passive voice

[diplomacy]

The passive voice confused me I don't know how to use it correctly and don't know the proper usages, have a look on the following examples:


Brazil had a goal disallowed for offside.

Goal for Brazil was disallowed for offside.


what is the difference between them and if there is a link helps in relating topic.

[Rover_KE]

Brazil had a goal disallowed for offside.

A goal for Brazil was disallowed for offside.

They mean the same.

Rover

[Bide]

The passive can get complicated: it is related to the concepts of subject and object, and the notion of Aktionsart, some philosophical aspects of our world view, and how this conditions our use of language. That said, it is not so hard to grasp. I'm sure in your language you use it without even thinking about it.
Basically, the subject of a passive sentence is/was not active. Something happens to the subject.

Active: Brazil (subject) scored a goal (object).
Passive: A goal (formerly object, now subject) was scored by Brazil (formerly subject, now instrument).

Active: The referee disallowed a goal.
Passive: A goal was disallowed.

Active: The referee disallowed a goal by Brazil.
Passive: A goal by Brazil was disallowed.
Passive: Brazil's goal was disallowed.

Now look at things from Brazil's point of view: they scored, they were happy. But the ref said no, no goal. They are then the victims of the ref's disallowing, they were not active in disallowing a goal.

Passive: Brazil's goal was disallowed by the ref for offside.
Passive: Brazil had a goal disallowed by the ref for offside.

'Brazil lost the match.' Is this a passive or an active sentence?

ps: I have already bet € 1000 that Brazil will win the next World Cup! They are magic!