Schmiznurf
Caf Representative in Mafia Championship
Him moving his legs so as to not interfere with play was interfering with play as without it the ball would have hit him.
Questioning people's intelligence is unnecessary. Just accept it and move on if others don't agree with you (even if they are likely wrong).It’s not being offensive. It’s just facts. Sometimes their are just plain facts
It’s offside & clearly. No debate should be necessary.
So you mean that you can have a player standing in an offside position and as long as you bounce the ball off a defender it’s not offside?why was it deemed offside, after the deflection?
Surely once the ball hits Harry, Sig is then onside?
For sure de g was not looking at Sig before the deflection
This. I'm amazed some people cannot understand it like thatHim moving his legs so as to not interfere with play was interfering with play as without it the ball would have hit him.
It doesn’t matter though. If a player stands in front of the goalkeeper to block his vision, is the goal legit as long as the incoming shot is struck well enough?It was clearly impossible.
thats the thing though, there is no rule saying you cannot block the keeper's vision. as long as you are not doing what you said while you are offside it is allowed, goals are frequently scored in a crowded box where the keeper can't see where the shot comes from or in set piece situations where a scrap leads to some pinball and the ball falling into the net.It doesn’t matter though. If a player stands in front of the goalkeeper to block his vision, is the goal legit as long as the incoming shot is struck well enough?
I obviously meant from an offside position...thats the thing though, there is no rule saying you cannot block the keeper's vision. as long as you are not doing what you said while you are offside it is allowed, goals are frequently scored in a crowded box where the keeper can't see where the shot comes from or in set piece situations where a scrap leads to some pinball and the ball falling into the net.
Questioning people's intelligence is unnecessary. Just accept it and move on if others don't agree with you (even if they are likely wrong)].
It’s their intelligence on a very specific offside rule, I’m not saying they’re stupid in general.
Wrong opinions like that have every right to be called unintelligent. Just like if I said the moon is larger than the sun, it’s just wrong and I should be told it’s wrong.
People are way too sensitive these days
From first viewing on my stream i was too busy cursing conceding to realise.How is it even controversial?
Hrs in an offside position, He’s obviously interfering with play by being right in front of De Gea distractingly him, AND has to move his legs for the ball to go in- So if he doesn’t move his legs it hits him no goal.
This is textbook offside & 100% a correct decision- not sure why there’s even a debate about it
Dear god, this is still being argued? Even after sleeping on it & watching it again today with a clear mind, the play still screams ‘offside’ on the same multiple levels.
This and your previous post is close to how they framed the big change to offside interpretation in the days of Henry and RVN starting scoring every week.Agreed. Otherwise it'd surely be impossible to be offside unless you touch it.
There are 2 or 3 I think in this thread, maybe because of how close we are in table.And the Chelsea guy is having a WUM I think. If its motivated by Maguires non red VAR incident, I can maybe understand why.
Yeah, could well be, innit. Can understand a bit if they see us getting them - the VAR stuff - all the time, atm.There are 2 or 3 I think in this thread, maybe because of how close we are in table.
He's lying motionless on the floor! Besides, I've not even commented on the 'right and wrong' of this....my two posts have both stated my opinion that we were LUCKY that the rules were interpreted in our favour given the fact that had Sigurddsson NOT been in that position, the outcome would have been exactly the same and we would have lost the game 1-2LOOK AT HIM! He’s between goalkeeper and ball. How do you not see that?!?
Simple question.....yes/no answerHe literally moved his legs to avoid touching the ball?
As I keep saying, the fact that he has to move his legs to avoid touching the ball is an action that would impact De Gea's ability to play the ball.
Absolutely correct.Him moving his legs so as to not interfere with play was interfering with play as without it the ball would have hit him.
Exactly. It could not be clearer that the goal was rightly disallowed.Profession ref clearly explained the rule but for some odd reason it's really hard to people to understand just because rule is not designed as they want.
Thanks @GifLord for the video.
