Mark-Anthony Kaye red card correct? Should Matt Miazga been issued a yellow during PK shootout?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 окт 2024
- Andrew Wiebe is back for another edition of Instant Replay. Do you agree with his analysis on the most controversial plays of the Round 1 - Match 2.
📺 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....
➡️ Subscribe Now: / mls
➡️ Follow us on:
TikTok: www.tiktok.com...
Instagram: / mls
Twitter: / mls
Like us on Facebook: / mls
For more information about MLS, go to the league's official website: www.MLSsoccer.com
#mls #highlights #mlsseasonpass
I have to disagree with the take on the Ruidiaz (non) foul. The reliance on the "Philosophy and Spirit" section is misplaced because it specifically states, "where there is no direct provision in the Laws." There is an applicable provision in the Laws and it specifically states that a direct free kick is awarded if a player holds an opponent, and such an offense within the penalty area results in a penalty kick. Also, I disagree that soccer "wants/expects" Ferreira to be rewarded for blatantly commiting a foul inside the penalty area?
IR spread a thick layer of BS to get to text actually in the LOTG. That has proven to fool most.
New defensive tactic, just shove down every player in the box who is off the ball. Don't even allow them to stand up again. If they're off the ball, it isn't a foul. Gotta start hiring goons for centerbacks.
On the missed call on Ruidiaz, the case where we have no provision in the laws does not apply. We have Law 12, which says that holding an opponent is a foul. Ignoring a clear foul because you believe it was unlikely (but not even impossible! Goalkeepers drop crosses under pressure all the time) to affect the play ignores Law 12 and just comes up with a new standard entirely.
I agree that the ball was never going to make it to Ruidiaz, but the sticking point for me is this: At the time he committed the foul Ferreira did not know the ball wasn't making it through. As far as he knew, Ruidiaz was about to get a clear shot on goal, and he pulled his jersey to keep him from getting to the play. To me, that's a cynical and obvious foul, and should be a pk. That being said, I also see the other side of the argument, and I think when you get down to it I'm comfortable with the ref choosing to stick with his initial call on the field.
Goalies drop balls all the time. By pulling down Ruidiaz, Ferreira took him out of any possibility of involvement.
Also, being able to play the ball is not a consideration for a penalty. If it were, then the defense could just take out every player in the box who is off the ball. It's a missed call. The VAR had it right but the ref on the field was too proud to change his call.
If Miazga did it very quickly, I'd say harsh, but he kept going even after the ref tried to herd him away, that's on him.
Yep. And as he continued, he started walking towards the goalie. That added context of jeering in the goalies face doesn’t bode well for him either.
This is why he's not on the national team instead of Zimmerman or Robinson - same exact size, speed, skill, and defensive abilities - he's even more experienced having been trained overseas. He's an idiot.
Snowflakes
@@lopoa126 He's a moron and here's why. He taunted the crowd while he was sitting on a yellow. Very stupid move and he's let his team down. About an hour after all of that he thought it would be a good idea to go into the officials locker room. Not very bright.
I'm so tired of players surrounding the ref on every call, and of managers freaking out at the same time. Go back to only allowing Captains to address the referee and everyone else who reacts that way gets a yellow. This behavior is copied down to the youth levels and it's a blemish on the beautiful game.
100% agree.
I also 100% agree. I would add that "diving" has become routine and should get punished with yellow cards much more frequently.
This 100% is what needs to be done. A prime example of how referees should be addressed and respected is the game of Rugby. These behemoths who bludgeon each other still have respect for the refs and if not will be given a penalty.
"the ref shouldn't give miazga a yellow because he'll miss the conference semis" is a hell of a take. A yellow card is a yellow card. Miazga knew what he was doing
Agree 100%. I also hate when a second yellow isn't given because a player already has a yellow in a game.
This was Miazga's second yellow in the game. Is it not a red because it is in the penalty shootout? That seems weird.
AND he kept doing it.
@@zork999 IFAB revised the rule for yellow cards during penalties in 2020 so that they "start fresh" - ironically, MLS's policy of waiting until the next season to implement IFAB changes resulted in the Gallese red card during the infamous Orlando-NYCFC shootout in the 2020 playoffs.
