As a Brazilian, I loved this video!!! The are so much trouble regarding VAR here in Brazil. i wish this kind of video should be posted by CBF to clarify all the VAR situation on the pitch. Of course, maybe not every single one, but at least the most controversial ones, so audience would understand better their standards, if there is any. Hats up to MLS and to the staff involved in such a clear and well executated class! Congrats guys, keep on going! I usually foolow the matches on Apple+, but you guys definetly got a fan here in RUclips too! I wish I could work with that to enjoy it even more! Huge fan!
This series is popular, but PRO referees do a better series for understanding what's going on with VAR - theirs includes audio of the center ref talking to the VAR, multiple angles, and better explanation of what the refs are looking for in each call. It's definitely worth a watch.
@@swbaxter13 Completely agree re PRO videos! They are the ... pro-fessionals. I am just a referee nerd who tries to be as educated and fair as I can while giving MY OPINION, which doesn't reflect the stance of the league or PRO.
@@andrewwiebe9402 Andrew, if you don't do actual officiating you should, that is a great way to get even more knowledgeable about the LOTG. But in these videos you are generally applying rules correctly and intelligently, not like the idiots online who quote IFAB to sound smart but completely misinterpret them or apply them completely incorrectly.
@@andrewwiebe9402 Have you thought of becoming a referee? I hear top MLS official Daniel Radford is ready to help mold officials in his image in US Youth Soccer! Join up and learn from the best!
I don't think the kick foul just outside the penalty area was what negated the goal. Something happened later right about the penalty spot that caused a defender to go down, and stay down. That player being down was certainly relevant to the goal being scored.
@@hobinrood710 maybe on tv. I was at the Nashville game on Saturday no one in our section knew why the second review resulted in a goal. We saw the official raise his flag for offside. Then it got reviewed and it was a goal. Not once was there a replay that played in the stadium of what happened. All that happened was that the referee said it was a good goal. When I watched this video it made sense of what transpired. Other sports announce the play being reviewed and they give a statement on if it stands or if the call was changed. What is your argument against better transparency? Cause the only thing I can think of is that you’re a contrarian.
@@LlamaVomit No I just think it should be done in the way the premier league does it. The scoreboard shows it's under review and shows the clip. It's done the same at LAFC games usually. Sometimes play just keeps going though and that shouldn't be taken away from the game.
Also Andrew unfortunately your claim at 4:20 is incorrect. The new IFAB LOTG in practice says that a defender has to make a deliberate play on the ball to reset offside. This deflection off the knee does not reset offside. Unfortunately your video does not show who played the ball in the drop zone in the penalty area after the cross. Hopefully PRO Inside Video Review or The Definitive Angle will show the VAR discussions and camera angles they have on this play.
Inside video review released today shows that this call was correct. Ball in drop zone came off of a defender, and all attackers were onside from the original kick point
He isn't considered to be in an offside position though because the last time St.Louis touched the ball was the corner kick. I think the rule you are thinking of is if a STL player had touched the ball after the initial corner kick. In that case Niko should have been called offside for interfering with the keeper even if he never touched the ball.
My thought exactly, Gioacchini goes for the ball and misses it, it then bounces off the defender who never saw it. So firstly, not even an intentional play of the ball so Gioacchini is still offside by letter of the law, secondly Gioacchini impedes the defender by making a play on the ball (even if he misses it) who would’ve had an easy clearance. Can’t believe that goal stood.
Well he isn't impeding the keeper as the ball was coming from the keepers right and Gioacchini was on the keepers left. HOWEVER, he was impeding with the defender who put the ball off of him and into the net. According to Law 11 of the game: "2. Offside offence 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 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 So when you re-watch the play Gioacchini sticks his leg out at the ball after stepping in front of #22. Thus he is A). Challanging an opponent for the ball, B). clearly attempting to play the ball, C). preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball. By the very law of the game this is 100% offside. Webe is an idiot who doesn't know what he is talking about on ANY of these videos and proves it every single week. At least Charlie would actually pop up the actual law and break it down frame by frame and point out why it should or should not have stood but Webe just makes the most ignorant claims ever.
