WHY it was NOT a Handball in Charlotte + Offside Calls in Nashville Explained

📺 Watch every match with MLS Season Pass on Apple TV: apple.co/MLS
The 🐐 plays here: www.mlssoccer....
➡️ Subscribe Now: / mls
➡️ Follow us on:
TikTok: www.tiktok.com...
Instagram: / mls
Twitter: / mls
Like us on Facebook: / mls
➡️ Para Español:
Instagram: / mlses
Twitter: / mlses
Facebook: espanol.mls
For more information about MLS, go to the league's official website: www.MLSsoccer.com, en español www.MLSes.com
#mls #highlights #mlsseasonpass #soccer #futbol #referee #replay

[@CLBCrew96]

If that Houston player at the end didn't jump to avoid contact, he would have gotten fouled

[@BPaulthegreat]

I hate the ''But there's no contact'' line. There's no contact because the guy jumped away to not be injured, it should still count a foul, unless we want to encourage players getting injured purposefully

[@CLBCrew96]

@@BPaulthegreat Exactly. I thought awhile back, that you could be called for a foul even if you didn't make contact. This example is a perfect example of why that should still be a foul. The striker should not have to go out of his way to not get hurt. He pretty much got punished for not allowing the defenders to run him over. The rules seem like you need to allow them to plow you over so you get the pk. He went down because he had to avoid getting sandwiched between the defenders, which in turn, made him lose possession. Should still be a foul all day long

[@robro41]

@@BPaulthegreat Watching I thought that it's a correct call of no penalty since the attacker is deliberately trying to get fouled and avoiding contact but I do really agree with that assessment. I understand why you think it's a pen and I agree with you. If you want to see a recent example of a no contact foul being called look up Manchester United's most recent game against Crystal Palace in the 63rd minute of the game. There's a really nasty two foot stomp from Martinez that didn't actually make contact but was still punished (even if it was only a yellow at least a call was made).

[@MrCho14]

And if he doesn't jump, then he's accused of dragging his feet and initiating contact. This should have been a PK.

[@bradleyklemetson375]

100% a foul. I hate Houston but definitely should have been called. And yes VAR should have fixed it.

[@Bulwarked]

The Orlando PK call is nuts. Watch it in real time at 6:12. There is no "little bit" of embellishment. It's entirely 100% embellishment because you can seen the decision making by the Orlando player. The moment he felt contact on his back he makes the decision to embellish a fall instead of play the ball. When he jumps he's already throwing his arms out and calling out like he's being fouled and he makes no real attempt for the header, he just play up the contact coming from behind.

[@oliveroren5627]

are you a Columbus fan?

[@TrainerAQ]

Yea that was straight up embellishment. Legal, but embellished

[@MrCho14]

This seems correct, however if what we saw are the only angles available then I don't think there's anyway to really overturn that.

[@dc1261]

Let's not forget Alex Matan received a yellow earlier in the match for embellishment on a significantly more physical tackle from ORL

[@Pretrix]

Ignoring the nasty foul on Toye and then it being called free kick for RSL is crazy

[@SunnySydeRamsay]

MLS wouldn't dare lob any significant criticism at the Pretty-trashy Referee Organization.

[@noahsilverthorne]

PRO IS ASS

[@david_99999]

Toye traps the defender's arm and pulls him down. Pretty obvious on the replay, rightly flagged by the AR. Sucks that he's out for probably the rest of the games though.

[@wescocinco4870]

weird way to spell "got trampled" but okay

[@Dancor2010]

That should have been a PK for houston

[@anarwally]

Sorry but they gave Matan a yellow for embellishment and then Orlando a penalty for the same actions. Contact was made with Matan in the box towards the end of the first half, he went down easy and got the yellow. Yeboah may have barely touched the Orlando player but he clearly embellishes and flops as bad or worse than Matan. Either both should have been a PK or both a yellow card for embellishment. But yea that was clearly a foul and should have been a PK for Houston. The defending player makes no attempt at the ball and clearly steps into the Houston player to impede his progress in the box.

[@oliveroren5627]

I agree this is no penalty. But when Hannes wolf did the EXACT same thing to farsi when NYCFC played Columbus June 14, EVERY crew fan was saying the same thing "he had no intention of playing the ball" "a push is a push" "that's always a penalty"

[@TheClhWarrior]

​@@oliveroren5627 I strongly disagree with the idea the Crew community thought that was a foul on Farsi. Most of us thought that game in general was called unfairly more in favor of the Crew, because if I remember correctly that wasn't too long after the horrific ref performance against the Crew vs Charlotte. I remember saying the there's no conspiracy, just that PRO and the replacements were both incompetent overall.