Who cares about the stakes. Ref was well within the laws of the game to give Miazga a yellow. Love to see it.
ABSOLUTELY A PK by Ferreira fouling Ruidiaz. Center ref is flat out wrong, by the laws of the game. It doesn't matter that it isn't getting to him, by the laws of the game. It's a foul in the box all day long, and the spirit of the laws is "you cannot commit fouls in the box".
Hope PRO highlights this review on their Inside Video Review segment tomorrow. Would love to hear that conversation between the center and the VAR booth.
If you look in isolation the two Laryea shouts, I'm fine with the first one not being a call, but you can see Laryea was pushed forward on the second one enough that it changed his run and knocked him off the ball. Should probably be called.
But if you look at the two shouts based on the precedent set with the penalty that WAS called earlier in the match, they should definitely be called.
You say Vancouver was frustrated by the penalty and the pick, but we were more frustrated because the officiating was not consistent the whole night. There should also have been some more yellows for persistent fouls on the night that were not shown.
7:56 Lareyea gets completely cleaned out from behind and that's not clear enough for you Wiebe? Give your head a shake...
Love these Instant Replay recaps but my head hurts from the spin on the Ferreira non-call. For me, a penalty call all day long. The rationale that it didn’t interfere with play blah, blah, blah doesn’t hold water. It is a foul against an opponent by a defender in the defender’s penalty area which is clearly outlined in the Laws to be called a penalty. The suggestion that now a potential foul should not be called if it doesn’t affect play? Ludicrous.
So now we learn that sometimes an obvious foul is not a foul. That would have been called if it had happened on a break outside the box. It would have been a yellow card. But because it's in the box it's not called? Say what?
Definitely a foul on Ferreira. If you actually look at the instant he starts tugging on Rual Ruidiaz it actually is basically impossible to tell whether the ball is going to
1. Get picked off by the keeper
2. Get cleared out by one of Dallas’s defenders
3. Come into the onrushing area of ruidiaz at the back post
Based on that I’d say there was more than enough intent, contact, and a possibility(no matter how small) for ruidiaz to get on to the end of the ball and get a shot off. J
LPT: If the other team has possession in your half, just run over to their goalie and kick him in the nuts. It won't affect the play, so it can't be called.
Controversy drives engagement which powers the algorithm.
The final one, can you explain the difference in 'just delayed his call' and giving advantage? I guess the AR on the far side could have gotten in his ear and told him 100% PK, but that's pretty unlikely. Not giving a hand signal for advantage doesn't mean that's not what he's doing.
In order for advantage to be called, the referee must signal audibly and/or physically. By not doing either, the referee waits to see if an advantage develops. In penalty situations, the only time advantage truly develops is when a goal is scored. So, because there was no advantage here, the initial penalty is called.
There is nothing wrong with waiting and seeing what happens for a few seconds after a foul occurs before calling the foul or advantage. In the PA the only thing that’s going to potentially call advantage is a near clear goal scoring opportunity. Bazakos gives a chance, Doesn’t happen, calls penalty. There is a difference between waiting to call a foul and giving advantage.
@@Not_a_smart_man Actually, per IFAB, there is something wrong with waiting to see if a goal is scored and them coming back and calling a PK if the attack fails.
@@MrCho14 where
Exactly!! He has to call the sooner. Definitely a PK but come on!!
re: raul pull in the box
Uh....we dont need to go off spirit and intent....the rules are pretty fucking clear that a hold in the box is a direct kick.
If we want to play this fun "What would football want/expect". Well it sure as hell isn't making subjective calls on the field. I have a hard hard time agreeing with no foul. Sure it doesn't look like Raul is getting their but gk could fumble it with raul's pressure. Its 100% foul and making a precedent of "oh this foul doesn't matter because x happened" is insane reasoning to me.
Besides the fact that that a foul off the ball is still a foul, the Ferreira/Ruidiaz foul ABSOLUTELY materially affected the game. With the ball position WHERE IT WAS, Ruidiaz running toward the ball would have pressured the defenders/keeper, while the pull meant that Ferreira's teammates had an unpressured play on the ball. Also, misplays happen, and Ruidiaz's specialty is being in a spot to take advantage. That the cross would not have landed at his feet is IMMATERIAL.