@@paulmiller7838 Your analysis would be relevant if a St Louis player had touched the ball while Gioacchhini was in an offside position, but when the last touch by a team mate of Gioachhini occurred, all the St. Louis players were in onside positions.
@@paulmiller7838 is right on. The deflection off the defender into the forward's arm is a red herring. He WAS offside at the moment of the shot into the goal area, and he impeded the defender trying to play the ball (barely missed), and he had contact with the defender, which by the LOTG he's gaining an advantage in an offside position. Goal should have been disallowed, like the AR flagged it in the first place.
Maldonado’s ill-advised slide was a penalty. But the part I wish Andrew or someone would talk about is this: it took about 4 minutes for VAR and the ref to decide it was a penalty. If it takes that long, how in the world is it “clear and obvious”?
The third foul I saw a deflection off of Shelton after looking a couple days later. Initially I didn’t see it during the game and agreed with the foul, though.
Hi! As a football referee, I need to correct you on something. In the first play, diving sooner to get the PK actually IS a violation. It is an attempt to fool the referee and it comes BEFORE the contact. There is a Law for this: attempting to fool the referee by either completely faking something or just taking advantage of something (e.g. this contact) to get rewarded. It comes before the contact, so, ACTUALLY, no PK but an offensive foul AND a yellow card for the attacker.
Andrew at 5:40 you say "is he playing the ball?" You agree anyway, but DOGSO PKs are generally VERY lenient on what is considered "playing the ball". Basically anywhere in the vicinity of the ball will get you "playing the ball" to avoid unnecessary sendoffs.
I disagree with the Nashville St Louis goal! The defender has to deliberately play the ball and the defender does NOT deliberately play the ball! This goal should’ve stayed disallowed!
It doesn't matter whether the defender intentionally played the ball because the last touch by a St Louis teammate was the cross - at which point ALL the St Louis players are in an onside position.
@@johnmcgimpsey1825 Gotcha! I thought the attacker got his head to the ball and that the deflection Wiebe was talking about was the Nashville player to Gio!
Many of these situations every week only exemplify my biggest gripe with VAR: It's still very subjective. Too often, all VAR does is use up a bunch of time only to result in a subjective opinion call anyway. Is it really worth damaging the flow of the game? Honestly, can you even celebrate a goal anymore without anxiously wondering if VAR will occupy us for the next 5 minutes? What's "clear and obvious" to one person is certainly not "clear and obvious" to another. Yes... I am the old guy shouting "get off my lawn" at VAR.
"It's still very subjective". Yes, foul contact is subjective. The most "objective" part of soccer refereeing is offside, you're either on or off, and even that can get subjective based on which frame the kick point is taken and if the 2LD and offside player are so close to determine where the 2LD ends and attacker begins. This is what makes refereeing contact sports so difficult. Just like in baseball, the strike zone is an "objective" box, and even if they go to robo-umps, people will still complain about certain calls.
I agreed with this point but VAR saw it never touched a St Louis player so he can't be in an offside position unless his own team last touched in the box
That offsides call in the Nashville and st Louis game was offsides ima have to disagree with you. Even tho the ball does come off the Nashville player you have to keep in mind that that was not an intentional pass, the ball was deflected off the defender not intentional at all therefore offsides
I hate to say it, but you need to go back to the rules on the Nashville, St. Louis game. The Nashville player did not have an opportunity to play the ball. It's clearly a deflection off his knee, which mean that the offsides is not negated. Offsides, no goal.
I actually wondered if the referee crew was looking at the first touch in the box after the cross. I haven't seen an angle to see who got that touch, but if it was Muyl making a deliberate play on the ball (before Bauer's non-deliberate touch), Gioacchini being in an offside position wouldn't matter and the goal would stand. Even with the new definition of "deliberate", it's hard for me to argue that Bauer deliberately played the ball, but I might not be up to speed on how that rule is being interpreted now.
I don't think the deliberate play on the ball matters here. If it never touched a STL player then the offside line would be based on when the ball was kicked from the corner. Niko was onside then, so the play continues.
