what is everyone saying here...on the initial shot igor was about 2 yards offsides, which if you read through all the rules you figure out that with the way it played out, off the post, and passed back to him he is still considered offside cuz he was on the initial shot... Goal should not have counted, LA got screwed, end of story...
Let's break it down. At the time the shot was taken - no one was ofiside. Simuntekov looked offside after the shot was taken because the defense moved up, but he was onside at the time of the shot. Ball comes off the post - moot point; the shot was taken and no one was offside at that time. KC player collects the ball and plays it back across the goalmouth to a player who was (marginally) behind the ball at the time of the pass. Goal. Stop blaming the ref. Read the LOTG. By the way, I hope Max Bretos does call the league office so they can tell him to shut the hell up.
If he was off on the initial shot it was by 2 inches not 2 yards. Certainly there was no "daylight" between him and the last defender, if he was offside at all. Even mega-homer Alan Hopkins admitted that. Of course, by the time the ball came off the post he was several yards offside but that doesn't matter.
That's the whole crux of the argument... I think most people agree (on this thread so far) that Igor was onside when the shot was taken.. Barely....
I wonder if Sigi The Hut will have the balls to publically apologize to Kevin Stott when he sees the replay. Probably not, but one can hope...
from the rule book: A player on an attacking team is offside if there are fewer than two players of the defending team (including the goalkeeper) between himself and the defending team’s goal. However, if the attacking player is behind the ball, he is always onside. when klein received the original ball from the deflection he was on-side--therefore, as much as I hate KC---the call seems to be correct
It's also very debateable as to whether Simutenkov was offside in the first place. When Klein shot, Simutenkov was either even, or just a hair ahead. I really have no problem with whatever the linesman would have decided there. While I agree that in theory Simutenkov being perched at the back post would be a distraction to Hartman and in theory would be "active" in the play, it's basically _never_ called that way by the officials. They generally use a rule that involves the ball being played at the offside player, the offside player making an attempt at a ball not played to him or the ball goes very close to the offside player. None of these things happened on Klein's shot. Now, I don't know the rules on this so help me. If the AR rules Simutenkov in an offside position on the shot, Does that get wiped out when Klein retakes control of the ball? I think, Simutenkov was at least even with the ball on the square pass (but am willing to be _shown_ wrong with a better camera angle) so that was correctly ruled onside. Critical to recognize here that Simutenkov needs to be even with the _ball_ and not necessarily Chris Klein, meaning Simutenkov could be slightly ahead of Klein and still be onside. From what I saw, I could agree with either ruling. It was very close all around. But FIFA has told these guys to err on the side of the attacking team, and for once they actually did that. Fortunately, I'd guess that at the end of the day the game won't mean much. I think the West playoffs are close to set regardless. Plus Hartman reacted strangely (and poorly IMO) on the entire play.
The TiVo switched the channel at the beginning of the OT to record another program. I let it do so, because LA and Kansas City aren't exactly two teams known for thrill-a-minute soccer and I didn't see that changing in OT. I guess I called that one wrong. What high unintentional comedy did I miss from Max Bretos?
The way they were screaming, it appears Bretos and Hopkins forgot an important part of the offside rule. Vows to call the league office, immediate condemnation of MLS officiating and other hysterics eminated from the booth. I think when the full explanation filters down to them, they'll probably be embarrassed. To be fair, Hopkins seemed to be a lot more upset about it than Bretos. Hopkins flew into conniptions when the goal was counted. If Klein's shot would have obeyed the laws of physics and just gone in the net like it was supposed to, there wouldn't have been a problem.
Just result I think if you check a replay [the low angle to Hartman's right] you will find that Klein's shot nicked a defender on the way wide and slightly deflected back to the net and off the post. Good goal. BTW, for all the mystery pks and dives that have gone LA's way v KC; if it was a bad call (it wasn't) it would have been just one of three or four required to be "even". Last thing, you can tell when Ruiz has earned a pk on a dive. He doesn't celebrate the goal even half as much as when he earns it. When well earned, he can't find the camera fast enough. Keep it in mind, there's a clear difference...or maybe it was the actual fish in the noose that threw him off, who knows.
Galaxy fans: sure sucks when a ref swallows the whistle Gee, I can't imagine how that must feel Unfortunately, it seems that KC wasn't offsides after all, so we'll have to wait a while longer before LA is actually screwed by a referee.
Well if Simutenkov wasn't offside on the initial thought, then ignore my comments it would have been a good call, but if he was offside, it's a horrible call because he wasn't passive. I have a related question then, lets say someone plays a long ball to Ruiz, he goes in one on one with Meolo, who makes the saves, clears a long ball up the field. Ruiz is walking back towards midfield, in the mean time, and the ball is played over the top on the opposite side of the field, making Ruiz in a "passive position". Cobi jones comes flying up the field and collects the ball. Before Ruiz ever gets back into an onside positon, he turns and runs with Jones towards the goal. Jones makes a valid ball backward (i.e. Ruiz was still behind the ball) and scores. Is ruiz offside, bcecause his "passive" offside on the initial ball over the time game him an advantage? Or does his advantage some how got negated because the next ball jones played wasn't an offside offense? I think that's the situtation at the heart of this (albeit in a little more compact and a little less clear situation).
Sure, as long as another player brought the ball in front of Ruiz. He is no longer offside if the ball is in front of him, and thus the previous offside is ignored as he isn't involved in the play. This happened to the Wizards last year vs. Chicago. Hristo was way offside with his hand up signalling passive offside. Then Wolff (or Razov, can't remember) dribbles the ball forward of Hristo, and after Hristo is onside, the player with the ball passes it off toe Hristo who scores. Good call. At the time we all thought it was crap, but MLSNet did a recap and compared the LOTG and showed it was a legit goal.
Advantage is when a foul is comitted against you but isn't called because the run of play would be better than a restart.
He's talking about gaining an advantage from being in an offside position. Basically, every time an offensive player plays the ball, the offside situation resets itself. Even if Simutenkov was offside when the shot was taken, he didn't play the ball or even move towards it. He stood still as the ball bounced off the post because he knew that he was offside and wanted other players to be able to shoot the ball. When Klein gets his rebound back, he passes the ball over to Simutenkov, who was at that time onside because he was behind the ball. FYI, passive offside pretty much means that you're in an offside position but don't interfere with play, interfere with an opponent, or gain an advantage from a defensive blunder (normally a rebound or deflection). Your position on the field never makes you actively onside. Oddly enough, this is a case of all things evening out. The Revs tied KC 1-1 earlier this year when the ball was played into the box near Ralston, who jogged back onside and never moved toward the ball. Twellman, who was onside, ran in and scored. Many of the Wizard fans were railing about the play. I'll bet most of them have revised their views by now.
YES, what an idiot. (the announcer) talking as if he knows the rules. There was no offside on this goal. The only reason there is controversy is because the AR erroneously put up the flag.