That's some impressive mental gymnastics to forgive Ferreira.
I've seen plenty of keepers bobble a cross, or come out and whiff on it when there is another player nearby, which was prevented by a foul in the box.
How was there no comment on the "coming together" of Reyes and Arias in the RBNY/FCC match? Did I miss your review on that one? I've been waiting on your take on that one...
“Delaying his call” in the RSL game? For real? Delaying the call until a shot is taken first is allowing them to play on. That’s rediculous. He got a shot off. It is definitely a PK but the ref allowed double jeopardy. If he had scored it would have been even worse but the ref failed on that one. Just call the PK sooner.
I understand what you're saying, but I don't think you (or Weibe) are actually thinking about advantage the right way. Advantage means that the ref says play on because the team gains a greater advantage from continuing to play than they would have received from the penalizing restart. In a penalty situation, that only ever happens when a goal is scored. So the way you should think about this is that the ref waited for advantage to develop (as they do all the time), and then called the penalty when it didn't.
Your attitude about Miazga is exactly why players continue to be idiots, dissent, and do other unsporting behavior like this. You should be praising referee Rivas for not being soft on Miazga in some unwritten advice to keep players active for the next playoff game. I'm disappointed in your opinion here.
On Raul (Sounders) the foul happens before the goalie has clear control of the ball, it is in the air. When the foul happens there is still a chance that the goalie may drop the ball or never catch it. If it occured after the goalie has possession I can see saying play on. In this sequence this is a clear and obvious error and a penalty should have been awarded.
And if Raul was in goalies face, goalie is less likely to make clean catch or might even not go for the grab if he thinks there is a player close enough. Completely agree that changed the run of the play entirely, even though “away from the ball.”
So Miazga shouldn’t have gotten a card from the ref because it would result in a suspension?
Yeah, terrible take from Wiebe. The ref is supposed to keep track of Miazga's accumulated yellow cards so he doesn't get suspended? How about Miazga keeps track of his own yellow cards and exert some self control and stop being such a troll?
With that logic, refs should never give red cards.
That MAK red 100% shouldve been a yellow. He shouldnt have tried to go over Gazdag but thats what he was trying to do. He clearly tries to avoid stepping on Gazdag. Also if it was a stomp itd have alot more force than it did. Hes literally hopping trying to avoid Gazdag. Also that Atlnta foul on Columbus is clear as day. That not being called is ridiculous. Ref who took out the Vancouver player should be fined and not allowed to ref for a while.
I agree that Laryea's two pen shouts probably shouldn't be given, but if you give the one on Mario Gonzalez is given, then both of Laryea's ones should be given, there was more contact there than there was on Gonzalez
1:08 you can see the angle of his legs... he is intending to take a long stride over Gazdag to get the ball.
Gazdag sticks his arms and legs up, stopping Kaye's movement...
Kaye's left knee collides with Gazdag's leg (see the frame at 1:08.39) stopping the forward movement an sending his leg leftward
he still seems to continue forward, but slower.
1:09.54 Gazdag catches Kaye's foot with his hand, stopping him completely. Maybe he did that on purpose to trip him, maybe he was just instinctively reacting... But Kaye being tripped also instinctively tried to find his footing and unfortunately ended on Gazdag.
_"__1:09__.54 Gazdag catches Kaye's foot with his hand, stopping him completely."_
Confirmed. Can't understand why anyone who has the option to watch this incident frame by frame (use the dot and comma key on your keyboard to do this on RUclips) would decide otherwise. So, IMHO Andrew Wiebe is wrong here.
LAFC were very fortunate to get that penalty call.
Jesus these are even worse calls then the actual refs 🫣🫣
As a Sounders fan Vancouver was flat out robbed. Multiple calls that were beyond terrible. Vancouver certainly deserved a PK in the 46th minute. MLS should be embarrassed that their refs consistently reward ridiculous swan dives and punish players by failing to call fouls when they don't act when pulled or run over.
I think the Sounders were robbed also. Pause at 08:09. the Dallas player is already starting to fall before contact. this is not a PK. A pull in the box is a penalty. MLS instant replay did not even discuss the more obvious no call penalty when again a Sounders player was pulled back, this time by the arm in the 83rd minute.
