Color me crazy, but the Galaxy got the shaft tonight. First Morelia goal, it really doesn't look like the ball crossed the line. Granted, Saunders doesn't flub it thru his legs and this conversation doesn't happen. Galaxy appeared to take the lead off a corner, ruled out for offside. Looked like the wrong call on the replay. To cap it all off, the CK sequence that led to Morelia's game winner started from a really sketchy looking foul call in the attacking third. Just a strange place to call a touch foul in a 1-1 match in stoppage.
Hard to say you got the shaft when your keeper dumped two balls in his net. That being said, the Kean offside call was very very close, but I never saw a good angle to judge. The first Morelia goal certainly crossed the line. Saunders actually screwed that up twice. First on the initial play and second when he trapped the ball on the line saving the ball only to allow his body to crash into it an scoot it across the line.
The offside Morelia player made contact with Saunders while he was on the ground and pushed him into the ball. I guess you're allowed to knock a keeper into the goal and score now. It looked like a passive offside call to me, if you ignore that, then there's a foul for making contact with the keeper while he has control of the ball. My understanding is that any part of the keeper's hand in contact with the ball constitutes control.
If you mean that Morelia was offside by interfering with an opponent (i.e., Saunders) on Morelia goal #1, then I disagree. Minimal contact. Error Saunders=goal. MAYBE the ball didn't fully cross the goal line, but it's hard to say since we can't see it the whole time, the bad camera angle not withstanding. If you mean that Keane was onside for Galaxy goal #2, then I agree. It looked like he was behind the STLD when the shot was taken, so yes, they got the shaft. Regardless, the Galaxy were horrible in the closing 15 minutes or so, and rarely possessed the ball for much longer than the fraction of a second that Saunder's foot was touching it for a GK. Those GKs were consistently 50-50 balls not won -> loss of possession -> back under pressure. So I think that overall, you're not crazy colored. Maybe you have a slightly crazy tint though. Boo on LA. And yes, I'm a Galaxy supporter. But it was great to see Donovan and Keane link up for a beauty of a goal!
The initial shot on goal by the Galaxy. The Morelia goalie makes a save that is then put in by Keane who is top of the screen to the right. Basically, some video proof he is onside.
Here is the video: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PnxcUR3ixE"]9.13.11 CCL Highlights Morelia vs. LA Galaxy - YouTube[/ame]
The LA goal being called back was just a blown call, plain and simple. That freeze frame of the corner kick showing Keane onside is proof. It sucks, but alas, it happens. As for Saunders' flub, don't get me wrong. I said initially that if he hadn't let the ball squirt through his legs, we aren't having this discussion. When I watched the replay, I wasn't too worried about offside (there was some discussion on by the color commentator that Saunders' view of the shot may have been obstructed by an offside player)... I was only questioning whether the ball crossed the line. The replay angle is opposite the AR's angle, but to me, even when Saunders squirms, I'm not sold that the ball crossed the line. I do agree he seemed to give it a bump and then pushed it back between his legs, which might have caused the AR to assume it went over. Regardless, the offside call on Keane and the extremely soft foul call that started the sequence leading to the winning goal were reason enough for LA fans to feel slighted.
First, I haven't seen this match or the highlights yet. But I take umbrage with the "contact is minimal" comments. This isn't a foul, this is an offside infraction. Even if the contact is minimal, 1. Was the Morelia player in and offside position when the ball was LTOPBAT? 2. Did the player in an offside position participate in play, or gain an advantage from being in that offside position? The contact has nothing to do with it. Does Saunders flub come from the fact that he is under pressure from the player in an offside position gaining an advantage from being in that offside position? These are the only things that matter., it's not "how much he participated in play" (ie amount of contact) It is "Did he participate in play or gain and advantage from being in an offside position." I should go look at the replay when I get home, sounds like a good one for discussion.
Actually, I believe Sport Billy was responding to this: . So it was actually in reference to a foul, not the offside.