Y’all think Abubakar was making a play for the ball??? First of all, it’s shoulder to back. Second of all, he never even looks at the ball. He runs straight for Driussi. His primary goal was to foul Driussi to stop him from having a 1 on 1 with the keeper. For that to be a no call he HAS to be making a play on the ball. You can’t just go around shouldering people down to the ground all over the pitch. No play on the ball, foul every time. All 3 of you got this one wrong, sorry.
Congrats to your show for adding Christine. It helps to have someone who actually knows the rules and how to apply them correctly. She needs to be a permanent addition. Everyone will benefit from having an expert to explain what is happening.
11:43 absolutely absurd Charlie calls this a legit shoulder to shoulder challenge. They are nowhere near the ball! You can only go shoulder to shoulder when playing the ball, which the defender isn't doing at all because he is so far away from it. 100% a foul. However, I do agree with VAR not getting involved since the foul would be a yellow for SPA, not red for DOGSO.
100% agree!!! So ridiculous. Why would anyone with half a brain think it’s ok to just shoulder challenge someone away from the ball. He abandoned any attempt at the ball to target the player. I love this weekly clip they put together but honestly, this is a huge and weird miss.
Man that was 100% DOGSO on Abubakar. Watching full-speed, it is incredibly obvious that Driussi would make it to that pass, and you can also clearly see Abubakar size him up before going into him with the shoulder. The distance from the ball and the force of the contact also tells me that he was playing the man rather than the ball.
Agreed. I know there's not "targeting" in MLS, but he 100% wasn't even trying to get to the ball. His whole intent was to run Driussi down. There's 50/50 when trying to make a play, but this was just plowing into someone you know was going to beat you.
12:41 No red, sure. But to say this is not a foul is absurd. It is impeding with contact when not within playing distance of the ball. 'shoulder to shoulder' only really absolves contact when playing for the ball or when running side by side - this was a barge off the ball so that the defender wasn't beaten for pace!
Third controversial call from ATX was Driussi’s goal getting called offside. No definitive video evidence there, so why was that call on the field reversed and not Diego’s? Three questionable calls imo.
@@choduffield not shown in this video the 1st goal from Driussi. That was called a goal and overturned after review by ref. The Fagundez goal as seen in this video was called offsides originally and that stood (wrongly IMO). Then there is of course the Driussi no call at the end of the match and not shown here stopping an opportunity for Djitte to make a run on the goal after not allowing him advantage (Djitte didnt even go down so no idea why they stopped the play). Horrible officiating. And if you can’t get a good angle with current camera setup then get some more cameras like the Premier League.
On the Fagundez off sides call: Atlanta VAR did NOT have an overhead angle and made the improper decision. An overhead of that play was available the day after (today) and clearly showed that the shot was on side. Someone explain to me (I'm a new fan) why the VAR team's lack of sufficient video coverage is permitted to overrule an improper decision? Why wouldn't they announce today that an error had been made based on additional footage and the point was being given back? This was a bunch of mafioso style nonsense and no one is going to take the MLS seriously if this sort of behavior is so common.
Completely disagree with one of the last calls for the tackle on Driussi. He played the player and not the ball. You should not be able to just target a player when you are too slow to get to the ball. He wasn’t shoulder to shoulder while going for the ball. He abandoned the ball and targeted Driussi. Clear foul!!!
he looks directly at driussi, not the ball and driussi positions himself to win a foul bc the defender's momentum is already going. Pause the video for 2 seconds and tell me that's not a foul. The goalkeeper is barely coming out so same as the LAFC call maybe not DOGSO but at least a foul because then the play after that they go and equalize. I don't understand the logic behind that call
How are you guys saying the Fagundez goal comes to “Clear and Obvious” calls, but every single goal is called offsides if the attacker is an inch offsides? Keep the refereeing consistent.
so the fagundez goal is too tight to review because it’s not “clear and obvious” but the driussi goal in the first half was “clear and obvious”? bs. stop trying to cover up horrible calls made by the referees. it’s getting so old and it better be cleaned up by this weekend. atx game was the worst officiated game i’ve seen in a long time.
Also, the side-line ref was out of position on the Fagundez off side call and should never have made the call in the first place, because there’s no way he could tell from being out of position. He was several yards ahead of the last defender, which would obviously make Fagundez look off side. Very poor officiating in the match.
