Referee Interference!? DOGSO Red or Not? And PK Drama in Colorado!

Andrew Wiebe is back for another edition of Instant Replay as he goes over the most controversial plays from Matchday 30.
📺 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
➡️ Para Español:
- Instagram: / mlses
- Twitter: / mlses
- Facebook: espanol.mls
For more information about MLS, go to the league's official website: www.MLSsoccer.com
#mls #highlights #mlsseasonpass

[@mthomas2404]

Did Andrew actually say we should "trust Ted Unkel"? Well there's your problem right there.

[@bbar268]

He's been bought by MLS, don't worry about it.

[@wolffriendinus]

I don't know about other teams, but Seattle will NEVER trust Ted Unkle. Especially after playoffs last year.

[@cardenluvscoots]

on the last Columbus goal theres no way you can get mad at Unkle for that. He is in a really good position for the cross which gets block and does what ever other ref would to when the ball is coming right at you, get out of the way and it happened to be in the way of the player. If anyone had bad positioning here it was the nyc player

[@MarvinThiessen]

What Wiebe is pointing out is there are several really good MLS actors. Forget the silly Supporters Shield, there should be a "Golden Dive" trophy given out every season end to "Best Actor in the MLS". Supporters Shield means your team had a very good year, it's not the same as winning the championship Cup.

[@1signalstrength]

I agree and this video series ignores the most egregious examples of embellishment which only serves to normalize it.

[@CollinAlbert-zt6cc]

Why would you give any benefit of the doubt to Unkle, who earlier in NYCFC v Columbus match didn’t call a handball that you yourself said should have been a PK?

[@meanyvizzini8347]

Crew fan here. It is possible to have a professional disagreement without questioning the character or competency of the person you disagree with. That said, there’s a reason we know Unkle’s name….

[@cardenluvscoots]

because hes 5 yards from the play and we only have side angles where as ted has a fantastic view

[@CollinAlbert-zt6cc]

@@cardenluvscoots true, but his track record as a ref has spawned memes about his incompetence.

[@CollinAlbert-zt6cc]

@@meanyvizzini8347 It is, but Ted is a truly incompetent referee. I don’t disagree with the narrator, or really the call (this specific call) but I do disagree with giving him the benefit of the doubt. His track record doesn’t warrant it.

[@pitdoctor]

1:00 , 1:59 Andrew admonishes one player for embellishment, but not the other. They absolutely both embellished and by the book those are both fouls, but to call one of them out and even say he probably could have run through the contact but not the other seems inconsistent.

[@Not_a_smart_man]

Wiebe, regarding the Robinson yellow: it had to be reckless because freeman played advantage. Advantage on spa downgrades to no cards. So freeman probably fell for the acting as a hit to the face. Of potentially he deemed it lacking respect for the game I guess, the generic unsporting behavior caution which you can pretty much give for anything even if you play advantage (usually given to cynical holding or stuff way off the ball that’s not “part of the game”)

[@anarwally]

First of all, Ted Unkel sucks. It seems there have been a lot of lazy defensive turnovers this season. The NYCFC player's arm is moving away from his body and clearly made him bigger. Handball. And the contact on Hernandez was just as obvious as the contact on Mihailovic but there should have had a better camera angle. I learned something today. I did not realize the circle was considered encroachment. I thought you had to be in the box itself. And lastly, Ted Unkel sucks.

[@johnbjorgen7212]

re: contact on Cucho. I was right behind the goal, row 10. Obvious push in the back. Inexcusable miss, both on Unkel and VAR.

[@oliveroren5627]

@@johnbjorgen7212 you have absolutely no authority to make that call if you were behind the goal facing cucho😭the replay is right here for you and not only is there no "push in the back", its pretty clear cucho is looking for contact.

