True. Certainly looked on to me. But they got away with a foul throw leading up to the second goal so, yanno, balances out I guess.

@@TheSurlySouthernerheel was on the line for that throw - good goal

@@nickswingsout 4:32 then get back to me.

Yeah it was. Thats why there was no replay or lines drawn. It was onside if you play or watch football long enough you knew it wasnt offside

@@TheSurlySoutherner Heel was on the line. Good TI.

If I remember the rule is clear and obvious to over turn a call of the field, if it was called a goal on the field that went to review, I'm more then sure we would of gotten are 3rd but because the call was offsides on the field and it wasn't clear and obvious that's why they stuck with that doo doo call.

The only reason why VAR didn’t check it was because there was no obvious error but I do think the linesman shouldn’t have raised their flag as it was a really close call

@@Unknown-dr7oethe ball went in. The ref should have looked at the replay. It’s piss poor officiating. Worse is the fact that he called the match during a damning attack by the Union.

@@Unknown-dr7oe Well technically, if the Lino is wrong, that's an error. Should be checked anyway. Ball's in the back of the net. That said, Philly got away with a foul throw leading up to their second goal, so, balances out.

lol. Cope. Atlanta was by far the better team but Almada had one bone-headed pass.

That FW was awful, just awful.

WE WILL BE THERE!!!!🔴⚫️🔴⚫️🔴

they deserve to fucking lose that last goal was onside

The thrower's heel is just barely touching the line, so a legal throw,

True, rule must step in the line, heel touch like that mean crossing line (one foul), and his right foot are not on the ground (2nd foul)

🤡🤡🤡

You have the nerve to complain after that terrible off side call that saved you? And then the early whistle that bailed you out? Your team was simply worse than us today. The only reason you got a point was because that ref is a glazer. Learn soccer.

🤡🫵🏼

Probably due to the original call and the VAR not being 100% sure in their check. I think if they would have called it a goal, VAR wouldn't have enough to review for offsides. They didn't have a clear view of onside to review it.

It didn’t cost them all three points

@@shivtim Apparently you missed the word 'almost'.

@@SirZigeiyea but that AR is taught to not raise her flag in that situation, the benefit goes to the attacker and var can come in and change it but whatever

@@johnathanpatrick6118 guuuuurl we can see you edited your comment

you are allowed one foot on the pitch

@@GetStuckInThere No you're not. Under the rules, you have to have both feet in contact with the ground within or on the touch line! Any ingress onto the field of play is foul throw.

@@GetStuckInThere Sorry, you are incorrect. The feet may be on the line. Not 1 foot on the field before the ball leaves the hands. I encourage you to read the FIFA guidelines before you state what you think you know. Specific guidance is, "have part of each foot on the touchline or on the ground outside the touchline". Note that it says "outside" not "inside" the touch line. And you can clearly see he is not meeting the requirement at the timestamp I gave. The goal should have been taken away for improper throw-in procedure and awarded to the other team.

@@GetStuckInThere We learn this in grass roots soccer...

@@GetStuckInThere I was actually able to download the video and pause right at foot placement, and I stand corrected. the very last part of his heel was on the line, and is more than i could do with the web browser version. On top of this, the sideline was staring directly at it. So I was wrong. However the guidance is correct, if you care to read and learn that part.

Cry 😂

heel is touching line

Shouldn't have let them score also the third goal shouldn't have been disallowed from Philly

His heel was still on the line

No sir that is a perfectly legal Golazo! stop crying