That's some made up rule you have come up with though. The rule is general, did Sigurdson interfere with the play ? Yes or no ? If he did (by moving) then it's offside. DDG not saving it isn't the issue at all here
Get rid of VAR NOW! We want our game back! (...or not, some are happy)
- Thread starter RedFish
- Start date
Because people base their opinion on something else than the simple rule here. It sucks to be offside like this but it doesn't make it the wrong decision
Most honest post in that thread
Mental that so many people don't know the rules and are raging at VAR for making the right decision.100% he was interfering with play. Looks very harsh but VAR has observed the rules of the game. Not sure where people are getting it should have stood?
You can’t say that the player being there impacted De Gea trying to save the ball so he’s not interfering with play. All he does is move out of the way of the ball.
Yes. I'd understand the outcry if Sigurdson didn't move an inch but the moment he moved, he made the decision very easy
He's saying Gylfi being there didn't make a difference. De Gea has committed to moving to his right and wasn't getting there.
We got away with it, if Gylfi wasn't there we concede and lose that game.
It doesn't matter, play interference isn't necessarily linked with the keeper's ability to save the ball
What was the offside rule made for? It's intent wasn't to just cancel goals left and right, the most exciting part of football. Specially today, because if the player didn't exist, the exact same outcome would have ocurred (De Gea beaten and ball rolling to the net).
Maybe I'm old school but I would just take away most rules and just leave a common sense aspect to it. Just like handballs, its original intent was to stop players from carrying the ball like its rugby, not to give penalties to these extreme short distant crosses into someones hands.
Maybe I'm old school but I would just take away most rules and just leave a common sense aspect to it. Just like handballs, its original intent was to stop players from carrying the ball like its rugby, not to give penalties to these extreme short distant crosses into someones hands.
We would have won the league if drogba had been properly called offside. That’s my opinion anyway.
But he was there and he was interfering with play. It matters not which way De Gea was going.
Everton were very fortunate to finish the game with 10 men, shame VAR didn't review a few of their fouls.
VAR was good but so was Maguire for contesting the goal. He was a captain today.
Yeah but what is common sense for you won't necessarily be the case for someone else. A line has to be drawn somewhere
To people who think the goal was wrongly disallowed: Do you think that it's a viable tactic to have a player sitting in front of the keeper, shoot the ball towards him and just have him lift his legs up when the ball approaches?
Whether De Gea was getting there or not is irrelevant no? Facts are that Sigurdsson was directly impacting the play from an offside position. You also cannot say his presence cannot affect De Gea 0%. You see it all the time with offside attackers' presence affecting defenders, thus goals being ruled out for interfering with play. It's a similar situation to me.
If Sigurdsson had done nothing the ball would have hit him and not gone in. As evidenced by him having to move his legs to allow the goal to happen. Therefore, he had an influence on the goal from an offside position. He also had to have an influence on De Gea's decision making. He was directly between De Gea and the person who took the initial shot, directly between De Gea and the deflection off Maguire and directly in the way of the ball's path to goal.
Was De Gea moving in the opposite direction? Yes. Would De Gea have saved it if Sigurdsson wasn't there? Probably not. Neither of those points stop it from being the correct call though.
Was De Gea moving in the opposite direction? Yes. Would De Gea have saved it if Sigurdsson wasn't there? Probably not. Neither of those points stop it from being the correct call though.
Good that you pointed it out. Offside was brought in to prevent goal hanging. Standing (or sitting) in front of the keeper to confuse him is very much a case of goal hanging.
If Gylfi had been standing up and done a jumping jack just as the ball came to him, do you think it would've been a legitimate goal as well?
You're offside if you're interfering with an opponent, and Gylfi was interfering with de Gea by a) unsighting him, and b) confusing him as to where the ball was going to go with his sudden movement.
Yeah we we're fortunate sure, but that doesn't make it any less of an obstruction.
Well if we're magically removing players, if Maguire wasn't there the ball goals wide and we draw the game.
A player sat in front of the keeper isn't interfering
Get to feck
Get to feck
It's very unfortunate for Everton, as my guess would be that the ball goes in either way, but Sigurdsson was right between de Gea and the ball and it passes directly through his original position so he's definitely interfering with play (on some level). I think it would have been a mistake for VAR to stay silent.
That's completely irrelevant, GKs height, movement etc. is not taken into account. Just whether the offside player is impeding with GKs vision, or interfering with the play.
Otherwise, with what you're suggesting. Teams should just have a player camp in front of Alissons left post in next match, just have them sit there. Alisson is 6ft plus, so its not like he can't see over him can he? Just ask the offside player to move out of the way whenever a shot is looking like going in, they are clearly not interfering because they're trying to move out of the way right?
This entire conversation is completely dumb, its a simple rule but still so many can't seem to grasp it.
If not for VAR we would have been probably 7th now or so.
Keep it please.