[@cardenluvscoots]

I would like to see you reff, its way harder then it looks. So give him some slack. I think he went down super easy with almost no contact just like the colorado pk and I want to see no calls on both of them. players need to stop going down when someone taps them

[@anarwally]

@@cardenluvscoots I understand being a referee is hard. Obviously too hard for Unkel. He is consistently bad, not just in this match. I do agree sometimes players go down to easily. But I've also seen several obvious flops not get a yellow card for simulation.

[@brandonadams7837]

The sole purpose of the penalty arc is to be ten yards away from the penalty spot. It has one purpose.

[@andytretten]

I don't think the yellow on Robinson (CIN-MTL match) can technically be for SPA. From the "Advantage" section in Law 12: "if the offence was interfering with or stopping a promising attack, the player is not cautioned." So it must have been deemed reckless (as the referee allowed Advantage to be played.

[@jojotojason4865]

Maybe for lack of respect for the game, then can give the yellow.

[@toddcrabtreejr.8167]

they might’ve gone with reckless if there’s was contact with the face or neck, it couldn’t have been for SPA since you stated the reason above from law 12

[@thisisafox1961]

2:02 I don't think there even WAS a grab, the defender arm goes out, which is stupid of him, but I don't think he grabs onto anything

[@josiasroach5601]

For the PK he didn’t directly get involved for encroaching. Had the ball gone straight to him then i believe VAR would have intervened.

[@stephenthatfootballguy]

I think Unkel needs to be aware of where he's moving to, just as the players do. If a players running right towards where unkel wants to go, I believe the player should have the right to that space as the ref can't touch the ball anyway. No in hindsight the goal probably should stand as Fernandez seemed to be late getting to the play anyway but if he was closer that's where what I said above should be considered.

[@Salsa_Shark]

He did seem in the way quite a lot.

[@MrCho14]

For me it's about positioning. He got himself in a bad spot which was his error, BUT there is nothing in the laws which would allow the goal to be called back. The same happened last year with the long counter attack (which ended up being offside after VAR got involved but only after a red for dissent.) If the referee had touched/been hit by the ball then a drop ball could have happened, but there is just nothing in the laws allowing this to be brought back.

[@BintonB]

@@MrCho14 There is nothing in the laws that allow for a drop ball but law 18 (common sense reffing) would perhaps encourage a dropball

[@MrCho14]

@@BintonB Not at this level. Maybe at U14.

[@th3awak3ning10]

Wiebe, Unkel said no penalty because the ball hit O'Tooles chest first. Does that change the call?

[@awitkoff]

It does

[@robardsjason9174]

It's cute that trolls are saying "well AKSHUALLY " about the PK and getting it wrong. Encroachment doesn't have to involve the player interfering with the goalkeeper to result in a retake. That's one definition. The other, straight from the laws of the game, is the encroaching player plays the ball or challenges an opponent for the ball and then scores, attempts to score or creates a goal-scoring opportunity That clearly applies here. If there's a miss and a second opportunity and the encroacher plays the ball or scores...retake

[@jdgower1]

There was only a second opportunity after another (non-encroaching) player played the ball back across the face of the net. If the encroaching player had played the ball directly off the rebound, I agree that the goal should be disallowed, but that's not what happened here. The PK phase of play was over when the keeper saved the goal and a non-encroaching player played the rebound. When the goal was scored was a totally new phase of play which the encroachment had nothing to do with.

[@coolguyspencer]

whitecaps offside? how did that not make it, it’s clearly onside.

[@wolffriendinus]

I think he only reviews calls that people tell him to review on twitter.

[@MrCho14]

3.45 of the Highlight video (youtube ID = BCADHigfvdU since links don't work here) is pretty clear that he's off. That aside, I'm good with not having offside calls looked at here unless there's something odd about them. It's a matter a what camera angles we have and not much else.