As a fellow Sounders fan I have to call you out here. Nouhou 100 percent fouled Kamungo on that play and a penalty has to be called. The Sounders were absolutely robbed by the non PK call and the reasoning being given for a jersey tug being within the spirit of the game is absolute bullshit, but I don't know how you can sit here and type that we deserve a penalty for that and Dallas doesn't for getting kicked in the box.
Excellent episode! Funny you mention "Spirit of Football" prevailing for the Dallas tug and not in the Miazga taunting. Unless the MLS wants to adopt the spirit of Pro Wrestling: Miazga yellow -- and pretty close to straight red.
Free play to foul whoever you want in the box so long as they’re not in a goal-scoring position, apparently. Very stupid.
I'm torn on this one. It would be like a handball on a defender who is standing just inside the penalty area on the endline when the ball is being passed away from goal towards the corner flag. Yeah, by definition it's a PK, but is that really what we want to see? The punishment is rather harsh given the impact a PK has on the game. It's why fouls are not always called the same at midfield as they are in the penalty area.
That said, he grabbed the stupid shirt. The defender was being stupid. Why should he be let off?
VAR actually makes this more difficult. Pre-VAR, the center referee could just say 'play-on' and people would say he missed it or didn't see it well. On this play with VAR and an on field review, there's no hiding behind that.
@@MrCho14 Same. As much as I like the no call, grabbing the jersey like that makes it very hard to not call once VAR gets involved.
@@benwblack and @MrCho14 I disagree. Ruidiaz not being able to get to the ball is the reason Ferrera shouldn't grab his jersey. It's not the reason for a no-call. Keepers spill crosses - it happens. He's more likely to spill that cross if Ruidiaz is bearing down on him. If he spills that cross, Ruidiaz would have been in a perfect position to score a goal off the rebound. If Paes had spilled the cross, then would you think the tug on Ruidiaz is a foul because he would clearly have an opportunity at goal? So, whether it's a foul or not depends on the keepers hands? That doesn't feel right.
@@lukeharper8926 Not sure who you are disagreeing with. We both heavily implied that once VAR is involved, it is a PK if you are following the letter of the law.
@@benwblack It sounds like you both think the call shouldn't be made but that VAR makes it difficult not to call it based on technicalities. You literally say, "As much as I like the no call..." It sounds like you're agreeing with Wiebe that a foul in this moment doesn't agree with the "spirit and philosophy" of the game. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you.
I'm saying that I think a PK should be called based on the technical letter of the law and the spirit and philosophy of the game.
So Miazga was shown a yellow card for dissent. Then is shown another yellow card during the PK's. Someone please explain how a player is shown two yellow cards during a game. Doesn't a 2nd yellow mean RED?
Saying Miazga shouldn't receive a yellow card is a questionable take. With high stakes on the line like advancing to the next round of the playoffs, each team should have a fair and equitable chance with minimal BS. Miazga is disregarding that common courtesy to his opponent by continuing to antagonizing the opposition and their fans. As well as, disregarding common courtesy to his own team by continuing to complain to the referees, getting himself suspended for the next match and presumably storming the VAR room after the team (while is not confirmed, it is likely to be Miazga).
For someone that is supposed to be a veteran, he still acts like an immature prospect who thinks that he is better than anyone in the league.
the crew didn’t “get it right” with the Tim Ford hockey check because Vancouver was denied possession of the ball in a dangerous area at the end of the game.
What's the relevance of that in the laws?
I’ll buy that Mark Anthony guy a beer anytime he’s in Philly! Good guy.
These are some of the worst takes ive ever heard in this series. Its time for weibe to give someone else a platform for once.
Agreed
The only people who are torn on the Ferreira tug of Ruidiaz jersey are people who hate the Sounders or Dallas fans. They are torn because they know it is a clear foul and should be given as a pk but they don't want to admit it because they don't want to see us win.
Miazga absolutely deserved the last yellow card, and not just because he is easily the biggest douche in the league. He was clearly taunting the fans. What a classy guy. And did anybody else notice that this idiot can't even make a proper "heart" sign? Hey Matt: thumbs are supposed to point down!
Andrew Wiebe, you missed a review of the hard foul on Arango at about 74'.
