defender started to go after the ball and the offside player impeded the defending players ability to play the ball cleanly (getting into or moving into their way)... THEN offside would be the correct decision. Similarly, when an offside player impedes the vision of the goalkeeper from clearly seeing the ball, that is also offside.
In this case, the "possible" offside player runs in the direction of a ball and then waves his teammate to get it. It's not offside. The IFAB laws are very clear that it is not offside.
Did you hear his explanation? Orlando did gain an advantage. Pineda has position on the man that eventually does get the ball but does not pursue the ball because the offside player continues his run
@@aptanalysisproductions6981 Unfortunately that is not gaining an advantage in the eyes of IFAB. Wiebe and all of MLS can believe it is… but it’s not via the laws of the game. The referee crew 100% got it correct in the end.
@@aptanalysisproductions6981
I don't see how that play could be interpreted as offside by the letter of the law. I don't really like that it's not, but that doesn't change the law.
IF the attacker had physically prevented the defender from playing the ball this would have been offside, but he didn't
"A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:
- interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or
- interfering with an opponent by:
-- preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
-- challenging an opponent for the ball or
-- clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
-- making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball"
@@MrCho14 you could argue "interfering with an opponent by -- clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent" was violated. In fact, as a ref, that's exactly what I'd do when calling this offside. By running after the ball for a prolonged period he is attempting to play it, close is a vague term that for me in this situation is met, and the action impacts an opponent because the opponent positions himself differently due to the offside player running after the ball.
@@MoviesUnderTheSurface I figured that would be the one someone called out. I don't believe that this situation is how the law is said to be interpreted. The defender made zero attempt to go for the ball. The ball also wasn't 'close'.
Many phrases in the book can be interpreted (sometimes stretched) to fit one's desire. That doesn't mean that is the correct interpretation.
The ref belongs on OBT.
Not a pen
I don't understand why, in this day and age, MLS has yet to implement goal line technology. There have been so many instances where goals have been chopped off for "not having a clear and obvious angle."
GLT is pretty expensive. The IFAB authorized Hawkeye system costs multi-hundreds of thousands of dollars per stadium to install (not sure if it even can be installed in multi-use stadiums with goals that are removed and replaced every week). The system has to be calibrated before every game. IIRC, EPL teams were paying $50K each per season just for operating costs. I suspect the owners won't find that expense justifiable for the handful of decisions per season that can't be resolved by VAR.
@@johnmcgimpsey1825 The owners of these teams are billionaires lmfao. Please don't give the excuse that these systems cost too much.
@@717bulldog Explanation doesn't constitute an excuse. Billionaires don't ask me how to spend their money. In my experience, though, as a group they don't tend to spend significant sums on things with a marginal ROI unless they think it will enhance their prestige. I don't see GLT falling into that category.
@@717bulldog Business people have money for a reason. They look at the cost benefit of spending money. So one or two shots may or may not have been goals or not goals a year. Until/unless that happens in a game which costs a team money (championship), then why should they spend it. These owners are there for a return on their investment. How much money is it costing any one owner NOT having GLT?
These new offside rules are ruining the game. Therefore so much grey area
About the change of the IFAB trials go well in Europe
Shouldn’t this just be called Wiebe’s favorite team fouls?
hi
I was at the Orlando game and I could tell from the stands that Torres got hacked down and that should have been a penalty. How could the ref who is looking right at it miss it? How could the VAR official not send that for review? It didn't matter in the end, but that was the worst missed call I have seen in a long time. You could argue that Torres was looking for the penalty, but he still got hacked down ... and Chicago got a penalty later when their player was clearly looking for the penalty too. It is hard to stomach MLS referees some times after watching a season of EPL.
Most likely because the Orlando player started to fall before contact was made.
@@heidimarkstill can't just swipe someone's legs out and it's possible he lowered himself to try avoid the oncoming player, someone of Torres' technical ability to weave in and out will do that.
The quality of MLS football keeps going down. Too much playing the man and not the ball.
The tackle on Douglas costa is definitely not a red card. Just a typical professional foul at the end of a game, give the yellow, and get on with the game. VAR wasting everyone’s time by telling the ref to go to the monitor for that
It’s not “a typical professional foul”. A typical professional foul is tripping someone. Not lunging it and the bottom of your studs getting the attacker where the top of the Achilles meets the calf all the way up the back of the lower leg.
@@Not_a_smart_man that’s definitely an over exaggeration 😂
His studs barely brushed the back of his leg which you can only see in super slow motion. No need to over referee the game
@@nathancamacho1581the fact of the matter is that you shouldn’t be wanting a game where players are running at full speed lunging with their studs into the back of players legs
MLS really wanted LA to win 😂😂 they hate the Quakes or sum 😢
@@imalexxmusicyeah
MLS literally handed that match to SJ on a damn platter what the hell are you talking about
@@jackwelch6017 Come on. It's the California Classico at Stanford. I don't believe for a minute that if LAG was awarded that penalty that SJ would not have had an incredible extra time goal to at least tie it back up.
Nah john , all great calls SJE LAG
Do you guys think every defender is supposed to tackle without lunging? He won the ball! No way that’s a PK!
Mls refs man 😭😭
Y’all r a joke that’s not a pen the ref made the right call after the var yall just love LA and give them all the excuses
Just because he touched the ball doesn’t mean it’s not a foul.
He goes through and takes out the player to get the ball, which he barely touched.
Btw your talking about Chivas USA (LAFC) that "they love" to give excuses to.