[@oliveroren5627]

@@TheClhWarrior well respect for that I guess, but that’s not what I saw. Lol

[@anarwally]

@@oliveroren5627 I'd have to go back and watch that play. But I don't think Yeboah actually pushed him. Put his hand on the back yes, but I didn't see a push. They only provide the one bad angle for review. I"d like to see it from different cameras.

[@Bulmyeolja]

On the final Minnesota play, you cannot be serious to say that this ball comes off the thigh. Did you not see the still frames from the broadcast where he cushions the ball against his body with his arm? Absolutely irresponsible to publish a video where there is definitive proof of the handball and to just ignore the evidence that is available to determine that. You even say, "If it does, it's purely accidental." which you *know* isn't how the hand ball law works when he is partially *controlling* the ball with the arm. Definite hand ball, no way around it.

[@EricRiley-i2o]

Where is the review for what should have been a PK for Matan in the Columbus game when he was given a yellow instead of a PK?

[@CLBCrew96]

exactly. If that's a PK on Yeboah, how was that not given? He embellished the contact just like Orlando did. Except they gave him a yellow instead. I don't think either should have been given as a pk. But if you're going to call one a pk and the other not, that's a problem.

[@lukeharper8926]

Is there anyone that thinks that's not a foul on the Houston player in that last clip? I'm not a Houston supporter, but I would definitely expect that call for my team and feel cheated if it wasn't called on the field and/or reviewed.

[@TrainerAQ]

In the last clip, the orange guy jumped over the leg, but then decides to just fall to the floor instead of land on the other side. No one touches him

[@chembro303]

Yeah I would be livid if that no-call was against my team, and would understand if it was called against us. Just shows that Houston player shouldn't have tried to avoid the contact, since that would get the penalty call 100% of the time. Instead, he tries SO hard to avoid the obvious foul coming in, and ultimately can't stay on his feet because of it. But because there was no physical contact (just barely) it's not given? Insane, to me.

[@EVSjahms]

The front leg was able to dodge the defender, but the back leg got taken out. That has to be whistled for a penalty.

[@jxstxnn7554]

4:35 this is so frustrating the ball is heading on target and the defenders arm stretches out and blocks it. No he wasnt "falling" he tried to slide tackle and put himself in that postion

[@chembro303]

Exactly. This whole Instant Replay was full of calls that seem way wrong, even on this recap.

[@noodle_fc]

In the first incident discussed, I find it so very strange that the guy knows the law well enough to say that hand -> shot -> goal isn't automatically disallowed because the shot didn't come from the player touching the ball. That's true. But then immediately he talks about whether the player's arm is in a "natural position" *_which is not and never has been the standard to judge handballs._* The standard is whether the body is "unnaturally bigger" due to arm position-that is a world of difference! A human being swings their arms when running, but if a ball strikes a running player's extended arm, we all know that's a handball. A natural motion or position does not negate the "unnaturally bigger" criteria. It's natural to swing your arms when running, but it's _possible_ for your torso to occupy the same space with your arms tucked in. If the ball strikes your extended arm somewhere it doesn't need to be, it's a handball. The exculpatory standard is "consequence of or justifiable by" body position, such as the later player who is supporting his body weight after going to ground. The player's body literally could not occupy that space if it weren't supported by the arm. Therefore the arm's position is a consequence of and justifiable by the torso position = no handball. The first incident's goal should have been disallowed. It might be natural to have an arm where the player had it, but it's still making the body unnaturally bigger. The law specifically says if your arm is extended you risk a handball offense. IOW it's up to you to do as much as possible to keep your arm out of the way and that player was NOT doing as much as possible. His arm *could* have been elsewhere without preventing his body (torso) from being in that position. He did not take the precaution of tucking his arm in and is explicitly by law subject to penalization when the ball comes off his arm. At this point the "natural position" bullshit is too commonly discussed. The only way to get rid of this misinterpretation is to replace "unnaturally" with an entirely different word. I would like to see it rewritten as "the arm makes the body _unnecessarily_ bigger." Was it _necessary_ for the arm to be where it was? Yes: no handball; No: tough luck buddy.

