Because it involves Manchester United.
Everton's Disallowed Goal
- Thread starter Mindhunter
- Start date
Would be furious if it was given against us, but at the same time I understand why it was given offside and it's probably the right call according to the rules. De Gea wasnt going to save the shot regardless, so I wouldnt mind a sort of rule that let's the attacking player move out of the way to not interfere if it's already going in, but it's impossible to implement fairly and consistently without getting so many grey areas.
http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-11---offside
Well these are the offside rules as listed by the FA website. It will fall under the obstructing line of vision part by lying in front of goalkeeper.
Agree. Trying to read up on the VAR review on when the "attacking possession phase" starts, but it's not very helpful. My guess would be the free kick itself, which is obviously a problem if that free kick is wrongly given.
http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-11---offside
Offside offence
A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:
Siggurdson is very obviously obstructing DDG's view. He even has to move his feet out of the way to let the ball past, which makes it impossible for the 'keeper to know what's going to happen next and react accordingly (ie. the second of the bullet points I posted).
It's offside by any measure.
Offside offence
A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:
- preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
- making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
Siggurdson is very obviously obstructing DDG's view. He even has to move his feet out of the way to let the ball past, which makes it impossible for the 'keeper to know what's going to happen next and react accordingly (ie. the second of the bullet points I posted).
It's offside by any measure.
He is interfering with play in an offside position. Slightly unlucky on Everton but I would've felt aggrieved had that goal stood.
The laws don't say a lot of things. That's why refs base their decisions on the various interpretations of the law provided to them through guidelines rather than directly (and exclusively) applying the law as written.
In the case of offside, the offside offence occurs when the player becomes involved. If DCL's shot had flown directly in without going anywhere near Siggy then the goal probably wouldn't have been disallowed as he likely wouldn't have been deemed to be involved, even if one could argue that he was still in De Gea's line of sight.
In this case though he was deemed to have "made an obvious action that impacted on De Gea's ability to make the save", so the goal was disallowed.
Not remotely controversial.
Also comes under thishttp://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-11---offside
Offside offence
A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:
- preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
- making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
Siggurdson is very obviously obstructing DDG's view. He even has to move his feet out of the way to let the ball past, which makes it impossible for the 'keeper to know what's going to happen next.
It's offside by any measure.
making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
Moving out of the way of the ball is a pretty obvious action that will affect a keepers ability to save the ball.
@siw2007 @Dante
preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
That's the whole controversy as people are interpreting this rule differently. For some people, he did neither because DDG wouldn't have been able to save the shot regardless as it was deflected by Harry Maguire. It would have been more straight cut if there was no deflection and it was headed straight in. Also, did he really block DDG's vision when he was lying on the ground?
Either way I believe this has run its course. That's it from me on this topic.
preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
That's the whole controversy as people are interpreting this rule differently. For some people, he did neither because DDG wouldn't have been able to save the shot regardless as it was deflected by Harry Maguire. It would have been more straight cut if there was no deflection and it was headed straight in. Also, did he really block DDG's vision when he was lying on the ground?
Either way I believe this has run its course. That's it from me on this topic.
Obviously offside.
Only reason it’s considered controversial is because United benefitted from it.
Only reason it’s considered controversial is because United benefitted from it.
How about some facts and physics.
Has anyone seen a simulation if the ball would have touched the player's feet if he didn't move them?
Has anyone seen a simulation if the ball would have touched the player's feet if he didn't move them?
The contraversial issue is that De Gea seemed to not be physically possible to get to the ball given the Maguire deflection,player there or not
It actually look
It would still be offside if it touched him. And the ball would probably stop.
To be fair I've seen him save those in the past from... Saving a shot that has deflected close to him
Same here.
It would have been possible if DDG wasn't leaning right because the offside player was blocking his line of vision.
Offside offence
A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:
- preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision
No way. The deflection was too close to him and he was going the other way already.
Plus even if Sigurdson wasn't blocking De Gea's vision in the slightest, De Gea's decision making could still have been impacted by Siggy initially blocking the ball's path to goal before then taking action to allow the ball past him.It would have been possible if DDG wasn't leaning right because the offside player was blocking his line of vision.
Offside offence
A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:
- preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision
I didn't even realise this was up for debate. Seemed a clear offside to me tbh. He's lying in front of the ball, in front of the goal and in front of the keeper.