Could you ask Christina about all the center refs overruling VAR officials this year, sometimes despite the CRs' mistakes being clear on the video? Oh, and LOL at Charlie doubling down on "he barely got his toe on the ball" and Christina shutting him down, plus Christina disagreeing with her own husband (as, quite frankly, we all frequently do).
Noted that you didn't review the uncalled foul that started the attacking phase for a San Jose goal vs. Seattle to add to the end-of-season "no foul" compilation reel, but I'm sure that you were scared that Christina would disagree with your call.
@@rockinmel1 It could have been worth a review (but the game was meaningless anyway). I really think it would fall under the not clear and obvious error category.
@@choduffield It wasn't meaningless to SJ - they could have avoided finishing dead last in the conference - although perhaps to the Quakes life in general might be meaningless.
@@rockinmel1 As a San Jose fan, it was meaningless. Nobody cares about last or 2nd to last. The season was a throw away from the start. In fact, coming in 2nd to last would probably just encourage the front office to not fix things.
Trapp should have seen red and a PK awarded. Launching in the air, studs showing, and made contact (regardless of how much). That is pretty much the definition of a dangerous play and he is lucky he did not make more contact as it could have easily resulted in a broken leg.
@@joemiller7082 When Christina was talking about not seeing clear contact by Trapp on White and highlighting the point of non-contact, you can see a few frames back Trapp's foot unnaturally moved in a way that was like if the foot was caught on something and suddenly got free, right when Trapp's foot was right by White's foot. heidimark is also right about the play being dangerous in itself, with the studs showing at ankle level. Trapp was lucky not seeing any discipline, and MNUFC was lucky because playing down a man for more than a half would've been tough for them.
There was a lot of soft evidence such as how the player fell, but there was was no smoking gun angle. Feels like we usually have at least one other angle that can help. I'm 90% sure a behind the goal angle would have shown this a clear PK. Without it, we're on the 'clear and obvious' discussion.
It’s not a red IMO. The player is not really in on goal. He’s around 40 yards away from goal which is pretty far away. If he were maybe 5 yards further, I would agree.
@@noahtalley4351 You're a clown for thinking that. There's literally no one between him and the goalkeeper who isn't going to ever make it to the ball. Always a red, even the ref in that game's wife on this show is saying so. Garbage take.
They did a good job of keeping the incorrect call on the field? What the hell. Anyone that has seen this has said it was onside. Keep defending the PRO org that is holding the league back.
The problem with the Austin game is this was a series of game changing calls against Austin FC. Not shown here is the other onside druissi goal, the back shove on defender no call that caused the tie goal opportunity. The lack of ANY whistle on the Druissi breakaway/possible DOGSO and the first onside/offside goal examined in this video is just one of the issues in this game. It was horrible
There was no question about onside or offside, If you look closely you can see that the defender was passing the bal to attempt to get the ball to his teamplayer. And because the defender touched the ball and changed its course, the onside offside has no meaning hear. Ps POV European soccer supporter.
#1- it can go either way especially because the defender is turning his head away from the ball so I could see incidental handball. But also PK is a good call. #2- you guys are overthinking it. Will Trapp leaves his feet (wreck less) and doesn’t win the ball. You guys can clearly see where he hasn’t won it. Anytime you tackle like that it’s got to be a foul no matter how much contact. PK. #3- DOCSO. Clear and Obvious. If it would’ve happened in the middle 1/3 yellow and foul. But he’s entering the final 3rd. Red. #4-soft but PK. #5-no pk. With these interpretations they should tie their hands to their bodies. This is NOT table soccer! #6- pk. #7- clearly on. Come on. Look at player #4 he accepted the goal. #8- number 4 and 6 are pk then that’s DOCSO. #9 - he attempted to play it with his hand. Handball!!!
I was at the game in philly and Bradley was such a baby all game he took so much time arguing about obvious penalties even after getting away with a ton of bs Torontos keeper was lucky not to get a red if that was any other position player it would be a red
Funny how when Christina was talking about not seeing clear contact by Trapp on White and highlighting the point of non-contact, you can see a few frames back Trapp's foot unnaturally moved in a way that was like if the foot was caught on something and suddenly got free, right when Trapp's foot was right by White's foot.
im back. 1. this is definitely handball. dont think i need to explain why. 2. im gonna hang on the side of no contact. the way he goes down contradicts the tackle. 3.this is a clear red card. surprised no review was recommended. 4. clear pen. 5. add this deflection rule back please. penalty under MLS rules but i dont like it. 6. blatant pen. 7. onside imo. 8. shoulder to shoulder plus not even in possession. no red. 9. i see this as a natural position. no pen.