Keep it please.
VAR would get it. Goddamn sexy video referee.
Feck off Everton. They were lucky with the goal that they scored at OT this season with the clear foul from DCL on De Gea and now this. Clear offside.
Solskjær: “When VAR starts giving u decisions like they do to Liverpool, you know you’re going places”
Reminds me of the Ajax v Madrid one last season. Both rightly disallowed IMO.
You must be pretty thick not to understand how he's interfering with play. He's lying directly on the floor and even moves out of the way as the ball trickles in. Speculating whether DDG would save it or not is irrelevant given the position they are both in.
The Everton reaction has been pathetic. They'd have wanted the same call at the other end.
It's remarkable that you can't see how this very act is interfering with play.
But De Gea has clear sight of the original shot, which is when the offside was called from.
The position of the offside is judged from the original shot, the offside offence is judged from when the player becomes involved.
Saw highlights:
1stly, Looks to me like Maguie moves his boot in a manner in which he's trying to block the ball, just looked again and he's definitely trying to block it. So couldn't be offside because "A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent, who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save), is not considered to have gained an advantage. "
2ndly, "“interfering with an opponent” means preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or challenging an opponent for the ball " wouldn't apply anyway as De Gea can see the ball perfectly well.
3rdly, There was also a foul on Sigurdson that left him in that position in the first place, two foot up sliding lunge in to him after playing the ball which is a stone-wall penalty.
Not as bad as the no red card for what was basically a criminal stamp by Lo Celso in the Chelsea game last week though.
Pretty standard premier league VAR decision this season all up...
1stly, Looks to me like Maguie moves his boot in a manner in which he's trying to block the ball, just looked again and he's definitely trying to block it. So couldn't be offside because "A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent, who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save), is not considered to have gained an advantage. "
2ndly, "“interfering with an opponent” means preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or challenging an opponent for the ball " wouldn't apply anyway as De Gea can see the ball perfectly well.
3rdly, There was also a foul on Sigurdson that left him in that position in the first place, two foot up sliding lunge in to him after playing the ball which is a stone-wall penalty.
Not as bad as the no red card for what was basically a criminal stamp by Lo Celso in the Chelsea game last week though.
Pretty standard premier league VAR decision this season all up...
Don’t get me wrong, he’s daft for just sitting there. It created a decision for VAR to make. I don’t think a situation like that counts as offside though.
Of course it does, he had to move out of the way for the ball to go in.
The very definition of offside.
It's a unique scenario but he involved himself by moving out of the ball's way. If the ball hadn't been on the ground but in the air instead there's no argument.
Think we'll eventually get a situation where teams get two challenges a half so along the lines of the way it's used in Tennis with 3 per set.
Can't complain as it's been done this way all season but it's very frustrating there are no ways of being able to challenge a wrongly awarded corner that gets scored 20 seconds later and yet ridiculously tight offsides have been scrutinised all season with same length regarding a goal being scored.
Still should've defended it better of course.
Can't complain as it's been done this way all season but it's very frustrating there are no ways of being able to challenge a wrongly awarded corner that gets scored 20 seconds later and yet ridiculously tight offsides have been scrutinised all season with same length regarding a goal being scored.
Still should've defended it better of course.
Saw someone on twitter compare Siggurdson's action to that of someone dummying the ball.
Obviously when someone dummies the ball they don't touch it, they don't change the course of where's it's going and they don't necessarily stop the goalkeeper seeing the true path of the ball. Their presence and action still has an influence on the decision the goalkeeper has to make though, which is why someone dummying the ball in that position would be called as an offside. Whether the goalkeeper would have reacted exactly the same with or without the dummy is neither here nor there, it's still impacting on their decision making.
The same logic applies here. Even if we accept that De Gea saw the entire path of the ball from the moment it left DCL's foot until it went into the goal, the fact that an offside player was initially blocking the path of the shot before taking action to evade it still influences the decision De Gea has to make. That's enough for it to be called as offside, even if De Gea's actions would likely have been the same anyway.
Obviously when someone dummies the ball they don't touch it, they don't change the course of where's it's going and they don't necessarily stop the goalkeeper seeing the true path of the ball. Their presence and action still has an influence on the decision the goalkeeper has to make though, which is why someone dummying the ball in that position would be called as an offside. Whether the goalkeeper would have reacted exactly the same with or without the dummy is neither here nor there, it's still impacting on their decision making.
The same logic applies here. Even if we accept that De Gea saw the entire path of the ball from the moment it left DCL's foot until it went into the goal, the fact that an offside player was initially blocking the path of the shot before taking action to evade it still influences the decision De Gea has to make. That's enough for it to be called as offside, even if De Gea's actions would likely have been the same anyway.
You're over complicating it.
He's in the way of the ball and moves so it can go past him into the net. The very act itself shows he was interfering with play.
It's not that hard when you break it down.