That was a clear and obvious DOGSO in Cincinnati. The only reason it looks like the Chivas defenders were recovering is because the Cincinnati attacker’s run was slowed down quickly and cynically by Chivas’s number 3. Had he not been dragged down, it’s pretty obvious that Cincinnati’s number 9 was going to have an opportunity to score with only the Chivas keeper to beat. If you look at how Cincy’s number 9 was able to accelerate after touching the ball past the last defender, the Chivas defenders were not going to catch up to him without him being tugged back. That play checks every box for DOGSO.
Agreed -- the striker was 5 full yards ahead of the first "recovering defender" before he was pulled down, with a wide open Vazquez on the back post, also yards ahead of the defender trying to recover against him. This isn't even close to "not DOGSO". That camera angle at 4:55 is pretty obvious.
On top of what Adam is saying which is 100% correct, there is an additional aspect. Did the attacker have opportunities, which YES, there is another attacker, completely free that he can pass and highly likely to score. There were 2 attackers and 1 defender (which was the keeper) in the moment of the offense. I feel that Andrew Wiebe is providing the wrong information through an official MLS channel. @mls I am concerned about this level of information to the public. No wonder there are problems with referees at a youth level, if this is what is broadcasted to the public through your official channel.
Re: Cincinnati DOGSO. This is absolutely DOGSO. "Toward goal" does not mean only the goal box. As long as his movement isn't towards the corner, he can very easily take a goal-scoring opportunity from the edges of the 18. The was only one recovering defender. The closest one got beat and was about to be 5 ft behind. The next closest was 10 ft behind and could have only closed the next 5 ft. It was about to be an open shot on goal from the 18 yard box. You made all the same judgements in the McVey Red card except the closest defender was even closer to the attacker.
He is moving straight into the box. He is by no means moving away from the goal as Webe is claiming, but Webe is a moron who proves himself to be week after week. He was in on goal if not for being grappled and tossed to the ground. @Soccerrockker6 you are correct, this is 100% DOGSO. No one is going to catch him at all and he also had a free runner in the attack along side him on the opposite end of the box. But like I said, Webe is a moron of epic proportions who doesn't even understand the laws of the game that he has printed in front of him and that he is displaying on the screen. Absolutely absurd that they allow him to continue to host this segment.
Evander - attempted 'strike', he lashed out in frustration The Bunbury first call was harsh. Dogso Cincy game - 2 blue v 1 red . . . simple opportunity for pass to the open man. It's a definite opportunity in my book
Urhe situation was interesting. After review, QRO didn’t even get the free kick for the foul and Philly started play again. Not sure how that is possible.
If the ref deemed QRO was guilty of a foul, that would stop play with the restart being a free kick for Philly. If a subsequent misconduct by Philly occurred directly after the foul, the ref could give a yellow, but it wouldn't change that the foul by QRO was what stopped play. The fact that the misconduct is more "severe" than the foul doesn't change who gets the restart either. I'm skeptical that's what's happening here, but if the ref determined there was a bang bang play of Mendoza coming through the back of Uhre, and then Uhre elbowing Mendoza, a yellow for Uhre and a Philly restart would be correct.
@@avencia1290 yet they included the red card to chivas? Mind you the hand ball happened in the part of the match before it was suspended, I like MLS, I live in the states and am a season ticket holder for my club, but come on, its suspicious af
@@brianaragon2109 Yeah I mean he should've included the potential handball but as a ref I can confirm that isn't a handball. He's tucking his arm back in and it's to his side and essentially on his body when it makes contact, arm is in a natural position (note I don't give a damn about either Cincy or Chivas, this is my unbiased opinion). Offsides call is a lot harder to tell, I genuinely can't with the camera angle
I'm not sure how you can say with a straight face the first DOGSO (for CIN) was not towards goal but the 2nd one (DAL) was. The 2nd one was played 'away from goal' more so than the first one. This comment hurts your attempt at credibility, Andrew. The ball is 2 to 3 yards in front of him when he's fouled moving slightly off frame. These are professional athletes; not elephants. Trying to claim this wasn't in the direction of the goal is not how this law should be interpreted. And, no, the other defender would not have caught up if the attacker hadn't been body slammed. This is 100% why DOGSO exists.