[@MrCho14]

Interesting that PRO has said they'd like to see more evidence on this one for it to have been recommended for review. I initially thought it was very clear and still think it's likely offside, but they highlight the defender behind the attacker as potentially keeping the attacker onside. While I'm okay with this, it also feels like a different standard than what we've seen to date. I would rather have this standard, but it just doesn't seem consistent with other decisions in the past to me. (Inside Video Review KZbin ID# 8Vdr6cGsGI0 )

[@kylerbaker401]

About the penalty kick encroachment, it specifically says IMPACT or NO IMPACT to determine a retake. In this case, yes both defending and attacking teams encroached into the penalty area, but the questions to ask yourself is, did that IMPACT the penalty kick? In my eyes, no. The goal stands. This is a new law change this year in laws 2024-2025

[@adammiller5301]

Does this type of series exist for any other league? Andrew and the other host who was doing it for years and even god dam cheese it’s deserve at least a little praise for doing these every week, I eat them up like they are any other snack food than cheese it’s.

[@silverghini2629]

So much simulation it spoils the game. Some contact is not always enough contact.

[@WesleyMcKeown]

Rodriguez Charles Garcia Dorothy Robinson Betty

[@foley256]

I say handball but ALSO say not clear and obvious.

[@HansomEden-o1g]

Gonzalez Kenneth Clark William Martinez Anthony

[@jdgower1]

On the Dallas / Colorado PK dealio, the penalty kick itself did not result in a goal, and neither 'encroacher' had any impact on that result. The follow up play did result in a goal, but this was sometime after the penalty was taken. I think the refs were correct.

[@robardsjason9174]

The encroacher scored off of a rebound after getting a head start moving forward. You're mental that he didn't benefit from it

[@robardsjason9174]

How could encroachment result in the outcome of the PK? The rule is there to stop people from taking off early in case there's a rebound. Otherwise the rule is useless. Encroachers can't materially impact the result if the initial PK take and that is not the correct interpretation of encroachment

[@jdgower1]

@@robardsjason9174 The encroacher scored off a cross from his teammate - not a rebound.

[@loganmclarry]

EDIT: that is exactly the purpose. Thanks IFAB. Original: I’m confused. How is Navarro encroaching when he doesn’t cross the 18 yard box until after Mihailovic scores? Is the half circle part of the box for that purpose?

[@LanceKirkman]

What the flying F?! Why aren't we addressing PDX kicking Sea goalie in the head causing ten stitches and no card?! Prove that wasn't endangerment of a player

[@thedahkterizzin8831]

Ten Uncle is good but I don't think center ref should ever be inside the box during active play cuz he could get in the way

[@WyattKim-g1p]

Bartholome Meadow

[@ZackKiernan-m6e]

Walter Ramp

[@TwainJo-n7q]

Koss Walks

[@loganmclarry]

The penalty drama was in Dallas even though it involved Colorado.

[@zaphodbeeblebrox2911]

Dang man. Great insight. Keep it up.

[@samhall4095]

As per IFAB, if the ball deflects off the body and onto the hand - then no handball offence has been committed.

[@TomF18]

Yeah, I think Andrew missed that the ball hit the defender’s chest first.

[@robardsjason9174]

@@TomF18 Andrew has repeatedly demonstrated his lack of familiarity with "ball to hand"

[@iiitzmagik3591]

Encroaching only applies if and when the goal is made . Do your research . Goalie blocking the pk makes it a different play

[@robardsjason9174]

@@iiitzmagik3591 incorrect. If that was the case, players would routinely hang in the box before the kick

[@robardsjason9174]

@iiitzmagik3591 the rule is "A team-mate of the player taking the penalty kick is penalised for encroachment only if: the encroachment clearly impacted on the goalkeeper; or. the encroaching player plays the ball or challenges an opponent for the ball and then scores, attempts to score or creates a goal-scoring opportunity"

[@jannowak6738]

0:20 LMAO

[@brandonarney2948]

Yes, by the book the PK should be retaken. Idk a single ref that would in this situation. It would add more confusion and we would see you commenting as "why even call this? The ball is in the net!"