[@MrCho14]

Wording is always tough here. I don't know how much 'unnecessary' would matter to most. They will use the term how they want and claim it was 'necessary' for the arm to be at shoulder height because of how high they were attempting to jump or it was 'necessary' to be extended straight out because the attacker was backing into them. I've said it before, but VAR is a big factor here. Referees are now asked to over analyze plays which they never had to in the past. The micro-analysis results in over thinking the exact words; whatever they are.

[@noodle_fc]

@@MrCho14 Your points are well taken. Of course no wording is perfect and people will always argue over the rules, but I believe better language would eliminate some of the scenarios that currently cause controversy. For instance, the example of defenders who clasp hands behind their backs makes it obvious that the majority of defensive actions do not require arms extended from the body. The "natural" positioning of a player's arms is demonstrably not "necessary." Considerations of "oh they're moving in this direction or turning in this way or the ball came off their thigh" are immediately dismissed. Player A's arm didn't have to be there; Player B does the same thing without their arms in that place. Player A committed handball. End of discussion. You are 100% right about VAR's effect on excessive rules-lawyering. Overall I like VAR, but I want its use confined to its stated purpose-to overturn "clear and obvious" errors. If a VAR check lasts longer than two minutes from booth alert to final call, the error isn't obvious. Play on.

[@noodle_fc]

I mean, look at Rugby. Those officials ask video review for rulings all the time and it takes barely a minute, if that. There is no reason at all football reviews need to last 5 minutes.

[@imdoingfine]

So are we going to start calling the offsides interference calls equally and for everyone every time it happens now? Neither one of those would have been called last week.

[@MrCho14]

But it was called last week....even though it wasn't actually offside because of the 2nd touch.

[@johnmcgimpsey1825]

Don't know about every time, but given the attention it's gotten I'd say it's more likely. And I disagree that some of them wouldn't have been called earlier, AR's do look for this. Especially on free kicks, if there's a player in an offside position, the AR will say "position, position, position" over comms to alert the ref that there might be interference with an opponent. In the mixer, though, it's often hard to tell, especially if there's no direct contact.

[@imdoingfine]

@@johnmcgimpsey1825 how do you know this?

[@seeu1atergamer483]

How was mason toye getting stomped on not a red

[@HonorChampion-pg3jk]

The AR had a better look at it than anyone else and called it a foul on Toye. When you slow it down, you can see Toye is holding on to Vera and pulls him down. If you were trying to get your balance and avoid falling over, you might accidentally step on a player, too. Credit to Toye for sticking it out the rest of the game, though. That's grit. He helped his team get a comeback tie even through an injury.

[@Whatutalkingaboutwillis]

If the crew player is standing there with both hands up - it's impossible to be a PK. Insane. It was a call that Ted Uncle would be proud about.

[@oliveroren5627]

but when wolf does it to farsi its a penalty? got it

[@campbellgoff303]

Its not like you guys are on a time crunch. A lot of people had questions about Mason Toye's injury in the RSL vs POR match. Mason is out for weeks now and the foul was called on him.

[@thisisafox1961]

Saying that a call doesn't go to video review is confusing wording, it makes it sound like VAR didn't check it

[@johnmcgimpsey1825]

Yeah, technically (per the IFAB VAR Protocol) what the VAR does is perform a 'Check'. Only the Referee can perform a 'Review', which can be done either at the monitor or only using the VAR's input. It would be nice if commentators would use the correct terms.

[@jomarzan]

we were at the RSL/Portland game. the way that that VAR review was done was horrible. Confused everyone in the stands. Ref turned it into a story instead of just simply saying "no offside. Goal is good"

[@johnmcgimpsey1825]

Since this is still a pilot program by FIFA, I think there's still some work to be done balancing the technical explanation and the minimum the fans in the stands need to understand why the review occurred. I suspect it'll get more refined with continued practice.

[@connor6766]

It also took them like 5 whole minutes to review it. Doesn't seem like clear and obvious to me. Call on the field should have stood which was in fact offsides

[@HonorChampion-pg3jk]

I do think she should have said something more like "While there were two RSL players in an offside position, neither of them affected the play". Not sure I said it exactly right either. But she does have to explain, both for the fans and everyone else involved, why a call was overturned. But I agree that the way she worded it initially made it seem like she was going for a reaction rather than just providing information.

