City Goal vs Vancouver Called Back

[bgwinn01]

Ok. I am not the most conversant soccer aficianado, I admit. But I’m trying to learn and be engaged. But what the hell was the reason City’s goal was disallowed ?! Offsides but what constitutes that !? The announcers didn’t explain it. For a sport where goals are few and far between, the referees better explain or figure it out that the viewing public matters. Otherwise, who wants to watch 2 hours of no goals without explanations ? Sorry - want to be a fan, but they make it (bleep) hard to be interested

[Rosthol]

When Celio Pompeo #12 passed the ball forward Conrad Wallem #6 was in an offside position.

What that means is there were not two defenders between Wallem and the goal (one can be the keeper) at the time of the pass.

Wallem was behind the defensive line and the only defender between Wallem and the goal was the goalkeeper.

Therefore Wallem was in an offsides position.

[Stel]

Ok. I am not the most conversant soccer aficianado, I admit. But I’m trying to learn and be engaged. But what the hell was the reason City’s goal was disallowed ?! Offsides but what constitutes that !? The announcers didn’t explain it. For a sport where goals are few and far between, the referees better explain or figure it out that the viewing public matters. Otherwise, who wants to watch 2 hours of no goals without explanations ? Sorry - want to be a fan, but they make it (drat) hard to be interested

A player is in an offside position if, at the time the ball is played by a team mate, he is in the attacking end of the field and is closer to the goal line than the ball and at least two defensive players (which can include the goalie). It is not a foul unless the player in an offside position becomes involved in active play. In this case, Wallem was closer to the goal than all of Vancouver's players except the goalie. When he played the ball, the foul occurred and resulted in the goal being disallowed.

[Rosthol]

Left out the attacking end part.

Well done.

[SRV1990]

Ok. I am not the most conversant soccer aficianado, I admit. But I’m trying to learn and be engaged. But what the hell was the reason City’s goal was disallowed ?! Offsides but what constitutes that !? The announcers didn’t explain it. For a sport where goals are few and far between, the referees better explain or figure it out that the viewing public matters. Otherwise, who wants to watch 2 hours of no goals without explanations ? Sorry - want to be a fan, but they make it (drat) hard to be interested

A player is in an offside position if, at the time the ball is played by a team mate, he is in the attacking end of the field and is closer to the goal line than the ball and at least two defensive players (which can include the goalie). It is not a foul unless the player in an offside position becomes involved in active play. In this case, Wallem was closer to the goal than all of Vancouver's players except the goalie. When he played the ball, the foul occurred and resulted in the goal being disallowed.

Do we take into account the fact that the Whitecaps defender played the ball?

Very unfortunate, but not surprising, a close play one week goes to VAR, but a very close play last week (again, no goal for City) does not go to VAR. Until MLS decides they actually want to be a top league, this will happen.

[todd-parker]

Ok. I am not the most conversant soccer aficianado, I admit. But I’m trying to learn and be engaged. But what the hell was the reason City’s goal was disallowed ?! Offsides but what constitutes that !? The announcers didn’t explain it. For a sport where goals are few and far between, the referees better explain or figure it out that the viewing public matters. Otherwise, who wants to watch 2 hours of no goals without explanations ? Sorry - want to be a fan, but they make it (drat) hard to be interested

A player is in an offside position if, at the time the ball is played by a team mate, he is in the attacking end of the field and is closer to the goal line than the ball and at least two defensive players (which can include the goalie). It is not a foul unless the player in an offside position becomes involved in active play. In this case, Wallem was closer to the goal than all of Vancouver's players except the goalie. When he played the ball, the foul occurred and resulted in the goal being disallowed.

Wallem (#6) was offsides (between opposing goalie and last defender) when Pompeu (#12) tried the pass inside to Klauss (#9). The pass was deflected by the defender to Wallem who, at that point, was back onsides when he received the deflected ball and made the cross to Hartel for the goal. However, the deflection did not "reset" the play so Wallem's offsides was essentially still "in effect" when he made the cross that led to the goal. I think the confusion stems from Wallem being onside when he made the pass to Hartel for the goal but offsides when the play began.

[Rosthol]

Have to agree with todd-parker.