Clear and obvious that there was zero toe on the ball from Will Trapp. Maybe clear and obvious for a pk means there is at least a 99% chance contact occurred, but for me there is at least a 90% chance contact occurred. You can see how the point of Brian's toes change as if he received contact. If not a foul why isn't it a yellow card for simulation?
I've generally stopped watching these videos because i think this is just league propaganda to explain away bad calls 50% of the time. And as I see, nothing has changed.
First of all I’m glad that we have a referee looking at these plays! Second of all, I’m going to side with Charlie on the DOGSO claim. Despite the fact that he’s in on goal, he’s still far away. Around 40 yards maybe, and I think for that reason, it’s not dogso!
I’d argue a one on one with the keeper is a goal scoring opportunity, even if it’s 40 yards out. In less than 2 seconds he’d be in the box shooting on goal.
@@utsaxman I understand but the laws of the game have stated that Distance matters. If a player is far away from goal, there’s no guarantee that the defender isn’t catching up.
By that logic, there can be no DOGSO ever, because there’s no guarantee the player with the ball wouldn’t have tripped and blown the opportunity or that some crazy speedy defender would have come out of nowhere and tackled the ball away. You can’t play what-ifs. If the last defender takes out an attacking player with nobody between them and the goal, and it’s likely the attacking player is going to reach the ball before the keeper, it’s by definition denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity. What is the exact distance declared in the laws of the game that makes it too far away to be DOGSO?
Anyways, I’m more disappointed in them thinking the shoulder barge with no attempt to play the ball on Driussi was not a foul. What do the laws of the game say about shoulder barges?
@@utsaxman I agree! He plays the man not the Ball. As the hosts pointed out, it’s shoulder to shoulder but there’s no exemption from being a foul just by that standard!
The MLS realy needs to actualy find good refs, there was another call in the austin vs. colorado game where Driussi scored a header, but it was like aperently a blade of grass offside. the MLS is using FiFa logic.
LAFC ruling is correct. Definitely not a red card with the other defender right there. Double check the rule book Yet you think the Druissi one is not DOGSO? I dont think its a penalty but its crazy that this one would be closer to DOGSO. Dont show your bias too much now
The other defender is so far back and off the line not even Usain could catch up and defend that. That's DOGSO every day of the week, easy red card. Get your eyes checked.
Just another standard showing from the clown Unkle, but that's MLS for you. Whenever you see him on the field you know it's going to be a terribly officiated game. He's a replacement ref level in a league trying to be better... send him back to the kid's league and promote younger refs who have a good excuse to make mistakes and learn from them.
Soccer needs to clean up diving and flopping. It is embarrassing. They are going to have to show more cards for simulation. Dax had his hand on him, so I can't really fault the ref's decision.
Y’all think Abubakar was making a play for the ball??? First of all, it’s shoulder to back. Second of all, he never even looks at the ball. He runs straight for Driussi. His primary goal was to foul Driussi to stop him from having a 1 on 1 with the keeper. For that to be a no call he HAS to be making a play on the ball. You can’t just go around shouldering people down to the ground all over the pitch. No play on the ball, foul every time. All 3 of you got this one wrong, sorry.
100%
Retweet
Love the addition of christina to the panel. Great analysis. Great learning
She got this wrong.
Congrats to your show for adding Christine. It helps to have someone who actually knows the rules and how to apply them correctly. She needs to be a permanent addition. Everyone will benefit from having an expert to explain what is happening.
11:43 absolutely absurd Charlie calls this a legit shoulder to shoulder challenge. They are nowhere near the ball! You can only go shoulder to shoulder when playing the ball, which the defender isn't doing at all because he is so far away from it. 100% a foul. However, I do agree with VAR not getting involved since the foul would be a yellow for SPA, not red for DOGSO.
100% agree!!! So ridiculous. Why would anyone with half a brain think it’s ok to just shoulder challenge someone away from the ball. He abandoned any attempt at the ball to target the player. I love this weekly clip they put together but honestly, this is a huge and weird miss.
Man that was 100% DOGSO on Abubakar. Watching full-speed, it is incredibly obvious that Driussi would make it to that pass, and you can also clearly see Abubakar size him up before going into him with the shoulder. The distance from the ball and the force of the contact also tells me that he was playing the man rather than the ball.
