Maybe. The hands up could be to protect himself from Trapp running into him. The problem is that the VAR thought he saw contact by Wil on Acosta's leg. He didn't have a frame freeze that shows Acosta stepping on him as a possibility. The ref is staring at Trapp bearing down on him so he's not looking at the ball at all so he plays on because he can't call a foul he didn't see. After watching it, he decides there is contact and calls it back. I'm not going to be a homer and say we were robbed. If you want robbed, then you should have watched the CBJ game last night where slamming someone's face is a minor penalty IN a critical playoff game.
Who the ******** are you? I out money down in 1994 to get the franchise. I've been a fan since 1996. I used to post here for a long time. And, no, I'm not going to put my home blinders on when it's a 50-50 call that went against us. You missed out on the early years of MLS where pretty much every call went against us, specifically when Etcheverry decided to squat down in our penalty box and get a PK awarded. So, yes, ******** off.
PRO release a statement, basically said VAR should not have been used and that the Santos goal should have stood, ‘foul’ by Trapp was not clear and obvious. So of course they punished Unkel, right? Well... kind of. He’s a 4th official this week... for the Chicago v NE game.
Unkel shouldn't be working as a center in MLS anymore. Between this and the fact he's had 3 red cards overturned by the DisCo, He's ruined enough games.
That's been my point. There was contact but it wasn't obvious. Once the VAR rang the headset, it came into play. Unkel was put in a bad position but the VAR shoulders most of the blame.
Unklel should have called it a good goal after the VAR. I have seen no replay that could even marginally be called a foul of Trapp.
So, do we get the goal back? I know we can't get the 3 points erased but isn't goal differential a tie breaker?
http://proreferees.com/2019/05/08/pro-s I would only add that Unkel never signalled a "play on" situation. PRO implies that he did. They know perfectly well that "play on" has a precise meaning in soccer and that it does not apply in this case. Oh, and to all of you who have been insisting that Trapp did indeed commit a foul: Bite me.
See my previous post. PRO says that no foul occurred, obvious, not obvious or any other way. No foul. None. You owe me beer
I think the 'play on' lie was an attempt to play like Unkel throwing his arms in the air was him still in control of the game instead of shitting himself.
First of all, I didn't say Trapp committed a foul. I said he made contact with Acosta (or Acosta made contact with Trapp) which from the angle the VAR saw made him review the play. PRO says the VAR shouldn't have reviewed which I also said - I wouldn't have called a foul based on what I saw. I'm saying I understand that once VAR got Unkel involved, it became a 50-50. For example, just as we all saw Arriola foul Artur in the box in the first DC match, one we lost 1-0 and could have resulted in a PK for us, neither the VAR or the ref thought it was a foul. And, yes, although I won't bite you, I'd be happy to buy you a beer, Bill.
If it involves MLS refs, yes, it becomes a 50-50 because we have no clue what they will pull out of their ass. Like I said, I would have let it stand after watching it as the contact seemed to be incidental but... the end result was what it was.
... Pretty sure, you were campaigning a Trapp foul, but now that PRO said VAR and Unkel were wrong, you are singing a different tune. Glad you came around.
The VAR from this match, Kevin Terry Jr, is not on the MLS or USL Championship/League 1 assignments list according to PRO.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA We know this how,.exactly? I'm sorry, truly, but you are simply making this up.without one shred of evidence You need to give it up. You are.simply wrong. Even PRO says so. Please stop.
The call also made PRO's Video Week in Review. http://proreferees.com/2019/05/10/watch-inside-video-review-mls-week-10/
A buddy of mine at the LA game Saturday was saying Unkel is now suspended. But I can't confirm this via Google.