"Just delays his call" is hard for me to accept because he immediately blows his whistle after a shot on goal. That's a clear advantage given. The double punishment rule absolutely applies. If that shot had gone in, would he have called it off and still had the PK taken? Absolutely not. Just because he didn't give the exact signal doesn't mean that the advantage wasn't given. It's clear that it was.
Agree 100%. Now we have precedence for all referees. Don't signal advantage in the box and then you can call the play back at any time. 6 seconds, 8 touches later, OH WAIT, I am giving a foul back there. Confused everyone, players, fans, and announcers. Shameful.
He is probably thinking, "Is this actually an advantage?" would it be better to have a PK or a ball going away from the goal with several defenders and the goal keeper between the person with the ball and the shooter? That is not an advantage, so the PK is the advantage. Advantage would be if the ball rolled to a guy on his team to tap it in for the goal. The free goal is the advantage over the PK, but that's not what happened, so he gave the PK. Should have blown it dead before the shot went off once you realize that new situation is worse than the PK would have been I think, so the whistle is late, but I think its okay to wait to see if the ball rolls for a free goal before blowing it even if you know it was a foul.
A shot on goal does not necessarily mean that advantage has ensued. A penalty kick is more advantageous than any shot that does not result in a goal so advantage has not ensued. Also, the Laws maximum time period is "within a few seconds" which is not defined but usually no more than 6 seconds.
The referee: allows play to continue when an offense occurs and the non-offending team will benefit from the advantage, and penalises the offense if the anticipated advantage does not ensue at that time or within a few seconds. Law 5.3 Power and duties"
@@chrismooney4382 But he did wait. And in doing so, allowed advantage and allowed them to get two chances. This is in violation of the rules.
"the non-offending team should not be given two chances, e.g. a player is fouled but recovers and has a shot at goal; if the player does not score, the referee cannot go back and give a free kick for the original offence."
@@11fleek I put the exact quote of the rules of advantage to a reply already. But here it is again.
"the non-offending team should not be given two chances, e.g. a player is fouled but recovers and has a shot at goal; if the player does not score, the referee cannot go back and give a free kick for the original offence."
This clearly states that a shot on goal is an advantage. It's on the ref to evaluate that, and he didn't make the correct call in the moment. That is a judgement call, but allowing the team to have to chances isn't a judgement call, it is against the laws of the game.
You're so wrong... gazdag trips him up and rolls with him....as hes trying to put his foot down
What about Lowe’s elbow to bous face???
Or Lowe not getting a 2nd yellow when he should half? After MAK got that ridiculous Red. He wasn't in control. Where could he have put that foot? He doesn't stomp anyone.
It almost seems like Santos played the ball with his arm prior to the goal, which would lead to a free kick anyway.
I thought the same and tried looking at it closely, but my conclusion was that it was not clear enough, in the angles we had, to say it was.
wtf was gazdag even doing tho? not sayin he deserved to be stomped or anything...
What do you mean by that question? Kaye pulled him down and then stomped on him. What was he supposed to be doing?
@@andymuenz7499 to me it appeared that he over prioritized backing into kaye instead of collecting the ball, he placed his back to the goal and was being clumsy the entire time. he tried to bring the ball down with his chest but failed, did a 180 lost his balance and was rolling into gazdags feet because of his poor attempt to collect the ball. to me that contact wasnt enough to pull him down on stable footing. hence the look on kayes face and his arms up in the air. are we watching the same replay? lmao
@swooooop Gazdag and Kaye had been fouling each other every chance they got. Gazdag definitely was trying to get Kaye a card by diving then rolling. If you watch wasn't really Kate's fault at all.
At the time Jesus gives the foul, he has no idea whether that cross is going to make it to Ruidiaz. Clear PK.
Nah Miazga definitely deserved both yellows. Doesnt matter if itll break your bracket weibe
Proper signal for a foul and goal quite different. Foul is always signalled by a whistle, with directional arm at 45 degrees (and for the example shown a short jog toward the point of infringement and distinct turn to signal a foul would have been helpful). Goal almost always no whistle, with arm extended horizontally pointing to centre spot. Unfortunately officials at all levels get lazy with their signals which can make on-field decisions confusing. Key example is last clip… for me if advantage is being given, signal it. CR putting themselves in a difficult spot to let play continue without advantage indication, shot on goal results and then signalling the penalty.