Agreed. I know there's not "targeting" in MLS, but he 100% wasn't even trying to get to the ball. His whole intent was to run Driussi down. There's 50/50 when trying to make a play, but this was just plowing into someone you know was going to beat you.
When a red means a player sits the first game of the playoffs....
@@choduffield no, it’s not even like the league or red would be trying to protect these players from sitting out; Colorado isn’t even in the playoffs.
12:41
No red, sure. But to say this is not a foul is absurd. It is impeding with contact when not within playing distance of the ball. 'shoulder to shoulder' only really absolves contact when playing for the ball or when running side by side - this was a barge off the ball so that the defender wasn't beaten for pace!
Third controversial call from ATX was Driussi’s goal getting called offside. No definitive video evidence there, so why was that call on the field reversed and not Diego’s? Three questionable calls imo.
They gotta collect their bagg 💰💰
It wasn't reversed. The call on the field stood.
@@choduffield not shown in this video the 1st goal from Driussi. That was called a goal and overturned after review by ref. The Fagundez goal as seen in this video was called offsides originally and that stood (wrongly IMO). Then there is of course the Driussi no call at the end of the match and not shown here stopping an opportunity for Djitte to make a run on the goal after not allowing him advantage (Djitte didnt even go down so no idea why they stopped the play). Horrible officiating. And if you can’t get a good angle with current camera setup then get some more cameras like the Premier League.
Petition to bring Christina back every time.
oh my good, if 12:20 isn't a DOGSO as you like to call it, i don't know what is. 🤣
On the Fagundez off sides call: Atlanta VAR did NOT have an overhead angle and made the improper decision. An overhead of that play was available the day after (today) and clearly showed that the shot was on side. Someone explain to me (I'm a new fan) why the VAR team's lack of sufficient video coverage is permitted to overrule an improper decision? Why wouldn't they announce today that an error had been made based on additional footage and the point was being given back? This was a bunch of mafioso style nonsense and no one is going to take the MLS seriously if this sort of behavior is so common.
Completely disagree with one of the last calls for the tackle on Driussi. He played the player and not the ball. You should not be able to just target a player when you are too slow to get to the ball. He wasn’t shoulder to shoulder while going for the ball. He abandoned the ball and targeted Driussi. Clear foul!!!
Absolutely agree with you. He does not look at the ball at all. He just aiming at the player! Looks more like rugby or American football to me!
How do all 3 of these people, including an actual official miss this?
"It wasn't clear and obvious" the excuse that's made every time VAR messes up smh
he looks directly at driussi, not the ball and driussi positions himself to win a foul bc the defender's momentum is already going. Pause the video for 2 seconds and tell me that's not a foul. The goalkeeper is barely coming out so same as the LAFC call maybe not DOGSO but at least a foul because then the play after that they go and equalize. I don't understand the logic behind that call
How are you guys saying the Fagundez goal comes to “Clear and Obvious” calls, but every single goal is called offsides if the attacker is an inch offsides? Keep the refereeing consistent.
if its inches either direction, MLS goes with the on the field decision. Unless I'm mistaken, they consistently do this
Great job adding Christina to counteract the other 2 clowns
so the fagundez goal is too tight to review because it’s not “clear and obvious” but the driussi goal in the first half was “clear and obvious”? bs. stop trying to cover up horrible calls made by the referees. it’s getting so old and it better be cleaned up by this weekend. atx game was the worst officiated game i’ve seen in a long time.
Is there a reason why MLS don't have multi cam like every other league? VAR will never work properly without this
Also, the side-line ref was out of position on the Fagundez off side call and should never have made the call in the first place, because there’s no way he could tell from being out of position. He was several yards ahead of the last defender, which would obviously make Fagundez look off side. Very poor officiating in the match.
Wtf the colorado player abilitates Diego
Could you ask Christina about all the center refs overruling VAR officials this year, sometimes despite the CRs' mistakes being clear on the video? Oh, and LOL at Charlie doubling down on "he barely got his toe on the ball" and Christina shutting him down, plus Christina disagreeing with her own husband (as, quite frankly, we all frequently do).
Noted that you didn't review the uncalled foul that started the attacking phase for a San Jose goal vs. Seattle to add to the end-of-season "no foul" compilation reel, but I'm sure that you were scared that Christina would disagree with your call.
@@rockinmel1 It could have been worth a review (but the game was meaningless anyway). I really think it would fall under the not clear and obvious error category.