@@rileyneuville39 That still doesn't matter. He was offside well before the deflection into his arm. He was offside at the moment his teammate passed the ball into the goal area, challenging a player for the ball, trying to make a play on the ball, and obstructing a defender from playing the ball. Any one of those puts him in an offside offence, thus the goal is disallowed. The deflection and handling thereafter is irrelevant.
I'll say it again: I miss Christina. It's too bad that she was seen by MLS/Apple as too valuable to waste on IR (although maybe she could go host Wrap-Up so I can stop cringing every time I hear an American TV show host pronounce "unbeaten" as "un-bee-en"). Despite my schadenfreude towards SKC, Hot Take Instant Replay has become an anachronism to me.
As a Brazilian, I loved this video!!! The are so much trouble regarding VAR here in Brazil. i wish this kind of video should be posted by CBF to clarify all the VAR situation on the pitch. Of course, maybe not every single one, but at least the most controversial ones, so audience would understand better their standards, if there is any. Hats up to MLS and to the staff involved in such a clear and well executated class! Congrats guys, keep on going! I usually foolow the matches on Apple+, but you guys definetly got a fan here in RUclips too! I wish I could work with that to enjoy it even more! Huge fan!
This series is popular, but PRO referees do a better series for understanding what's going on with VAR - theirs includes audio of the center ref talking to the VAR, multiple angles, and better explanation of what the refs are looking for in each call. It's definitely worth a watch.
@@swbaxter13 Completely agree re PRO videos! They are the ... pro-fessionals. I am just a referee nerd who tries to be as educated and fair as I can while giving MY OPINION, which doesn't reflect the stance of the league or PRO.
@@andrewwiebe9402 Andrew, if you don't do actual officiating you should, that is a great way to get even more knowledgeable about the LOTG. But in these videos you are generally applying rules correctly and intelligently, not like the idiots online who quote IFAB to sound smart but completely misinterpret them or apply them completely incorrectly.
The problem in MLS is that the referees are so prideful that they constantly reject VAR evidence that they were wrong.
@@andrewwiebe9402 Have you thought of becoming a referee? I hear top MLS official Daniel Radford is ready to help mold officials in his image in US Youth Soccer! Join up and learn from the best!
More leagues should do this. I hear so much unanswered discourse about VAR decisions in the Dutch eredivisie and this would really help
so if an attacking phase of play lasts, say, 15 minutes, we could go 15 minutes back in time to call the foul? Absurd use of VAR.
I don't think the kick foul just outside the penalty area was what negated the goal. Something happened later right about the penalty spot that caused a defender to go down, and stay down. That player being down was certainly relevant to the goal being scored.
8:00 “Abusing the Referees is just not okay.”
I 100% agree. They’re just human. Like us. They’re trying their hardest. It’s not easy.
With VAR, there should be no reason to abuse the referees anymore
Andrew, you are getting so good at knowing the laws and applying them correctly. You can ref one of my games any day! Thanks! (From a Ref)
They need to show live VAR reviews in the stadium. There’s no explanation or video showing the replay after the call.
Yes but no. Just show the clip and if its yes or no.
An explanation isn't really needed if you're watching the game.
@@hobinrood710 maybe on tv. I was at the Nashville game on Saturday no one in our section knew why the second review resulted in a goal. We saw the official raise his flag for offside. Then it got reviewed and it was a goal. Not once was there a replay that played in the stadium of what happened. All that happened was that the referee said it was a good goal. When I watched this video it made sense of what transpired.
Other sports announce the play being reviewed and they give a statement on if it stands or if the call was changed.
What is your argument against better transparency? Cause the only thing I can think of is that you’re a contrarian.
@@LlamaVomit No I just think it should be done in the way the premier league does it. The scoreboard shows it's under review and shows the clip. It's done the same at LAFC games usually. Sometimes play just keeps going though and that shouldn't be taken away from the game.
Also Andrew unfortunately your claim at 4:20 is incorrect. The new IFAB LOTG in practice says that a defender has to make a deliberate play on the ball to reset offside. This deflection off the knee does not reset offside. Unfortunately your video does not show who played the ball in the drop zone in the penalty area after the cross. Hopefully PRO Inside Video Review or The Definitive Angle will show the VAR discussions and camera angles they have on this play.