Tim Ford should never ever been appointed to the LAFC - Caps games as he is essentially biased being from the LA area.
Tim Ford’s horrendous performance on the LAFC-Whitecaps game should be punishable by law
You can tell M.A.K had to step on his chest and try to keep as much weight off as possible. While stepping over with his left, he hits the opponents leg, which haults his progression over.
Vancouver was robbed. Ford should resign.
Mendoza was wrong in Dallas on the no call.
Columbus should've had a pk.
Four playoff games ruined by refs, again PRO needs to discipline their terrible reffing or its not going to get better
I thought the same at first as well, but after that contact he brought his leg back up, looked like he was going to go forward with it, and then brought it back into the chest. It's all slow motion though and all a fraction of a second. In the end, I think it was a harsh call, but I've also seen this in the past where a player seemingly didn't have a good choice but still gets a red.
Is there another recap to watch?
Tolkien’s dive was embarrassing. How much worse do these dives have to be before we start seeing yellow cards for simulation?
How about when a red bull player literally made Arias do a 360 flip and only got a yellow?
Can someone please make a full video analyzing the sounders game, there were so many bad calls, it almost seemed as if the Ted Unkel was paid off. Please can someone break it down.
Please add my voice to those who find your "big picture" take on the Miazga yellow card to be insipid. For the reasons you yourself specified then dismissed, that card was appropriate. The referee manages the game. In the moment. The referee bears no responsibility for the big picture. When Miazaga raised his heart shaped salute, my first and immediate thought was that he risked a caution. My second thought recalled his prior New York background and considered whether he had some leeway. My third thought was that he had more leeway because refs in genral are slow to produce cards in the play-offs. My fourth thought was to be surprised that, after all that thinking, Miazaga was not only STILL gesticulating, he had become more animated. In short, he used up his leeway, Andrew. He is the one who lost the big picture. That the fans were booing and Red Bull players objected satisifies the taunting argument irrespective of the player's intent. The referee, if anything, ought to have stepped in as soon as the heart shaped hands went up. Miazaga's self-serving post game remarks about a tribute are about as silly as "but i was going for the ball" defenses to a foul. Intent doesn't matter when the player's honest effort also took the legs out from under the opponent. And an opponent gesturing toward the home supporters after scoring during a tiebreaker in an elimination match--that's always going to be perceived as taunting. That yellow card was well deserved.
And, frankly, the yellow card after regulation was even dumber. The shootout yellow card is getting all the attention because the third one triggers the accumulation suspension. But screaming at the referee after the match ended served no purpose whatsoever. The heart shaped hands were a spur of the moment response to events. The post match tirade was separated from the event by several minutes, numerous other Cincinnati players were venting, but only the late arriving Miazaga lost his cool so much that his words compelled the referee to brandish a card. Without that earlier yellow card, i dont even think we would be debating the post game taunting.
Where in the laws of the game does it state that the ref is a part of the field? I've looked over them multiple times for this and cannot find it within the Laws...
If you're talking about those actual words, I don't believe it actually states that. If you're asking about whether what the content of what Wiebe said, then he is correct. Law 9 speaks only of the ball hitting the referee. There is no mention of any stoppage anywhere in the situation where a player and referee make contact. As such, play would continue as if the player tripped over the field.
There's a difference between spirit of the law and letter of the law. The referee should stop play in positions where the contact completely stops a promising attack. If an LAFC player did that it'd be a yellow and a free kick. If not, what's to stop any referee from rugby tackling a player and feigning it was an accident? Tim Ford should be punished severely for that incident. No good referee should ever initiate contact on a player. @@MrCho14
@@toottoot3410 What's to stop a referee for purposely tackling a player to give the other team an advantage? Is that really what you're asking? Their ability to ever referee a game again to start with.
I don't disagree that the laws could/should be updated to make this consistent with the ball hitting the referee, but as they stand and always have that's not an option for the referee right now.
@@MrCho14 I mean, if you do it with enough subtlety 🤷♂️
The referee should never physically aid or impede a play by his presence. Any significant impact or ball contact should be a dropped ball.
