The Goals That Weren’t: LAFC & Union’s Potential Game-Winners, Plus Reyes' Silly Red Card
Vložit
- čas přidán 14. 04. 2024
- Andrew Wiebe is back for another edition of Instant Replay to break down the most controversial plays of the weekend.
📺 Watch every match with MLS Season Pass on Apple TV: apple.co/MLS
The 🐐 plays here. Join The Messi Insider for insider news, early access to Messi promotions and more: www.mlssoccer.com/messi/
➡️ Subscribe Now: / mls
➡️ Follow us on:
- TikTok: www.tiktok.com/@mls?lang=en
- Instagram: / mls
- Twitter: / mls
- Like us on Facebook: / mls
➡️ Para Español:
- Instagram: / mlses
- Twitter: / mlses
- Facebook: espanol.mls
For more information about MLS, go to the league's official website: www.MLSsoccer.com
#mls #highlights #mlsseasonpass - Sport
Sad that the Minnesota vs Houston no goal call isn’t on here
That seems to be a trend.
They should do a spin off were someone talks about how Andrew Wiebe is wrong.
Instant Wiebeplay
simon borg was at least entertaining, wiebe is clearly doing this as something he has to do for his job
Pretty sure that's called the comment section (of every website ever)
@@putemindatrunk I truly love doing the show 🤷🏼♂️
Or a spin off where plays that involve the MN Loons are actually covered or talked about.
Didn't even show the most controversial non-call of the Revs game. The cleats to the chest that should have been a red card on NYC earlier in the mattch.
Sands made Polster bleed, studs up kicked Vironi, and committed two more serious fouls before half time and didn't see any cards. It was terrible.
MLS try not to suck up to LAFC challenge. Portland robbed by the refs
He wasn't even going to get a clear shot at goal, never a red.
Bruh what about the galaxy!
Refs robbed the Galaxy from inter Miami and el traffico
😂😂😂
The moment you kick the ball away from yourself in order to draw a foul, there is no goal scoring opportunity. Danny didn't attempt to hold possession of the ball, dribble, or shoot - he kicked the ball away to draw a foul. That's not DOGSO.
Yet AGAIN: How is it in 2024 we do not have the tech for proper camera angles and lines for offside decisions????!!
I know it wasnt one of the "major moments" but the refereeing in the portland lafc game was absolutely atrocious. Start to finish ref had no control. Lafc had 22 fouls and 6 yellows. In reality half of their fouls should have been yellows. The majority of those fouls were in transition or into the back of mora. There was even bad calls for lafc but just an overall robbery of a game that crepeau got sent off. Yes it was a foul at the top of the box but was not dogso
😂😂😂🤡🤡
no that was a a dogso
Serious. How was that dogso? He passed the ball before getting fouled. There was no way he was getting to that ball after he kicked it.
bro you didn't show the offside in the crepeau that was such a clear offside there wouldn't even be no red or goal
You can see it a little and he looks extremely close so much that there wouldn't have been evidence for VAR to to have sent it down for review. Are there better angles available?
Honestly as a Portland fan I agree with both of these takes.
Surprised the GW goal by Orlando vs DC didn't end up at least making the cut for further discussion...
I just looked at it. Honestly, it's not really controversial or noteworthy. Maybe he was in the other half when the ball was last played, but the replays shown you can't tell. Extrapolating what's there, he's likely onside. VAR would be able to look at an overhead view usually which they would have confirmed the correct call on the field. Beyond that, the keeper made a weird decision retreat WAY too far before turning around and getting beat.
Conveniently no mention that the Union's 2nd goal shouldn't have counted...
Why? Valid throw-in. No offside. No fouls I can see.
No way that's dogso on Crepeau, Bouanga had no chance at recovering the ball, he wasnt even the closest to it on his team
Why do we not have a few extra cameras to show better offsides angles? How hard is it to do that for VAR? I feel like every week or 2 there is at least one of these “can’t tell if it’s on or off” even in review like in the Philly game.