[@HonorChampion-pg3jk]

​@@connor6766 clear and obvious doesn't necessarily mean there isn't debate. The rule of clear and obvious initially goes to the VAR crew. THEY thought it was clear and obvious. Tori may not have agreed initially until it was further explained by VAR. It also took a bit longer because they were looking at multiple points where an offside call could have been made. Sometimes it will be easy to see what needs to be done, sometimes it won't. Give the referees a bit of a break for doing their best to make the right call.

[@ZEROs0000]

Andrew Wiebe knows nothing. I have never seen a more blatant handball by a team in the final minutes of the Cincy and Min game. I was standing right behind the goal and it was literally clear as day. Saying you don't have a good angle is not a valid excuse and he just scraped over the call like it was nothing and not a game changing call. Also, the ref was abysmal. MLS you should be ashamed.

[@matthewmay6058]

How was the Toye foul not reviewed?

[@AlwaysHalftime]

Charlotte was hand ball all day, blocking a shot with an extended arm

[@ianpollock8743]

What about the ref STOPPING a promising attack by RedBulls against Atlanta. Atlanta players goes down off the ball midfield and the RedBulls have the ball yards and yards away from the down player, and about to take the shot a goal when the Ref stops game for the guy down midfield. The Ref should have let the play go on let the RedBulls take the shot on goal and then stop the game after either Atlanta saves the shot or RedBulls had missed the goal or scored the goal to then check on the guy. That’s how it’s done in other leagues.

[@radonplays7888]

So now you can just lower your head and get a high kick call?

[@MrCho14]

The attacker who lowered his head clearly was winning the ball first. The defender reached in late and made contact with the attacker. We can debate whether the head was low enough to be considered endangering himself or the foot was high enough to be considered endangering the opponent, but that doesn't change that the defender reached in late and kicked the attacker.

[@andort5190]

The Cincinnati "offside" is one of the reasons why MLS is still a joke. :D Edit: and the 100% handball at 4:40.

[@MrCho14]

The lack of understanding when offside is properly called is more an indication of the level of fans the league has and not the teams or referees.

[@newguyiswinning]

The charlotte handball should never be called. Its a support arm. You want him to fall with no support and hit their head?

[@DukeTrout]

I think everybody agrees, but it’s worth observing that this example is on the raggedy edge between “support” and “trailing.” A trailing arm would be a handball violation.

[@samiam6904]

Inconsistent reffing same deal when we played ATL but they got the call

[@JoeKool-v9f]

Please cover the Campeones nonsense

[@ripMrT]

How do you not mention the push in the box for the NYCFC equalizer vs Miami

[@MrCho14]

Did you bring this to his attention prior to the show being produced like he always says to?

[@MrLeRoy-ri2qz]

Hello

[@Deadiam]

Feel like Wiebe has just become a ref apologist.

[@anders7728]

At 7:10, are ppl saying that the ball hit the defender's right or left arm? Cuz MN posted a joke about it on twitter that made me think it was the right arm, but in the replay, that bounce forward sure looks to be from the defender's left arm

[@AlyCathy-q8w]

Barrows Wall

[@rockytalkndawoods3057]

2 rsl players standing in the way and ran towards the goalie. How that isn't interference is beyond me. Poor call on the field and by Weibe. 💛💚🌲💚💛

[@robro41]

I really don't think that goalkeeper is getting in position to make a save. Crepeau is just standing there and watching it happen and not ready to dive even if there weren't players there. Not offside imo

[@MrCho14]

At best, and this is pushing it, one could say the players were blocking the keeper's view of the shot, but he was already out of position and not reacting back towards the shot.

[@KeatsNeedham-v9r]

Olson Junctions

[@samiam6904]

Why it’s not a handball: because of the New England Revolution rule

[@mattnav8]

sang bin gets kicked in the face but ciny fans call it a soft pen are they have 0 ball knowledge should of been a red card too. dangerous and high and 100% a hand ball another braindead breakdown

[@jtvikings3926]

Yeah it’s a pen but it’s definitely not violent conduct when Sang Bin puts his head way down there while the Cinci player is attempting to make a pretty normal play on the ball. And for the handball I’m choosing to be mad at the MLS for not having a better camera angle instead of letting my bias convince me that it was definitely a handling offense

[@imdoingfine]

sang bin dropped his head, there's no way that's a dangerous and high kick. if you establish that as a precedent you're opening up a huge can of worms.

[@bhamsoxfan72]

6:10 The defender's gesture ALWAYS means, "I pushed him, but I'm going to give you hell if you blow the whistle on me..." 😂