@@toottoot3410 Their positioning on the field is something that is part of their assessment. Getting hit by a ball or blocking a player in any way is looked down upon by their assessor. Bad assessments mean no advancement of their career and potentially steps downward. Just an odd comment at best in my mind.
Vancover got big screwed by refs. That game was terrible by tim ford
On a jersey pull like that, could you give a yellow without awarding a penalty? So, consider it a case of unsporting behavior and away from the play rather than SPA or DOGSO.
The spirit of the game would be that soccer wants a foul called. If a foul is made, a call should be made. Plain and simple.
Given that he intentionally fouled rui thinking he was burned on the play and had to prevent the free run into the box, regardless of the fact that rui wasn't getting to the ball seems like it shouldn't matter due to how insanely dumb and blatant that jersey pull was. I'll never understand why fouls in the box live by a different criteria than fouls everywhere else on the field
@cameronnessman4412 I feel like the ref had some fear that he would be influencing the game by giving the pen even tho it was the FCD player who decided to commit one of the dumbest most unnecessary fouls I've ever seen
@cameronnessman4412It matters that he likely wasn't going to get the ball because the keeper got the ball and the keeper cannot be challenged once in possession of the ball. That is what distinguishes this pull from a pull in the open field as no one else is offered that protection (the inability to be challenged). If the keeper had bobbled or deflected it, then yeah, that's a penalty. But the keeper caught it cleanly and Ferreira wouldn't have affected that. Hence, trifling.
@@andytretten except the shirt tug happened well before the keeper controlled the ball. Clear, indisputable foul that should have been called.
@@heidimark What happens if there is no shirt tug? The keeper catches the ball and the match continues. Which is exactly what happened with the tug. Hence, trifling (no material impact on the play). I am glad this went to VAR though because there is some chance that PRO will review it in a week or so and chime in with more details.
surprised you didn't talk about when Arias was taken out by a NYRB player....the NYRB just runs right through him and Arias literally does a flip in the air....ref only gave a yellow
FC Cincinnati supporter, I think Miazga deserves both of the cards without a doubt.
MLS is a such a joke. The studs showing tackle should have been a red for such a dangerous play. That second yellow should have been rescinded on Miazga.
That red card is bull. Kaye starts to hop over Gazdag, they clip knees, and Gazdag rolls intentionally into Kaye's direction/momentum. No way that incidental contact on the knee is rolling Gazdag over. Then, in the slow-mo, you can see Kaye's foot continue down towards the ground (also if you watch the knee it literally moved less than 2 inches down) and smoothly out away from Gazdag's body. His foot, even if it brushed the chest, did not land and put weight on Gazdag. He hopped once. Gazdag INTENTIONALLY continued to roll under Kaye, and as Kaye went to step down, noticed Gazdag there, and hopped a second time. Ridiculous red. Kaye tried to AVOID Gazdag.
No Kaye stomped on gazdag. He was planted on his right foot already and he could have hopped on that same leg again to buy more time to avoid gazdag instead he just goes straight down into the player
Maybe Polster shouldn't have announced they planned to injure someone as payback for Carlos Gil getting hurt last game.
If Miazga just did one or two of those “taunts” he’d be fine. Problem is he kept doing it.
Miazga not knowing how to make a heart with his hands is the funniest thing I have seen in a while.
Surprise surprise, Wiebe has no clue what he's talking about.
Vancouver really hard done by the refs...
referees have to give yellow cards to strikers who are trying to get defenders booked or sent off
I feel the callback on the FC Cincy, Santos goal is wrong too. Santos, while backing into the kepper for sure, is moving towards the ball to play. It hits his chest, not his head, but he is playing the ball. He didn't wrap his arm around the keep's arms. He didn't grab jersey. He backed into the keep, while playing the ball. Bad call. Bad take in my opinion.
I agree, mostly. Santos had as much right to play the ball as Coronel, and since he started out closer to the ball if anyone was fouled there it was Santos. But, you have one thing wrong. Santos did not touch the ball until Coronel deflected it into him, after it was already a goal. What Rivas did here was deny an Olympico by calling a foul on the wrong player.
Wasn't Miazga's yellow card during the penalty shootout his second of the game? So then he should have been sent off. No?
nothing about bassi putting his studs into palacios?