I'm in the camp, with many others, that is perfectly fine with not having offside down to inches or smaller. I can't stand the technology used in the Premier and other leagues. Let the AR do their job and if there is a very obvious error it can be corrected by VAR.
@@MrCho14 I'm not saying we need to get that in depth, I like what they are using now. Just want to see 2 more camera angles that actually use the full capability of the tech.
@@WhiskeyWizrd Fair enough. I agree that camera angles often leave too much to guessing/inaccurate extrapolation. My understanding is that cameras are driven by the broadcasting contracts. Unless the requirements with AppleTV are increased, then it's not happening. They also need to look at stadium capabilities and be consistent with what is used throughout the league.
I'm not saying it can't be done, and it's certainly cheaper than other tech, but there are certainly more considerations than just having a guy stand on the 18 yard line with a cell phone. (yeah, the other extreme.)
You got the commentary on the Union goal wrong. Not the call, I'm a Union fan and can't tell for sure either way so I understand the decision. However, you should have a Flaming Hot Take, specifically to bring in the technology that they have in the Premier League so we'd know if the call was correct or not.
Aside from the huge expense of Hawkeye, I think you'll find a lot of EPL fans who are frustrated with 3 minute minute attempts to determine if a forward should have cut his toenail that morning... Besides, Hawkeye is antiquated with semi-automated offside technology. Don't know that the MLS owners will pony up for that, but it makes no sense to invest in the inferior tech for marginal benefit
The owners won't even pony up the money to put enough TV cameras in the stadiums. There is no way they're going to spend the money on automated offsides or goal line tech.
@@johnmcgimpsey1825 If there's better technology that the Premier League uses, then fine, use that. Is it really that much more expensive than the money they are wasting on paying 36 year old retirees to collect a paycheck?
@@pitdoctor Is the money for technology that much more expensive than the money they are wasting on paying a bunch of retirees to collect a paycheck?
@@andymuenz7499 I'm not an expert, but from what I've read: since all of the technology is proprietary to Hawkeye (and thus monopoly priced), and since it requires more cameras for each of 29 stadiums (some of which may not currently have the infrastructure for needed angles and several of which are multi-use, so the cameras may have to be reinstalled/relocated from week to week) and since technicians have to recalibrate each camera before each game, yeah, it's $millions to install, and $millions more to operate every year. For, possibly, a handful of overturned decisions that change a match outcome per season across the league. While some fans might be happy to spend the MLS owners' money, I can't see them deciding that that's a good business decision. I think in balancing pinpoint accuracy vs flow of the game, MLS has it about right and EPL doesn't.
Uhre's goal commentary for Union's potential goal was missing the obvious observation that Kathryn Nesbitt was not in line with the offsides line. Her angle would have made it appear that he was indeed offsides. It's her positioning. Too soft on your analysis. She wasn't looking down the line either
She's within what looks like a foot or so over the shoulder of the attacker. That's pretty darn good and much better than any camera angle available.
It was definitely a foul by Crepeau, but a Red Card for that is LUDACRIS. Multiple Portland defenders nearby and Bouanga didnt even move the ball towards goal... It was towards the Portland defender... The Ref, and sadly even Andrew Wiebe, got that one incorrect... Disappointed that Andrew is falling into the LAFC MLS bias over the past few weeks and episodes.
I always remind people that Andrew Wiebe is an employee of MLS. You are watching this video, that was produced by the MLS, on the MLS CZcams channel. So, this isn't an independent take on the calls. The point of 'Instant Replay' is to make you feel better about all the controversial calls. Sure, Andrew will disagree on some calls here and there because he absolutely has to in order to seem even remotely unbiased. But, the overarching goal of this show is a PR effort to convince you that, overall, everything is fine and there is nothing to see here, folks.
The crepeau red card is one of the best referee decisions I’ve ever seen in MLS. He got the location correct plus the unclear DOGSO with defenders surrounding the player. Incredible refereeing there
the actual contact in the crepeau red isn't the issue. It's the offside on the initial ball.