Definitely wasn't DOGSO in the chivas game the ball was going to the right after he touched it And I love how they failed to mention the clear offsides on the 3rd goal leagues cup is favoring all the MLS teams by a clear and wide margin
I looked at that a few times before seeing you ask about it b/c on first look I was wondering the same thing. In the end, I don't think there's enough there for a push. The momentum of the play was the wrong direction. The defender was moving back into the attacker just as much as the attacker was moving to play the ball, and it simply wasn't enough either way.
With the delay taylor got sitches during the game. I don't think much was said either way on it but it was highly sus and a violent act that should have been reviewed but didn't due to the weather.
@@brianneumann1703 I disagree. Kamara kicks out on his header with his foot in a dangerous and unnatural position. Studs exposed striking the opponent in the face. Cautionable offense there.
@@mattwilson152 This is a good point, there's no reason Kamara should be kicking his leg out for that header. It was purely a redirect and didn't require a karate kick to reach
That 2nd Yellow on Evander was horseshit. There HAS to be a major penalty for diving like Tigres was doing all throughout the game. You can't judge these plays in isolation. Evander doesn't even make CONTACT with the Tigres defender, or if he does it is negligible at best and not worthy of the hysterics the defender pulls. That's not a foul under ANY circumstance, much less a second yellow. Should Evander have been more careful? Sure. But the referee HAS to manage the game better than this, and the leagues need to start suspending players for multiple games for clear embellishment like this. There's not a single person on the planet who isn't a Tigres fan who thinks the reaction by the defender was appropriate, and the fact that he gets REWARDED for such theatrics is why soccer/futbol is seen as a second rate sport.
doesn't matter if contact is negligible in this case, Evander clearly did that on purpose and that alone makes it a yellow. The ref didn't mess up there, Evander did
@@brianaragon2109 That's BS and you know it. He's trying to pull a swim move to advance on the ball. It happens 100x a game. You can't give a yellow for that everytime a player pulls a swim move or every player would be sent off. And yes, negligible contact IS a factor for a second yellow. You can't ruin an entire game because a player got grazed AT BEST, flopped like he got shot and then starts throwing a hissy fit like a toddler.
I completely agree with you . . . notice the Tigres player embellishing, and pleading for a yellow; when it's awarded, he's suddenly a-ok . . .it's a miracle(!), he's completely healed! (Newsflash: there was negligible contact, nothing to 'heal'.) Outrageous. I, too, hate it in both soccer (and basketball) when players draw fouls by acting or embellishing. It's a disservice to, and disrespectful of the game. And rewarding players for doing it is ruining the integrity of the game.
@@kylewilson2819 come on mate, the ball is 5 meters away at that point. I'm not even a fan of Tigres and I don't like flopping either but that was a yellow
Evander deserved the yellows... However his opponent really milked it. Then comes crying and running to the ref. Grow up! Lol you have a right to be upset but don't be a drama queen.
Your interpretation of some of the Laws are atrocious man. I mean at least consult with an actual ref before hand instead of misleading all these casuals who watch your vids
last defender fouls are not always automatic reds, they are only automatic reds if the attacker has or will gain control of the ball, is moving towards the goal, and is close enough to the goal that no other defenders will have a chance to catch up with him
Refs are super MLS sided in the Chivas game and in general. That said, the Chivas played recklessly and dangerously and very much deserved to get punished for it. Still, it's sad to see LMX bend over backwards for MLS, sacrificing their teams for broadcast money.
Conveniently not talking about Hand ball against Cincinnati vs Chivas, the illegal pass back to the keeper. And the offsides goal from Brandon Vásquez 😂 I lost respect for this league with these blatant refereeing bias.
"I lost respect for this league with these blatant refereeing bias." Not sure what 'league' you're referring to given this is a tournament between 2 leagues. If you're trying to say this is MLS related, that's even funnier given that referee, Pineda, is from Costa Rica and has never refereed an MLS game before in his life.
The rules say that a dogso does not result in a red card if the foul results in a penalty kick unless the foul was on purpose, wasn’t playing the ball, or was endangering the safety of the opponent.
Law 12: "Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offender is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball or a challenge for the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling, pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.), the offending player must be sent off."
What is the "judgement call" with Micael? It doesn't matter if he is "attempting" to kick the ball or not. He straight up kicked the the attacking player from behind in the KNEE! FROM BEHIND! There is no judgement to be made. There is no justification to kick someone from behind in the knee inside of your own penalty box (or anywhere on the pitch). He went in with absolutely no regard for the safety of his opponent at all. 🟥
if a player is attempting to play the ball and gets called for DOGSO in the penalty area, the punishment is a yellow. if a player is not attempting to play the ball and gets called for DOGSO in the penalty area, the punishment is a red. that is the judgement that they are referring to. "He went in with absolutely no regard for the safety of his opponent at all." Unless there is excess force or brutality, this would be considered a reckless foul, which is a yellow. Excess force or brutality elevates a reckless foul (yellow) to serious foul play (red) and while it is a judgement as to whether or not this play had excess force (it definitely does not have brutality), I think you'd be really hard pressed to argue it.
