What happened tonight is the breaking point. I'll be the first one to admit that I dislike LA, but that OT goal was horrendous. Something NEEDS to be done.
Isn't a player behind the ball onside? I thought that was the rule. If so that goal should have counted.
What the hell? If i was that incompetent at my job I couldn't get up and go to work in the morning... Oh well, more crap added onto an already crap season.
Alan Hopkins admits all players were onside on the shot, then the next touch is a square ball to the goal scorer who is behind the ball. ie, the Hopkins-is-always-wrong rule remains valid.
Uh, offsides when? The only time it matters is when the ball is played forward. It doesn't matter that they were behind the defense when the ball came off the post.
Very dubious decision by Stott but let's look at the facts at hand.. Chris Klein is the player to watch during this whole ordeal.. Simutenkov is for the moment irrelevent because he is in a passive offside position.. The shot rebounds in the opposite direction of Simuntenkov (any rebound coming anywhere near him would have indeed been an offside play) and comes straight back to Klein who plays it square to a then onside Igor to tuck in.. The problem that Allen Hopkins had on the play is that Simutenkov is wide open and in an offside position when the shot hits the post, but according to the rules, unless Igor is directly involved in the play, which he wasn't, then he is passive.. I think Hopkins also believes that Simutenkov is offside as well when the pass is made from Klein but in one of the very few instances where NFL lines help out soccer teams, it's pretty clear that that pass is legal and the goal should stand.. The reason why Stott ran over to his AR is probably to check and see if Simutenkov was ahead of Klein when he received the pass..
I was practically yelling this at my television. I have a degree in journalism, called soccer for radio and television at university, and I'm delivering tapes around LA, while these guys - who DON'T KNOW THE OFFSIDE RULE - are getting paid. RS
What a travesty i cant believe..still in shock..how CAN YOU NOT CALL AN OFFSIDES WHERE THE PLAYER IS LIKE FOUR YARDS OFFSIDE!!! my emotions: pissed as hell when goal first allowed..happy that finally the refs got the call right..then absolutely pissed off at the COMPLETE AND UTTER INCOMPETANCY of the refs..i havent been this angry in a loooooooooong time i really hope this sets a flame for the team like states by alan or max.. i want the team to comeout soo pissed next game, and just dominate and play with heart what a way to ruin the game..thanks MLS REFS. a very annoyed/pissed UNDERGROUNDFC
No way Simi was passive. Someone standing in front of the goal like that can't be passive, at least I don't think so since he's obviously distracting the goalie. Of course, Simi and Klein were both onside the whole time so it doesn't matter.
He is not passive on the initial play, because being 3 yards offside, then gave him an advantage to receive the pass back, thus his offside position gave him an advantage.
Re: What a travesty Standing behind the last defender is not in and of it itself offside. Who was offside?
I don't see how Simi is a distraction to Hartman since Kevin didn't even flinch a muscle on the original shot by Klein.. The scenario worked out perfectly for KC in that pretty much the only player on the field who could continue that play would be Klein and it just happened to bounce back out to him.. It will be interesting to hear the explanation from the official or the league itself during the week but you have to feel that LA got jobbed on the play, but if you go by the letter of the law, the play should stand provided Simi was even or behind Klein when he received the pass, which he was......
While I agree with this point, it is up to the official to decide whether or not he is passive.. Again, if the shot in any way bounces straight out or not in the direction of Klein, the goal wouldn't have counted..
That was a horrendous game and I cannot believe that the referees would give K.C. that game. Did they deserve to win? Probably, but with that awful turn-out of about 90 fans, hell no! I will admit that the Galaxy are not very good, but still you don't just give them a loss like that. I am rapidly losing interest in MLS. I would rather pay $39.95 per year and see every Champions League Match over the internet than watch MLS. MLS is less this year than last. The quality of play is horrendous and the referees are letting players play too physically and it is absolutely an ugly brand of soccer. The US Womens World Cup is at a higher level than MLS. Those women play the game the way it is supposed to be played. Anyone can play in MLS. I see nothing special from 95% of it's players. If MLS is going to succeed it has a long way to go, and if one of the primary reasons of MLS is just so that the US can win a World Cup, keep on dreaming.
Are you saying Simi was offside on the initial shot? If he was on then I think he was on the whole time. Klein got the ball and when he passed Simi wasn't running backwards, so he had to still be behind the ball and therefore on, no?
It doesn't matter whether he was passive or not, because there were only two times when an infraction could be called on that play: when the initial shot was taken and when the square ball was played. At neither time was he in the offside position.
Good point and this is the heart of the matter.. In both instances, from what I saw, Simi was onside on both accounts..
WHo the *#*#*#*# do you think you are in Buffalo, New York. You don't even have an MLS team so why are you even responding to me Troll. Uh, I think Buffalo is the Troll compared to LA so why don't you take your *#*#*#*#ing loser ass to some *#*#*#*#ing blue collar American Football site you *#*#*#*#ing redneck!
I'm interested in seeing their reaction as well as Wheelock is a noted KC supporter.. I don't know which way Harksie will go on this issue.. If they stick to the rule book, they should agree with the goal..