Hi, can we get the bookmarks in the video please?
MAK bringing the pain... My man... LOL
Ah yes the spirit of the laws. Good to know the "spirit" of the game allows for fouls off the ball now. I will make sure to tug every players jersey when the ball is no where near them because that's the spirit 🤷♂️
And now the league has suspended miazga for 3 games lmao
why is Gazdag rolling on the ground tho? Typical Philly.
😢
He was on the ground because Kaye had just tugged him down. Typical Boston. Cheat and whine.
Not a Boston fan
Not a Boston fan
The Caps got robbed. Kaye should not have been given red card for that.
I really don’t see how that argument can be made looking at VAR.
talk about sports betting and match fixing in MLS
this channel always caters to the refs man, in no way is that kaye red card a sending off, and i especially hate when referees put fouls in slow motion instead of watching in real time, always makes the foul look 10x worse
I thought Wiebe was harsh on Rivas for the yellow trying to say it could have been handled differently. He certainly wasn't catering there.
As for Kaye, I'd like to have seen another angle, but what I see is that Kaye brought that left leg back up looking like he was going to continue his step away from the opponent on the ground only to then bring it back and step on him. At first I thought the contact with the opponent's knee made it an issue to get that step clear, but that extra movement up and down tells me otherwise.
I will say I've seen similar plays over the last couple years like this and they most often end up with a red. The opinion is always that these are professional athletes who should, and certainly have the ability to, make an effort to avoid this type of contact.
You’ve got no idea what’s a red or yellow if that’s what you believe.
Kaye did it on purpose. If he wanted to he could have feigned tripping over the downed plaeyr to draw a foul. He could have done more to try and clear Gazdag and get to the free ball, but he didn't he hesitated and then purposefully placed his foot into the body, cleats down, on the body of Gazdag. It may have not been much force, but it is a red.
If Barlow were Ibarra, he'd have been red carded for the reaching attempt to block the ball and his studs impacted the oppenent's kicking foot. It wasn't glancing contact. Look at Mosquera's right foot flop back and forth as the tackler comes through.
Miazga's known for his trollery. Stupid Yellow Cards add up. You put a stop to future garbage like this from the players by carding it. He deserved it. Tough. Just don't collect silly yellow cards.
Vancouver knocked the ball away prior to contact. No. Should have been overturned. The referee accidentally body checking a player? In the spirit of the game, maybe the ref should inadvertantly blow his whistle and say, 'oops'. Bottom line, imo, poor referee positioning and chose the wrong path crossing the center of the field to get out of the way instead of first stepping wide. Bad awareness.
wow to me it looked like gazdag put his back to the goal and defender, losing his balance trying to bring the ball down, any contact was enough to send him flying. it was a clumsy move and he failed to collect the ball under pressure, rolling under the defender instead of facing the goal of the other team. you're obviously biased
Bad take on Miazga. The ref shouldn’t be responsible for knowing that he picked up a yellow in the first game. Each game is independent. Definitely deserved both cards in this game
6:18 this is a foul no question
Soft as hell, dude just ran into Van players 😂😂
Cornell got a hand to it. MLS just wanted as many game threes as possible. Thankfully NJRB and Pro got their Karma.
If they wanted as many game 3’s as possible, how do you explain the Vancouver-LAFC game?
That pull by Ferreira is trifling. No penalty.
poop take
@@NatureDerekyour take is a delusional take 😂
my take is a "actual laws of the game" take. not "pulled out of ones ass" @@lordfarquad7750
I disagree. Keepers spill crosses all the time. And, Paes is far more likely to spill that cross if Ruidiaz is bearing down on him at full speed. If he spills that, Ruidiaz is in a perfect position to score - his career has been built on opportunistic goals. But, Paes gets time and space to catch that cross because Ruidiaz has been held up. It's not as if Ruidiaz went down after Paes caught this ball. Ferrera's tug starts before this cross is even at its peak.
This is a stupid play by Ferrera who clearly thinks Ruidiaz has some ability to effect the play here (otherwise, why would he commit the foul at all). And, if this isn't a foul, then why not take out every player in the box who is off the ball on every play?
Miazga…! smart yellow card…😂😅🙂🥹