@@MoviesUnderTheSurface Yes, the laws states that "Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offender is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball or a challenge for the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling, pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.), the offending player must be sent off." That is a direct quote from Law 12. My point is simply this, he straight up kicked the attacking player in the knee from behind. There is little argument to be made that he was attempting to play the ball then he was that far behind the play and the ball sure as hell was not at the level of the players knee (it was still on the ground). He was attempting to stop the player from getting a clear shot on target, which he succeeded at. That is where I disagree with him about the judgement call issue. Does that make it more clear?
That was a clear and obvious DOGSO in Cincinnati. The only reason it looks like the Chivas defenders were recovering is because the Cincinnati attacker’s run was slowed down quickly and cynically by Chivas’s number 3. Had he not been dragged down, it’s pretty obvious that Cincinnati’s number 9 was going to have an opportunity to score with only the Chivas keeper to beat. If you look at how Cincy’s number 9 was able to accelerate after touching the ball past the last defender, the Chivas defenders were not going to catch up to him without him being tugged back. That play checks every box for DOGSO.
Agreed -- the striker was 5 full yards ahead of the first "recovering defender" before he was pulled down, with a wide open Vazquez on the back post, also yards ahead of the defender trying to recover against him. This isn't even close to "not DOGSO". That camera angle at 4:55 is pretty obvious.
Cope
On top of what Adam is saying which is 100% correct, there is an additional aspect. Did the attacker have opportunities, which YES, there is another attacker, completely free that he can pass and highly likely to score. There were 2 attackers and 1 defender (which was the keeper) in the moment of the offense.
I feel that Andrew Wiebe is providing the wrong information through an official MLS channel.
@mls I am concerned about this level of information to the public. No wonder there are problems with referees at a youth level, if this is what is broadcasted to the public through your official channel.
Re: Cincinnati DOGSO. This is absolutely DOGSO. "Toward goal" does not mean only the goal box. As long as his movement isn't towards the corner, he can very easily take a goal-scoring opportunity from the edges of the 18. The was only one recovering defender. The closest one got beat and was about to be 5 ft behind. The next closest was 10 ft behind and could have only closed the next 5 ft. It was about to be an open shot on goal from the 18 yard box.
You made all the same judgements in the McVey Red card except the closest defender was even closer to the attacker.
He is moving straight into the box. He is by no means moving away from the goal as Webe is claiming, but Webe is a moron who proves himself to be week after week. He was in on goal if not for being grappled and tossed to the ground. @Soccerrockker6 you are correct, this is 100% DOGSO. No one is going to catch him at all and he also had a free runner in the attack along side him on the opposite end of the box. But like I said, Webe is a moron of epic proportions who doesn't even understand the laws of the game that he has printed in front of him and that he is displaying on the screen. Absolutely absurd that they allow him to continue to host this segment.
Cry.
The kick to the face at the end was WILD. I feel so bad for Taylor, but I agree that it was probably not deliberate.
Dribbling into the box in any direction is considered towards goal.
I don't agree with the Evander yellow, also you can see #19 go down and instantly get back up and yell at Evander. I think Tigres was milking the ref.
Evander - attempted 'strike', he lashed out in frustration
The Bunbury first call was harsh.
Dogso Cincy game - 2 blue v 1 red . . . simple opportunity for pass to the open man. It's a definite opportunity in my book
Bunbury doesn't make contact with he goalie. The other angle shows a gab between the 2.
Ref needs a red card for him
3:45 Couldnt have been a more obvious dogso lol
😂 boupendza clearly gets pulled and a fan in the crowd starts shaking his hand no.
Urhe situation was interesting. After review, QRO didn’t even get the free kick for the foul and Philly started play again. Not sure how that is possible.
but the yellow stood?
If the ref deemed QRO was guilty of a foul, that would stop play with the restart being a free kick for Philly. If a subsequent misconduct by Philly occurred directly after the foul, the ref could give a yellow, but it wouldn't change that the foul by QRO was what stopped play. The fact that the misconduct is more "severe" than the foul doesn't change who gets the restart either.