Inside video review released today shows that this call was correct. Ball in drop zone came off of a defender, and all attackers were onside from the original kick point
Maybe I'm wrong but I thought since he was in a offside position he is impeding the keeper from making a play even though it came off his own player
He isn't considered to be in an offside position though because the last time St.Louis touched the ball was the corner kick. I think the rule you are thinking of is if a STL player had touched the ball after the initial corner kick. In that case Niko should have been called offside for interfering with the keeper even if he never touched the ball.
My thought exactly, Gioacchini goes for the ball and misses it, it then bounces off the defender who never saw it. So firstly, not even an intentional play of the ball so Gioacchini is still offside by letter of the law, secondly Gioacchini impedes the defender by making a play on the ball (even if he misses it) who would’ve had an easy clearance. Can’t believe that goal stood.
Well he isn't impeding the keeper as the ball was coming from the keepers right and Gioacchini was on the keepers left. HOWEVER, he was impeding with the defender who put the ball off of him and into the net.
According to Law 11 of the game:
"2. Offside offence
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 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
So when you re-watch the play Gioacchini sticks his leg out at the ball after stepping in front of #22. Thus he is A). Challanging an opponent for the ball, B). clearly attempting to play the ball, C). preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball. By the very law of the game this is 100% offside. Webe is an idiot who doesn't know what he is talking about on ANY of these videos and proves it every single week. At least Charlie would actually pop up the actual law and break it down frame by frame and point out why it should or should not have stood but Webe just makes the most ignorant claims ever.
@@paulmiller7838 Your analysis would be relevant if a St Louis player had touched the ball while Gioacchhini was in an offside position, but when the last touch by a team mate of Gioachhini occurred, all the St. Louis players were in onside positions.
@@paulmiller7838 is right on. The deflection off the defender into the forward's arm is a red herring. He WAS offside at the moment of the shot into the goal area, and he impeded the defender trying to play the ball (barely missed), and he had contact with the defender, which by the LOTG he's gaining an advantage in an offside position. Goal should have been disallowed, like the AR flagged it in the first place.
For once I agree with Vermes...
Maldonado’s ill-advised slide was a penalty. But the part I wish Andrew or someone would talk about is this: it took about 4 minutes for VAR and the ref to decide it was a penalty. If it takes that long, how in the world is it “clear and obvious”?
The third foul I saw a deflection off of Shelton after looking a couple days later. Initially I didn’t see it during the game and agreed with the foul, though.
Hi! As a football referee, I need to correct you on something.
In the first play, diving sooner to get the PK actually IS a violation. It is an attempt to fool the referee and it comes BEFORE the contact. There is a Law for this: attempting to fool the referee by either completely faking something or just taking advantage of something (e.g. this contact) to get rewarded.
It comes before the contact, so, ACTUALLY, no PK but an offensive foul AND a yellow card for the attacker.
I wanna be a ref! But i dont see the link! Wheres the link??
For those interested, the US soccer "Pro" channel goes behind the scenes into VAR called "Inside Video Review"
Way to not show the goal they disallowed for LAFC 😂
for real!
Wasn't needed bossman. It wasn't controversial. It was obvious once the replay came on
Andrew at 5:40 you say "is he playing the ball?" You agree anyway, but DOGSO PKs are generally VERY lenient on what is considered "playing the ball". Basically anywhere in the vicinity of the ball will get you "playing the ball" to avoid unnecessary sendoffs.
That Jack Mayer foul 100% shoulda been a PK and a Yellow card. Nashville definitely got the nicer calls.
I was at that dc game screaming for fletchers pk. He grabbed him. It was soft but he still made contact.
5:10 I guess the area approximately 4” above the elbow isn’t part of the arm. Good to know.
Edit: changed in to the
He also tried to kick the ball that makes the play null. I don't get it
When the corner was taken, he was onside. That is the last time STL touched the ball
But Khiry Shelton got the ball...