@@choduffield It wasn't meaningless to SJ - they could have avoided finishing dead last in the conference - although perhaps to the Quakes life in general might be meaningless.
@@rockinmel1 As a San Jose fan, it was meaningless. Nobody cares about last or 2nd to last. The season was a throw away from the start. In fact, coming in 2nd to last would probably just encourage the front office to not fix things.
@@choduffield I don't think 13th vs 14th matters much to the FO, and your owner is too busy extorting a baseball stadium to care much.
Trapp should have seen red and a PK awarded. Launching in the air, studs showing, and made contact (regardless of how much). That is pretty much the definition of a dangerous play and he is lucky he did not make more contact as it could have easily resulted in a broken leg.
Got the ball, didn’t even make contact with White. White steps OVER Trapps foot. Not even any contact.
@@joemiller7082 When Christina was talking about not seeing clear contact by Trapp on White and highlighting the point of non-contact, you can see a few frames back Trapp's foot unnaturally moved in a way that was like if the foot was caught on something and suddenly got free, right when Trapp's foot was right by White's foot.
heidimark is also right about the play being dangerous in itself, with the studs showing at ankle level.
Trapp was lucky not seeing any discipline, and MNUFC was lucky because playing down a man for more than a half would've been tough for them.
It was such an obvious penalty. The videos blow my mind.
There was a lot of soft evidence such as how the player fell, but there was was no smoking gun angle. Feels like we usually have at least one other angle that can help. I'm 90% sure a behind the goal angle would have shown this a clear PK. Without it, we're on the 'clear and obvious' discussion.
@@waterboy99troop leaving the ground is sufficient enought for a free kick outside the box 9 times out of 10.
Clear pk for the Whitecaps. I hate VAR. They always do such a terrible job
How is that not a red tho from the Nashville and LAFC game?
That wasn't a red. Arango overrated
@@Arz2003 not a reason as to why that’s not a red cause it clearly is DOGSO
@Ben he’s just a LAFC hater bro ignore him
It’s not a red IMO. The player is not really in on goal. He’s around 40 yards away from goal which is pretty far away. If he were maybe 5 yards further, I would agree.
@@noahtalley4351 You're a clown for thinking that. There's literally no one between him and the goalkeeper who isn't going to ever make it to the ball. Always a red, even the ref in that game's wife on this show is saying so. Garbage take.
Christina Unkel, disagreeing with Ted.
😂
My guess is that after he takes a longer look at the clips, Ted will disagree with Ted.
Most everyone disagrees with Ted all the time. Nothing new here
They did a good job of keeping the incorrect call on the field? What the hell. Anyone that has seen this has said it was onside. Keep defending the PRO org that is holding the league back.
Love the 7:00 Unkel on Unkel analysis!
Love Christina undermining her hubby. Much love to them both. :)
I don't think she actually did. He made a call from behind with live action. VAR is the one who could/should have recommended a review.
+1 - enjoyed having Christina's perspective as well
Austin goal was not off-side, I can't believe you can't see it.
The problem with the Austin game is this was a series of game changing calls against Austin FC. Not shown here is the other onside druissi goal, the back shove on defender no call that caused the tie goal opportunity. The lack of ANY whistle on the Druissi breakaway/possible DOGSO and the first onside/offside goal examined in this video is just one of the issues in this game. It was horrible
11 mins, VAR is used to clear up offside, its not to correct a clear and obvious error.
There was no question about onside or offside, If you look closely you can see that the defender was passing the bal to attempt to get the ball to his teamplayer. And because the defender touched the ball and changed its course, the onside offside has no meaning hear. Ps POV European soccer supporter.
Shoulder to shoulder? Watch the video his shoulder clearly hits Driussi in the back. Y'all are trash!!!! Keep doubting us!!!
#1- it can go either way especially because the defender is turning his head away from the ball so I could see incidental handball. But also PK is a good call.
#2- you guys are overthinking it. Will Trapp leaves his feet (wreck less) and doesn’t win the ball. You guys can clearly see where he hasn’t won it. Anytime you tackle like that it’s got to be a foul no matter how much contact. PK.
#3- DOCSO. Clear and Obvious. If it would’ve happened in the middle 1/3 yellow and foul. But he’s entering the final 3rd. Red.
#4-soft but PK.
#5-no pk. With these interpretations they should tie their hands to their bodies. This is NOT table soccer!
#6- pk.
#7- clearly on. Come on. Look at player #4 he accepted the goal.
#8- number 4 and 6 are pk then that’s DOCSO.