I'm skeptical that's what's happening here, but if the ref determined there was a bang bang play of Mendoza coming through the back of Uhre, and then Uhre elbowing Mendoza, a yellow for Uhre and a Philly restart would be correct.
@@corytoews5222 got it. Very helpful. Thanks
Nothing about the handball PK in the Chivas match?
Off course not, they're on MLS side bro
@@dagosegovia843 its obvious this video was recorded before that match concluded.
@@avencia1290 yet they included the red card to chivas? Mind you the hand ball happened in the part of the match before it was suspended, I like MLS, I live in the states and am a season ticket holder for my club, but come on, its suspicious af
@@brianaragon2109 Yeah I mean he should've included the potential handball but as a ref I can confirm that isn't a handball. He's tucking his arm back in and it's to his side and essentially on his body when it makes contact, arm is in a natural position (note I don't give a damn about either Cincy or Chivas, this is my unbiased opinion). Offsides call is a lot harder to tell, I genuinely can't with the camera angle
It’s not a handball
Red right off the bat! Serious foul play. He knew dudes head was gonna be there and threw the arm out.
He pulled his arm down! He’s trying to chest the ball and he doesn’t make contact with the face! No card!
It’s like we’re not watching the same video. He’s throwing his arm/body toward the opponent. No attempt at ball whatsoever.
I'm not sure how you can say with a straight face the first DOGSO (for CIN) was not towards goal but the 2nd one (DAL) was. The 2nd one was played 'away from goal' more so than the first one.
This comment hurts your attempt at credibility, Andrew. The ball is 2 to 3 yards in front of him when he's fouled moving slightly off frame. These are professional athletes; not elephants. Trying to claim this wasn't in the direction of the goal is not how this law should be interpreted. And, no, the other defender would not have caught up if the attacker hadn't been body slammed. This is 100% why DOGSO exists.
Definitely wasn't DOGSO in the chivas game the ball was going to the right after he touched it
And I love how they failed to mention the clear offsides on the 3rd goal leagues cup is favoring all the MLS teams by a clear and wide margin
Alex Muyl handball was crap, he was being pushed from behind.
I looked at that a few times before seeing you ask about it b/c on first look I was wondering the same thing. In the end, I don't think there's enough there for a push. The momentum of the play was the wrong direction. The defender was moving back into the attacker just as much as the attacker was moving to play the ball, and it simply wasn't enough either way.
This is the most I've agreed with the andrew wiebes opinions in a long time
The pk? The offside of Cincinnati on the 3rd goal
He wasn’t offsides. There’s a few pictures with the var lines that have him onsides
With the delay taylor got sitches during the game. I don't think much was said either way on it but it was highly sus and a violent act that should have been reviewed but didn't due to the weather.
Viva los Tigres ❤
Kamara goal is a no goal. Dangerous.
Not really because Kamara is playing the ball and the defender is not.
@@attktitan6057 still dangerous. Doesn’t matter that he is playing the ball. His actions endangered the safety of another player.
@@mattwilson152 Defender initiated the contact by running into Kamara. Kamara was their first and making a soccer play. Should be a good goal
@@brianneumann1703 I disagree. Kamara kicks out on his header with his foot in a dangerous and unnatural position. Studs exposed striking the opponent in the face. Cautionable offense there.
@@mattwilson152 This is a good point, there's no reason Kamara should be kicking his leg out for that header. It was purely a redirect and didn't require a karate kick to reach
That 2nd Yellow on Evander was horseshit. There HAS to be a major penalty for diving like Tigres was doing all throughout the game. You can't judge these plays in isolation. Evander doesn't even make CONTACT with the Tigres defender, or if he does it is negligible at best and not worthy of the hysterics the defender pulls. That's not a foul under ANY circumstance, much less a second yellow. Should Evander have been more careful? Sure. But the referee HAS to manage the game better than this, and the leagues need to start suspending players for multiple games for clear embellishment like this. There's not a single person on the planet who isn't a Tigres fan who thinks the reaction by the defender was appropriate, and the fact that he gets REWARDED for such theatrics is why soccer/futbol is seen as a second rate sport.
doesn't matter if contact is negligible in this case, Evander clearly did that on purpose and that alone makes it a yellow. The ref didn't mess up there, Evander did
@@brianaragon2109 That's BS and you know it. He's trying to pull a swim move to advance on the ball. It happens 100x a game. You can't give a yellow for that everytime a player pulls a swim move or every player would be sent off. And yes, negligible contact IS a factor for a second yellow. You can't ruin an entire game because a player got grazed AT BEST, flopped like he got shot and then starts throwing a hissy fit like a toddler.