Obviously I'm biased as a Nashville fan but I feel the ball pretty clearly comes off of Gioacchini's elbow.
last skc one is a crazy call he gets ball and hits on the follow through how is that a foul?
I disagree with the Nashville St Louis goal! The defender has to deliberately play the ball and the defender does NOT deliberately play the ball! This goal should’ve stayed disallowed!
It doesn't matter whether the defender intentionally played the ball because the last touch by a St Louis teammate was the cross - at which point ALL the St Louis players are in an onside position.
@@johnmcgimpsey1825 Gotcha! I thought the attacker got his head to the ball and that the deflection Wiebe was talking about was the Nashville player to Gio!
Gioacchini is Mr. Embellishment
Many of these situations every week only exemplify my biggest gripe with VAR: It's still very subjective. Too often, all VAR does is use up a bunch of time only to result in a subjective opinion call anyway. Is it really worth damaging the flow of the game? Honestly, can you even celebrate a goal anymore without anxiously wondering if VAR will occupy us for the next 5 minutes? What's "clear and obvious" to one person is certainly not "clear and obvious" to another. Yes... I am the old guy shouting "get off my lawn" at VAR.
"It's still very subjective". Yes, foul contact is subjective. The most "objective" part of soccer refereeing is offside, you're either on or off, and even that can get subjective based on which frame the kick point is taken and if the 2LD and offside player are so close to determine where the 2LD ends and attacker begins. This is what makes refereeing contact sports so difficult. Just like in baseball, the strike zone is an "objective" box, and even if they go to robo-umps, people will still complain about certain calls.
Did the St Louis player not affect the goalie saving the ball interfering with him and being in an offside position should be called no?
I agreed with this point but VAR saw it never touched a St Louis player so he can't be in an offside position unless his own team last touched in the box
@@nickychicky562 It is not a touch, it is intentionally playing the ball. I did not see an intentional play of the ball
Wiebe should never do these again because all he does is lick MLS's boots. Imagine defending that Aaron Long dive
Wiebe nails all of them this week. He’s been doing this show long enough PRO probably should hire him as a consultant lol
Bro said Shelton didn’t get the ball at all… bro he kicked the ball clearly how you so blind???
The goal should be allowed
That offsides call in the Nashville and st Louis game was offsides ima have to disagree with you. Even tho the ball does come off the Nashville player you have to keep in mind that that was not an intentional pass, the ball was deflected off the defender not intentional at all therefore offsides
That stuff was bull
I hate to say it, but you need to go back to the rules on the Nashville, St. Louis game. The Nashville player did not have an opportunity to play the ball. It's clearly a deflection off his knee, which mean that the offsides is not negated. Offsides, no goal.
This was the old suggested rule, but is not the new interpretation of offside that was cleared for this year.
I actually wondered if the referee crew was looking at the first touch in the box after the cross. I haven't seen an angle to see who got that touch, but if it was Muyl making a deliberate play on the ball (before Bauer's non-deliberate touch), Gioacchini being in an offside position wouldn't matter and the goal would stand. Even with the new definition of "deliberate", it's hard for me to argue that Bauer deliberately played the ball, but I might not be up to speed on how that rule is being interpreted now.
I don't think the deliberate play on the ball matters here. If it never touched a STL player then the offside line would be based on when the ball was kicked from the corner. Niko was onside then, so the play continues.
@@rileyneuville39 That still doesn't matter. He was offside well before the deflection into his arm. He was offside at the moment his teammate passed the ball into the goal area, challenging a player for the ball, trying to make a play on the ball, and obstructing a defender from playing the ball. Any one of those puts him in an offside offence, thus the goal is disallowed. The deflection and handling thereafter is irrelevant.
The last time his team touched the ball was the corner kick. He could not be offsides.
On skc
I'll say it again: I miss Christina. It's too bad that she was seen by MLS/Apple as too valuable to waste on IR (although maybe she could go host Wrap-Up so I can stop cringing every time I hear an American TV show host pronounce "unbeaten" as "un-bee-en").
Despite my schadenfreude towards SKC, Hot Take Instant Replay has become an anachronism to me.