Crew edge Union on questionable Mirosevic winner

  MilovanMirosevic (Getty)

The Philadelphia Union pulled off a tremendous comeback on Saturday night, battling from 2-0 down to tie things up against the Columbus Crew at Crew Stadium, but a blown call helped the home team earn a crucial victory and hand the Union another heartbreaking result.

Milovan Mirosevic scored in the 87th minute on a goal to give the Crew a 3-2 victory that help stay within range of the Houston Dynamo for the fifth and final playoff spot in the East.

The Crew jumped out to a 2-0 lead on the strength of a pair of Jairo Arrieta goals, one late in the first half and the other early in the second half, but the Union found life in the 65th minute when Michael Lahoud found Antoine Hoppenot with a dangerous pass in the penalty area. Crew goalkeeper brought Hoppenot down in the area, giving the Union a penalty that Danny Cruz converted.

Jack McInerney came off the bench and tied things up in the 86th minute with a quality volley, and the Union looked like they might snatch a road point, but their celebration didn't last long. Just one minute later, Josh Williams found Milovan Mirosevic with a pass behind the Union defense and Mirosevic finished the chance to give Columbus the lead. Replays showed that Mirosevic was well offside on Williams' pass, but the assistant referee missed the call, giving Columbus a valuable victory.

Here are the match highlights: 

What did you think of the match? Impressed with Jairo Arrieta's form since joining the Crew? Surprised to see the Union show life in the second half? Was the blown offside call at the end one of the worst blown calls of the season?

Share your thoughts below.

 

This entry was posted in MLS- Columbus Crew, MLS- Philadelphia Union. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Crew edge Union on questionable Mirosevic winner

  1. PD says:

    Philly needs an Arrieta.

    MLS needs better refs. (although Karma seemed to bite Philly for the Hoppenot dive…)

    That is all.

  2. B.E. says:

    I don’t know why everyone chalks it up as such an obvious offside. From my perspective, the Williams ball forward was merely a deflection. For it to be offside, it has to be played forward by the attacking player. It seemed more a fortunate deflection than actually playing the ball.

    That’s just me, though.

  3. Dustin says:

    You’re right it’s just you because you just made up what you think Law 11 says. I think we can all agree that he was in an offside position when his teammate played it agreed? So since he was in and offside position when the ball was touched or played by his teammate he cannot participate in that play. It does not matter that it deflected off of a Phili player.

  4. Seriously says:

    Don’t know what is so questionable about it. Clearly offside. No question about it.

  5. A says:

    That is just awful.

    He’s probably 5 or 6 feet offside. AR either not paying attention or doesn’t know the rules.

  6. castroviejo says:

    ar was no way near the last defender. he was up the field watching another game. horrible call.

    okugo was the only person on the field worse than the ar.

  7. Dustin says:

    He is supposed to be with the 2nd to last defender. The last defender is usually the Keeper.

  8. MJC-DC says:

    Here’s an image of the ball played for the goal.

    Credit – Black and Red United, DC United Blog

    link to pbs.twimg.com

  9. PD says:

    If you watch the replay an track the linesman he was sprinting to get even with the ball… No chance of him having a proper angle on the play. Poor.

    Kvetching about refs is as old as sports, but seriously, the MLS needs to step this up.

  10. Willow says:

    That was offsides. Not even close.

  11. Gordon Stretch says:

    The Crew are decent, but they won’t have much of a beef if they don’t make the playoffs. They just aren’t that good. Arrieta and Higuain provide plenty of optimism for next year though. Need some defensive depth now.

  12. B.E. says:

    Dustin,

    The scenario was the other way around, though. If the scenario was as you laid it out, then offside would have absolutely been the case.

    However, in this example, we have the original playing of the ball coming from the PHI (defensive) player. My argument, and again, it may only be mine, is that the attacking player (Williams of CLB) merely deflected the ball being played by the PHI player. If that were the case, a player cannot be ruled offside if the ball was played originally by a defensive player.

    Again, this is just my reading of Law 11 with 10 years of refereeing. I may be getting it totally wrong. I’m just going off what I’ve been instructed and wanting to ensure that the scenario you are providing is, in fact, an accurate portrayal of what occurred.

  13. jackdaw says:

    Both of Arrieta’s goals were in the first half. There’s no mention of the offside ball being deflected. This is such poor reporting on a game that its clear the reviewer didn’t watch the game. Maybe not even the highlights and just looked at a score sheet and read a few forum posts somewhere. Seriously guys, up your game because MLS reporting on anything besides the Red Bulls has become crap.

  14. Drew says:

    The NFL had an excuse as their refs were replacements. What’s MLS’ excuse?

  15. Warsaw says:

    Deflections have no significance to offside rule 11, and I completely disagree with your characterization of Ives’ reporting.