I completely agree with you . . . notice the Tigres player embellishing, and pleading for a yellow; when it's awarded, he's suddenly a-ok . . .it's a miracle(!), he's completely healed! (Newsflash: there was negligible contact, nothing to 'heal'.)
Outrageous. I, too, hate it in both soccer (and basketball) when players draw fouls by acting or embellishing. It's a disservice to, and disrespectful of the game. And rewarding players for doing it is ruining the integrity of the game.
@@kylewilson2819 come on mate, the ball is 5 meters away at that point. I'm not even a fan of Tigres and I don't like flopping either but that was a yellow
The first yellow looks bogus if you ask me! He brings the arm down, is trying to chest the ball, and makes no contact with the head!
Evander deserved the yellows... However his opponent really milked it. Then comes crying and running to the ref. Grow up! Lol you have a right to be upset but don't be a drama queen.
Your interpretation of some of the Laws are atrocious man. I mean at least consult with an actual ref before hand instead of misleading all these casuals who watch your vids
Suggest that you be specific so the 'casuals' know which to question.
3:55 he was the last defender and because of that it is a automatic red card
last defender fouls are not always automatic reds, they are only automatic reds if the attacker has or will gain control of the ball, is moving towards the goal, and is close enough to the goal that no other defenders will have a chance to catch up with him
Love seeing salty chivas fan cry in the comments 🤣🤣🤣🤣
la liga teams are so painful to watch, spend most of the game on the ground
Refs are super MLS sided in the Chivas game and in general. That said, the Chivas played recklessly and dangerously and very much deserved to get punished for it.
Still, it's sad to see LMX bend over backwards for MLS, sacrificing their teams for broadcast money.
refs love FCC. They get countless calls going their way...
Conveniently not talking about Hand ball against Cincinnati vs Chivas, the illegal pass back to the keeper. And the offsides goal from Brandon Vásquez 😂 I lost respect for this league with these blatant refereeing bias.
"I lost respect for this league with these blatant refereeing bias." Not sure what 'league' you're referring to given this is a tournament between 2 leagues. If you're trying to say this is MLS related, that's even funnier given that referee, Pineda, is from Costa Rica and has never refereed an MLS game before in his life.
Weibe, please learn that intent does not matter AT ALL. In anything.
they have an awker way of playing resulting in fauls.
They shouldn’t give red card for dogso in the box because you still have a chance with a penalty
The rules say that a dogso does not result in a red card if the foul results in a penalty kick unless the foul was on purpose, wasn’t playing the ball, or was endangering the safety of the opponent.
Law 12: "Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offender is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball or a challenge for the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling, pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.), the offending player must be sent off."
What is the "judgement call" with Micael? It doesn't matter if he is "attempting" to kick the ball or not. He straight up kicked the the attacking player from behind in the KNEE! FROM BEHIND! There is no judgement to be made. There is no justification to kick someone from behind in the knee inside of your own penalty box (or anywhere on the pitch). He went in with absolutely no regard for the safety of his opponent at all. 🟥
if a player is attempting to play the ball and gets called for DOGSO in the penalty area, the punishment is a yellow. if a player is not attempting to play the ball and gets called for DOGSO in the penalty area, the punishment is a red. that is the judgement that they are referring to.
"He went in with absolutely no regard for the safety of his opponent at all." Unless there is excess force or brutality, this would be considered a reckless foul, which is a yellow. Excess force or brutality elevates a reckless foul (yellow) to serious foul play (red) and while it is a judgement as to whether or not this play had excess force (it definitely does not have brutality), I think you'd be really hard pressed to argue it.
@@MoviesUnderTheSurface Yes, the laws states that "Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offender is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball or a challenge for the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling, pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.), the offending player must be sent off." That is a direct quote from Law 12. My point is simply this, he straight up kicked the attacking player in the knee from behind. There is little argument to be made that he was attempting to play the ball then he was that far behind the play and the ball sure as hell was not at the level of the players knee (it was still on the ground). He was attempting to stop the player from getting a clear shot on target, which he succeeded at. That is where I disagree with him about the judgement call issue. Does that make it more clear?
@@paulmiller7838 yes but its still a judgement call, you just have a different judgement than the ref