But he was there and that's why he's offside. He had enough time to get up and run to an onside position but he was just sitting on his ass ballwatching.He's lying motionless on the floor! Besides, I've not even commented on the 'right and wrong' of this....my two posts have both stated my opinion that we were LUCKY that the rules were interpreted in our favour given the fact that had Sigurddsson NOT been in that position, the outcome would have been exactly the same and we would have lost the game 1-2
So in the light, do you think it would be fine for offside players to dummy the ball?Simple question.....yes/no answer
IF Sigurddsson had not been there, would the events still have played out in the same way?
My answer to that question is 'yes' and therefore, as I said earlier, we were lucky that we got away with it on a technicality
Every official who has commentated on this has clearly stated its offside.I’m not sure why people are saying the fact he is had to move his legs out of the way means he was interfering. That’s not the rule and is just causing confusion. If De Gea had, for some reason, been out by the corner flag and all other events had played out the same way then there is no doubt that the goal would have stood. The fact he moved his legs is more or less irrelevant.
The key issue is whether he was preventing De Gea from playing the ball by being in his line of vision. Given that De Gea could clearly see the original shot and moved to start to try and save it, my personal view is that there is a reasonable argument that he wasn’t interfering. Had the ball sailed straight into the top left corner I’ve no doubt it would have been given. However, there is perhaps some (unlikely) prospect that De Gea could have got back had he been able to see the deflection more clearly and, in that scenario, my view is the benefit of doubt has to go to the goalkeeper.
What this definitely is not is a clear cut decision. The right one in my view but much more nuanced than is being suggested.
This happens often when a player is walking back from an offside position. They will hold their hands up and step out of the way, whilst one of their onside teammates runs through. If they get in the way of a defender, they are interfering and offside. If they don’t, it’s not a valid argument for the defending team to say that by leaving the ball they interfered.So in the light, do you think it would be fine for offside players to dummy the ball?
But he WAS in that position...that seems a silly argument to make. He was there interfering with play in an offside positionHe's lying motionless on the floor! Besides, I've not even commented on the 'right and wrong' of this....my two posts have both stated my opinion that we were LUCKY that the rules were interpreted in our favour given the fact that had Sigurddsson NOT been in that position, the outcome would have been exactly the same and we would have lost the game 1-2
If his ass wasn't blocking the area, de Gea wouldn't have shifted his position because that's the danger area and he wouldn't have an illegal wall blocking the goal for him.Simple question.....yes/no answer
IF Sigurddsson had not been there, would the events still have played out in the same way?
My answer to that question is 'yes' and therefore, as I said earlier, we were lucky that we got away with it on a technicality
But in that scenario the player is signaling his intent to not participate by holding his hands up and walking away from the ball. If the player just stands there and lets the ball roll towards him as if it's going to hit him, and then in the last second does a jumping jack, then his obvious action has interfered with the opponents (as they've stopped because if it hits him then it's offside), and thus making him offside.This happens often when a player is walking back from an offside position. They will hold their hands up and step out of the way, whilst one of their onside teammates runs through. If they get in the way of a defender, they are interfering and offside. If they don’t, it’s not a valid argument for the defending team to say that by leaving the ball they interfered.
Differences:This happens often when a player is walking back from an offside position. They will hold their hands up and step out of the way, whilst one of their onside teammates runs through. If they get in the way of a defender, they are interfering and offside. If they don’t, it’s not a valid argument for the defending team to say that by leaving the ball they interfered.
This is completely different to letting the ball run through your legs.... which is what a dummy usually entails.This happens often when a player is walking back from an offside position. They will hold their hands up and step out of the way, whilst one of their onside teammates runs through. If they get in the way of a defender, they are interfering and offside. If they don’t, it’s not a valid argument for the defending team to say that by leaving the ball they interfered.
This is not a VAR debate. Obviously someone get to see the replay N times, but it is more about interpretation of Offside rule. It is not about handball, foul or whether someone is 1cm offside or not. It is a simple interpretation of offside rule.100% interfering with play and offside. I can understand why some are arguing the point but that comes down to how vague VAR rules actually are, which is a separate discussion altogether.
Quite right.Exactly. It could not be clearer that the goal was rightly disallowed.
And he would have stopped the shot going in as well. It’s incredible that this has received 9 pages of discussion, it’s one of the most clear and obvious offside decisions I’ve ever seen.Him moving his legs so as to not interfere with play was interfering with play as without it the ball would have hit him.