OK, we're going to try this video thing one more time:
Via this goal by Real Salt Lakes' Javier Morales, runaway MLS 2010 Apertura Champion Los Angeles lost for the first time this season.
Now, it's beyond dispute that Morales is in an offside position.
It's also unarguable that the ball does make contact with defender Michael Stevens.
If Stevens "plays" the ball in any meaningful sense, then the goal is perfectly legitimate. However, if the ball is merely deflected off of Stevens ("the ball plays him instead of him playing the ball" as they say) then the goal must be waved off.
To me, it's very simple:
If Stevens "played" the ball or if the ball was in any way responding to Stevens' wishes, the last place on Earth it would have ended up would be - well - where it ended up.
I'm sorry. I don't buy it.
While we're on the subject, isn't this brave, bold and defiant "I'm so damned happy that I'm taking my shirt off even though I know I'll get a yellow card and I don't care" goal celebration nothing more than self-indulgent, selfish and potentially harmful to your team at some point in the future?
You want to be a devil-may-care, break-the-boundaries rebel as you shamelessly call attention to yourself?
Take off your pants and wave them about.
At least it would be original.
And while we're on the subject, tell me again why MLS decided to go dark for a couple of weeks during the group stages of the World Cup.
Wasn't the argument that teams with star players would have to play at a disadvantage and their teams' fans were being cheated out of seeing the guys who are off playing in South Africa?
So essentially they're shutting down the league because of the absence of four players?
And LA has suffered so badly without the two of those players who are on the Galaxy roster that they're one bad call away from being undefeated during their absence?
So if nobody is missing Donovan or Buddle in any meaningful way, then MLS is taking two weeks off because of Robbie Findlay and Jonathan Bornstein.
Makes perfect sense.