Moving his legs out of the way so the ball would go in is interfering with play.
That is my point. If the ball was going to hit his feet them his move definitely affected the play.
Yeah. Weird how people don't understand this.
Not that there is anything to question.
VAR won't have an easier decision to make all season.
Exactly. It's not up to the ref to decide how good or bad a player is. The ref's decision is only about what's theoretically possible.
Could DDG have physically reached the shot if his positioning wasn't affected by the offside player blocking his line of vision? Quite obviously, yes.
Last edited:
I'm unclear on the rules, but I thought VAR are only allowed to intervene if the decision involves a penalty or goal. I'm not sure they can get involved with free-kicks.
I was so confident that the goal would be disallowed. I don't know why people are saying controversial. You can't sit in penalty area and right in front of the goal keeper and then not deemed to be interfering with the play. It was correctly ruled out
Have to say it was a wrong decision for the simple reason it would have been a goal whether or not Sigurdsson was in an offside position. De Gea dived to his right hand side to stop the shot. Sigurdsson had nothing to do with that. So he's not interfering with play. The ball goes in off Maguire after taking an opposite direction. De Gea is already sold, Sigurdsson moves his legs to avoid impeding play, consequently not touching the ball. So it can't be anything else but a goal.
Correct decision. He's about 1 cm from touching the ball and in the keepers line of sight. You can't start refereeing games on 'would it have mattered', just like that bullshit with the red card vs Bruges.
People are effectively saying to make a judgement based on the potential performance of a keeper. If he's going left or staying still then it should be disallowed. How is that meant to be reffed outside of VAR situations? It's impossible.
People are effectively saying to make a judgement based on the potential performance of a keeper. If he's going left or staying still then it should be disallowed. How is that meant to be reffed outside of VAR situations? It's impossible.
Last edited:
Personally I think we were lucky. De Gea reacted to the shot and started to move to his right. His view of the shot was not obstructed. It was then deflected off Maguire and went in the net. If the player sat on the floor didn't exist, there is nothing De Gea could have done to save the shot. If De Gea's view of a player shooting is obstructed by a player in an offside position, that should be disallowed for offside. I'm not a fan of VAR and think it should be scrapped completely. It doesn't make the game better because we still get wrong decisions and now we also get stupid decisions. My VAR opinion has nothing to do with what happened today and I don't change my mind just because we got the benefit of a stupid decision.
Clear no goal, you can't sit down or stand in front of the keeper and expect a goal to be given while being in a offside position.
Game would be a farce if we allow players to be able to lie down or just hang around in the six yard box. If a player wants to fasten his laces, do some sit ups or whatever they can do that off the pitch, not in front of the keeper. 100% no goal nothing controversial.
Game would be a farce if we allow players to be able to lie down or just hang around in the six yard box. If a player wants to fasten his laces, do some sit ups or whatever they can do that off the pitch, not in front of the keeper. 100% no goal nothing controversial.
Maybe DDG started moving right as he knew the left was covered by an offside Everton player who was sat on his arse on the floor in front of him
The bold may well be correct but it's also completely irrelevant as the player lying on the floor does exist. VAR and the referee aren't basing their decision on a hypothetical situation where he doesn't.
Of course he could have.
This was DDG's starting position before he had to lean right to look past Sigurdsson.
It's not definite, but saving a near post shot from there is theoretically possible. The ref's decision is only decide what could happen without an offside interference, not what would happen.
To me it doesn’t matter whether or not he “tried to not interfere with play”, the fact is that he did. If a player tries to move his arm out of the way but still blocks a shot with his arm, it’s still handball.
He’s sat right in front of the keeper as a shot comes in. For me, a more interesting debate is whether or not the original shot was on target, since it went in off Maguire. Shouldn’t that then mean that the offside is a moot point as soon as Maguire touches it?
He’s sat right in front of the keeper as a shot comes in. For me, a more interesting debate is whether or not the original shot was on target, since it went in off Maguire. Shouldn’t that then mean that the offside is a moot point as soon as Maguire touches it?
Offside all day every day. Doesn't even need VAR.
This ref did. But then again, he really had a shit game.
No way that goal should have been disallowed . You would have to be blind with bias to say it should have been .
We got away with murder on that call
We got away with murder on that call