[@MrCho14]

Not being called is usually because it's not seen. When you have VAR, this absolutely should have been called. The encroaching player interfered and scored. (I don't think it matters he wasn't first to the ball.) Players and fans being ignorant of the laws and not understanding is not an excuse.

[@loganmclarry]

Wait, how is being in the half circle outside the box encroaching but others on the line outside the box are not?

[@loganmclarry]

Looked it up. He was encroaching. The more you know.

[@Globeishoax]

Stupid penalty rule. It has to be one shot only. Just like in overtime shootout

[@one_mega_ohm9139]

I don't think that should be a handball, but for God's sake can they figure out what the rule actually is.

[@EisenhowerSaxon-q8x]

Taylor Patricia Lee Patricia Hernandez Angela

[@washipoo2050]

Uncle is the worst ref ever

[@tory3043]

2:17 No one calls a it DOGSO, stop

[@MrCho14]

And yet they do on multiple sites including referee discussion boards.

[@KevinQuinn81]

If the referee doesn't have a penalty but the player flops over like a fish, it should be a yellow for simulation. Hell, Cucho's lower back completely caved in even though it is clear that is not where he was touched. I don't know if the laws currently allow this but in that case, the ref should award the penalty AND a yellow for Cucho.

[@wolffriendinus]

lol LAFC would have to forfeit their season cause their players can't stop flopping. I know at least a few teams would be happy with that.

[@lukeharper8926]

I think there are plenty of instances where a player goes down from contact but the ref deems the contact is not a penalty because it's legal or because it wasn't 'enough' contact for a penalty. In this case specifically, I think there is contact. I just think the ref deems it legal contact. Personally, I only care about yellows for simulation being given when a player goes down when there is no contact - not when the player goes down from minimal contact.

[@rizzivideocollection1902]

Second play was a total dive......yes, there is a momentary shirt grab but @2:00 and @2:04 Kelseyijust stops running and collapses - watch his left leg move forward and then just "takes a knee" when he realizes how heavy the touch is and that the goalkeeper might get there first.........It is a penalty b/c a clear hold but no more than a yellow for the reasons given.

[@shannonthornton3471]

1st Viewer

[@spacepants3]

I disagree with you on the handball in the NYCFC game. We can’t be giving penalties for things like that simply because humans have arms. Stand up for a minute and start twisting your body around in different positions. You’ll find that you use your arms a lot to get fast and controlled momentum. The defender in that instance is trying to twist and bend down to chest or head the ball. Having now tried that movement a few times here at home, I find that my arm is extended and about 30 to 45 degrees from my side. Whether it had been called a penalty on the field or not, I completely disagree with it being sent to VAR. It wasn’t clear and obvious

[@lukeharper8926]

I gave up trying to guess at what these refs think is a "natural position" a long time ago. It's far too ambiguous. The reality is, no one knows. The players don't know. The coaches don't know. The commentators don't know. And, as evidenced here with the VAR recommending a review for handball but the head ref sticking with no handball, the refs don't know either. It is the single most frustrating aspect of the game to me. As far as his arm position goes, his left arm is tucked tight to his body. It's only his right arm that's dangling. So, I do think the argument can easily be made that he could have/should have been able to tuck both arms. With that said, I've seen a handball called for a lot less and I've also seen no handball called for a lot more... so who the hell knows?!?!

[@TheClhWarrior]

The fact that you're doing the hokey pokey at home to figure out if that is a natural position for an arm to be is kind of hilarious. Personally, I just want consistency, and we aren't always going to get that. They're human beings after all. The vast majority of the time that is going to be a penalty. As a Crew fan, I remember the match at Philly last year where the Crew had 2 penalties against them for a lot less, so when I watched those back-to-back with this 1 the difference was stark.

[@spacepants3]

@TheClhWarrior I do that for a lot of decisions and I think the referees should when they're making these decisions. It helps me get a sense for how the body moves naturally in certain instances. I don't get how the people who make the laws and referee the game assume that every defender's arms should be glued to their sides at all time