#9 - he attempted to play it with his hand. Handball!!!
Obviously that's embellishment of contact as well..
betcha Wiebe and Davies are ecstatic to see the Sounders miss the playoffs
I was at the game in philly and Bradley was such a baby all game he took so much time arguing about obvious penalties even after getting away with a ton of bs Torontos keeper was lucky not to get a red if that was any other position player it would be a red
I hope Christina is here to stay❤
Funny how when Christina was talking about not seeing clear contact by Trapp on White and highlighting the point of non-contact, you can see a few frames back Trapp's foot unnaturally moved in a way that was like if the foot was caught on something and suddenly got free, right when Trapp's foot was right by White's foot.
im back.
1. this is definitely handball. dont think i need to explain why.
2. im gonna hang on the side of no contact. the way he goes down contradicts the tackle.
3.this is a clear red card. surprised no review was recommended.
4. clear pen.
5. add this deflection rule back please. penalty under MLS rules but i dont like it.
6. blatant pen.
7. onside imo.
8. shoulder to shoulder plus not even in possession. no red.
9. i see this as a natural position. no pen.
Clear and obvious that there was zero toe on the ball from Will Trapp. Maybe clear and obvious for a pk means there is at least a 99% chance contact occurred, but for me there is at least a 90% chance contact occurred. You can see how the point of Brian's toes change as if he received contact. If not a foul why isn't it a yellow card for simulation?
I love these videos
What a joke. Austin got robbed and it’s no surprise MLS employees are choosing to not see anything.
I've generally stopped watching these videos because i think this is just league propaganda to explain away bad calls 50% of the time.
And as I see, nothing has changed.
Are you guys for real? It sure doesn't seem like it. Your coverage is poor. Your opinions are just as poor.
Refs hate Austin FC, it’s ok- we still winning!
First of all I’m glad that we have a referee looking at these plays! Second of all, I’m going to side with Charlie on the DOGSO claim. Despite the fact that he’s in on goal, he’s still far away. Around 40 yards maybe, and I think for that reason, it’s not dogso!
I’d argue a one on one with the keeper is a goal scoring opportunity, even if it’s 40 yards out. In less than 2 seconds he’d be in the box shooting on goal.
@@utsaxman I understand but the laws of the game have stated that Distance matters. If a player is far away from goal, there’s no guarantee that the defender isn’t catching up.
By that logic, there can be no DOGSO ever, because there’s no guarantee the player with the ball wouldn’t have tripped and blown the opportunity or that some crazy speedy defender would have come out of nowhere and tackled the ball away. You can’t play what-ifs. If the last defender takes out an attacking player with nobody between them and the goal, and it’s likely the attacking player is going to reach the ball before the keeper, it’s by definition denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity. What is the exact distance declared in the laws of the game that makes it too far away to be DOGSO?
Anyways, I’m more disappointed in them thinking the shoulder barge with no attempt to play the ball on Driussi was not a foul. What do the laws of the game say about shoulder barges?
@@utsaxman I agree! He plays the man not the Ball. As the hosts pointed out, it’s shoulder to shoulder but there’s no exemption from being a foul just by that standard!
The MLS realy needs to actualy find good refs, there was another call in the austin vs. colorado game where Driussi scored a header, but it was like aperently a blade of grass offside. the MLS is using FiFa logic.
LAFC ruling is correct. Definitely not a red card with the other defender right there. Double check the rule book
Yet you think the Druissi one is not DOGSO? I dont think its a penalty but its crazy that this one would be closer to DOGSO. Dont show your bias too much now
The other defender is so far back and off the line not even Usain could catch up and defend that. That's DOGSO every day of the week, easy red card. Get your eyes checked.
These analysts are a joke, esp her.
Just another standard showing from the clown Unkle, but that's MLS for you. Whenever you see him on the field you know it's going to be a terribly officiated game. He's a replacement ref level in a league trying to be better... send him back to the kid's league and promote younger refs who have a good excuse to make mistakes and learn from them.
Instant Replay has turned into an apologist gong show. Be better, MLS.
first
Achievement Unlocked Xbox 🔓
First TH-cam comment
@@Arz2003 yessir
Congratulations
That Dax vs chicho was a clear dive MLS is terrible
Soccer needs to clean up diving and flopping. It is embarrassing. They are going to have to show more cards for simulation. Dax had his hand on him, so I can't really fault the ref's decision.
But for the flop Agrano might have have been on goal.