Portland GK Red: Sure does look like LAFC attacker had already played that ball out of reach to the right before any contact. (0:50). The attacker chose to try to try to pass because he thought there was going to be contact? But the contact hadn't happened yet, so can it be DOGSO?
LAFC PK: I'd have liked to have let that play as they're both getting a bit handsy, but it was called on the field and I can't see how VAR could say it was a clear and obvious error especially with the LAFC attacker putting that hip in.
Yeah. It looked like Bounga's 2nd touch there was too heavy, that occured before the contact, and the Portland defender would have been able to challenge (if not just gain possession cleanly). But it is LAFC so I'm not entirely surprised they got that call.
The only surprise is the fact that LAFC actually got called for a foul on what could have been a game-winner.
Was there any review of there being an offside on the play that put the LA player through?
@@smartyjones20 I don't think so and he looked off to me. The defender in the center of the field might have been playing him on, but I agree that Andrew should have discussed that point and provided a better vantage point either way.
@@smartyjones20 For the DOGSO, yes, per the VAR protocol, the VAR will have looked for offside before the foul, since they reviews all red cards and potential red cards and offside would have negated the red.
@@andytretten Oh, conspiracy theories.....you have fun with those...somewhere else.
Why was the fire not given a penalty when the red card was given
Are you serious? 5:58 onward......
You sound like an LAFC season ticket holder.
Re: philly's 3rd goal-that-wasn't, my seats are directly opposite where the AR was. It was offside by a hair. Very hard to see on video, very easy to see when directly viewed from the side.
Major League Soccer, I can't get enough of your content, so I subscribed!
The ref in the Philly game should have never held the flag up for offsides. There is no way the ref could 100% say that's offsides from that angle. Should have kept the flag down and given the benefit to the striker. Then if it's off, VAR will fix it. I don't think he's offside. But VAR can't overturn that because it's not completely obvious. I would be pissed if I were a Philly fan. I'm also ok that Charlotte got screwed. Still pissed off from a few weeks ago against Columbus. How does it feel to get completely screwed? Would have been better if they lost though.
I 100% disagree with you. The job of the AR is to call what they believe to be true. They do not make guesses.
On this call, how can you say she's not in position? Given the problem with camera angles to line people up, we're guessing how close she is, but my guess is that at most she is a couple feet from a direct line which is excellent positioning. That's pretty clear at 2:18. It's an excellent decision by her.
@@MrCho14 I stopped at that exact moment as well. She is not standing level with the last defender. You can tell but the way the field is cut. There is no way she can tell his 100% offside. She can't tell from that position when the ball was actually played through. She is looking straight down the line so wouldn't be able to see when the ball actually left the player's foot to play the ball in. This is extremely close to the point that a millisecond would make a big difference. It's way too close to be 100% sure he was offside. So in that case, the benefit of the doubt should go to the attacker. Even with video replay, you can't 100% be sure it's the correct call. No way she was 100% sure he was off. If you are not 100% sure, then she shouldn't have called it off and instead let VAR check.
@@Boys-R-Boys-and-Girls-R-Girls Right, which is why I said within a few feet.
It's clear you don't understand how the process works or how well trained ARs at their job. She did an excellent job of making a decision. ALL decisions should, and are, on the field. The lack of understanding of that means this conversation is going to go in circles since you don't agree with how the roles of the referee teams are defined.
What you are asking for is a referee to make a decision to not make the call they believe is correct in the hope that VAR happens to have an angle which supports the correct call according to them. That makes zero sense.
The decisions in the RSL game were so bad and confusing that Wiebe's like "I'm not even going to go there." The whole game was a head scratcher. Offside decisions when no flag was raised. No video review. Just to name a few. The game was so boring to watch because the ref was so out of his league.
How are you not going to mention the Philly 2nd goal for a foul throw?
What you believe is wrong with it?
If you're looking at the feet, both feet are legal. At the time the ball is released, they are both on or behind the touchline. That little bit of heal on the line is just fine.
Law 15:
"At the moment of delivering the ball, the thrower must:
* stand facing the field of play
* have part of each foot on the touchline or on the ground outside the touchline
* throw the ball with both hands from behind and over the head from the point where it left the field of play"
Can't be dogso if it's Offside And Bravo is well behind Creapeau so it's not an open net.
Andrew please read your book
again.
💛💚🌲💚💛
No evidence it was offside though The little bit we see it looks close, but unless there is a better angle we don't see, then call on field has to stand.
Bravo is only 'well behind' the attacker because of the foul. No foul and he's straight onto goal. The issue that I brought up already is that he played the ball to the center right before contact. I think that should have been discussed, but this is hardly a 'read your book' worthy comment.
@@MrCho14 I find your comment confusing. You say, "No foul and he's straight onto goal." I disagree with that. I do agree with your next sentence though. Bouanga's second touch, in an effort to avoid the keeper, is well to his right. It's no longer heading toward goal - it's now running almost parallel with the 18-yard box. It's a heavy touch, too. Not to say he couldn't have gotten to it but, by the time he would have gotten to it, I think it's clear that Bravo would have been in position. So, if Crepeau doesn't make contact, that touch still kicks that ball off to Bouanga's right. He would now have to plant and change direction. Bravo, who is continuing his run toward goal, is easily between the ball and goal at that point. So, to me, this is not DOGSO.
I agree on the offside call. It looks offside to me. However, I think it's close enough that I can't see VAR overturning it and, when it's a close call, I'm always in favor of the call favoring the attacker.
@@lukeharper8926 Yeah, my statement was over simplified at best. The attacker, in an effort to avoid the rushing keeper who was likely (?) to foul, chose to push the ball to his right. If the attacker didn't push the ball to the right, then it's still a foul on the keeper and we aren't talking about it because the ball is still in front of the attacker at the time of the foul and the other defender hasn't gotten back yet.
Does the attacker's decision to try to avoid contact come into play here negating DOGSO?
@@MrCho14 I absolutely feel the attacker's decision to 'avoid contact' comes into play here because I think his 'avoidance' is what creates the foul (credit to Buoanga). Go to 0:46 in the video. There is no immanent foul coming from Crepeau. Crepeau doesn't barrel into Bouanga. He actually stands him up initially. If you watch the slow-mo replay, you'll see Crepeau watches the ball the whole time and the contact comes because Crepeau tries to win the ball WHEN Bouanga touches it out to his right. Bouanga baited Crepeau into that challenge with his touch. If the ball stays at his feet, who knows what happens. In any scenario, Buoanga probably wins a free kick, beats Crepeau, or wins a penalty because Buoanga with the ball at his feet is just better than Crepeau defending with his feet. But, that doesn't matter. The ref can only ref what actually happens and I believe it's the touch out to his right that draws the contact. Therefore, the result of that touch absolutely factors into a DOGSO decision.
@@lukeharper8926 That's a good timestamp. You're right the keeper was holding his ground and not rushing in at that point. He delayed the attack (like a good defender should do) allowing support to get back.
worst
.....comment ever. Agreed.
Didn't realize I still had room to lose more respect for weibe's opinion, but after more LAFC/Atlanta sucking up I found more to lose!
You might be blinded. What sucking up was there?
🇮🇱 Qatar Football Mafia 👎
Best Player Mafia Football In Asian 'Nasullo Kabirov from Tajikistan.
What is the use of referee Nasrullo Kabirov? He's a dog. What's the point of that match? It would be better for Qatar to give the trophy with the power of money alone
You are so wrong on the Ordaz foul. watch both of his legs driving through the Portland player. Total foul. The only way you can say that is not a foul, is if you have a clear bias against Portland
Feel free to make an argument backing up your case without copping out with 'you must be bias' crap.
Your channel calms me