Everton's Disallowed Goal

ReddBalls

Full Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2015
Messages
992
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
Your answer is wrong. It wouldn't have played out the same way. He lay in the path of the ball and had to move his legs to let the ball through. If he was sitting still the ball would have hit him. If he moves his legs, he is actively interfering with play.
 

Escobar

Shameless Musketeer
Joined
Jun 8, 2004
Messages
30,063
Location
La-La-Land
Your answer is wrong. It wouldn't have played out the same way. He lay in the path of the ball and had to move his legs to let the ball through. If he was sitting still the ball would have hit him. If he moves his legs, he is actively interfering with play.
How is that discussion still going on. You are obviously right and it was the right call
 

stepic

Full Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
8,662
Location
London
Your answer is wrong. It wouldn't have played out the same way. He lay in the path of the ball and had to move his legs to let the ball through. If he was sitting still the ball would have hit him. If he moves his legs, he is actively interfering with play.
he literally just said 'IF Sigurddsson had not been there'.
 

Adam-Utd

Part of first caf team to complete Destiny raid
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
39,954
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
We can't really answer that.

David might have been distracted by Sigurdsson, at 1 point his view of the ball would have been blocked and it only takes a split second to misjudge the direction of the shot.

If a striker stood there in front of De Gea and the same thing happened would you still say its OK?

I'd say we got a bit lucky but by the rules it's clearly offside. If he wasn't there would he have reacted faster? it's hard to say.
 

stepic

Full Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
8,662
Location
London
it's pretty obvious he wouldn't have saved it given the massive deflection it took and the fact he was going the wrong way. it's the deflection that's the main thing, not Sigurdsson. the offside is obviously the correct call, but it's correct to say we got it on a technicality.
 

ReddBalls

Full Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2015
Messages
992
he literally just said 'IF Sigurddsson had not been there'.
If Sigurdsson wasn't there. The ball would go in. With Sigurdsson placed there, the ball would hit him if he did not move his legs. When you move your legs, you are interfering with play. How hard is that to understand?
 

Foxbatt

New Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2013
Messages
14,297
If Siggy was not there would DeGea be still on the line? He may have very well taken a step forward to make the angle better for him. Siggy being there stopped him from taking any forward movement. This is silly and stupid. If Siggy was not there? If the Everton player has not taken the shot?
The same situation happened in France in Lyon vs St. Ettiene and the same result. Offside.
 

stepic

Full Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
8,662
Location
London
If Sigurdsson wasn't there. The ball would go in. With Sigurdsson placed there, the ball would hit him if he did not move his legs. When you move your legs, you are interfering with play. How hard is that to understand?
i don't think anyone is disagreeing with that. Lentwood is talking about if he wasn't there though. basically he's saying we got lucky because he was there in the first place. which is also true. you're both right because you're both talking about different scenarios.
 

Anustart89

Full Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
15,912
All these hypothetical questions are ridiculous :lol:

What if Sigurdsson hadn't been there?
What if Sigurdsson had a vagina instead of a penis?
What if Sigurdsson was on the moon when the ball was struck?
What if Sigurdsson swung his arm at the ball? Can't score with the arm, eh?
What if Sigurdsson had the coronavirus?
 

Rado_N

Yaaas Broncos!
Joined
Apr 6, 2009
Messages
110,908
Location
Manchester
Yea if the guy who was offside hadn’t actually been offside it wouldn’t have been offside.

How the feck has this reached 10 pages?
 

Doracle

Full Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2017
Messages
2,805
i don't think anyone is disagreeing with that. Lentwood is talking about if he wasn't there though. basically he's saying we got lucky because he was there in the first place. which is also true. you're both right because you're both talking about different scenarios.
I’d definitely disagree with the first comment. The fact he moves his legs out of the way does NOT mean that he is interfering with play. It’s confusing the debate that people keep trying to argue to the contrary.

The question is whether or not what he did put De Gea off or impaired his visibility. There’s just enough doubt that it did for me to consider the decision was correct.
 

ReddBalls

Full Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2015
Messages
992
I’d definitely disagree with the first comment. The fact he moves his legs out of the way does NOT mean that he is interfering with play. It’s confusing the debate that people keep trying to argue to the contrary.

The question is whether or not what he did put De Gea off or impaired his visibility. There’s just enough doubt that it did for me to consider the decision was correct.
"The on-field decision was to award the goal, but the VAR advised the referee that Sigurdsson was in an offside position directly in the line of vision of David de Gea and made an obvious action that impacted de Gea’s ability to make a save." - The Premier League

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/premier-league-statement-explains-everton-21611578
 

Lentwood

Full Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2015
Messages
6,783
Location
West Didsbury, Manchester
We can't really answer that.

David might have been distracted by Sigurdsson, at 1 point his view of the ball would have been blocked and it only takes a split second to misjudge the direction of the shot.

If a striker stood there in front of De Gea and the same thing happened would you still say its OK?

I'd say we got a bit lucky but by the rules it's clearly offside. If he wasn't there would he have reacted faster? it's hard to say.
No....because that would clearly be 'interfering' since the line-of-sight would be blocked

What people seem to be forgetting here is that I'm not arguing that by a strict interpretation of the law, the 'goal' was probably correctly ruled out

My point is that we were very lucky because in my opinion, Sigurddsson being in that offside position was irrelevant to the way events unfolded and had he not been there, the 'goal' would have been legit
 

PowerOfDreams

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jul 15, 2019
Messages
8
Correct decision for me, he was sat right in front of De Gea so he had to be interfering with play. We all remember Pepe Reina and the balloon, was it a Sundaland game? Ancelotti was angry but its not like they were robbed of a clear goal, wrongly or anything.
 

Lentwood

Full Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2015
Messages
6,783
Location
West Didsbury, Manchester
But he WAS in that position...that seems a silly argument to make. He was there interfering with play in an offside position
The rule states that a player is offside if they are deemed to be 'interfering'

By a very strict interpretation of the rules, Sigurddsson was classed as 'interfering'

I think we where lucky because I don't think he actually WAS interfering, in reality

Forget 'lucky' in relation to the decision, I mean 'lucky we didn't concede a late goal' due to a piece of 'bad luck' for Everton
 

Lentwood

Full Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2015
Messages
6,783
Location
West Didsbury, Manchester
So in the light, do you think it would be fine for offside players to dummy the ball?
No..….why does that come into it?

Interesting how many on this forum can't even entertain the idea we got lucky or that the rules could have been interpreted differently.

Whatever people think, it's tribalism. For evidence, go over to the Everton forum and I'll bet a good amount they are having the same conversation but 90% of them think it should have stood
 

cyberman

Full Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
37,331
The rule states that a player is offside if they are deemed to be 'interfering'

By a very strict interpretation of the rules, Sigurddsson was classed as 'interfering'

I think we where lucky because I don't think he actually WAS interfering, in reality

Forget 'lucky' in relation to the decision, I mean 'lucky we didn't concede a late goal' due to a piece of 'bad luck' for Everton
You're confusing interpreting them differently and interpreting them incorrectly
 
Last edited:

roonster09

Hercule Poirot of the scouting world
Scout
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
36,515
No..….why does that come into it?

Interesting how many on this forum can't even entertain the idea we got lucky or that the rules could have been interpreted differently.

Whatever people think, it's tribalism. For evidence, go over to the Everton forum and I'll bet a good amount they are having the same conversation but 90% of them think it should have stood
Is it? So many refs explained why this was such an easy decision for ref to make once they got the reverse angle, I think it was Chris Foy who said people confuse between line of vision and line of sight to judge offside. Foy and other refs said this was clear offside and very straight forward one too.
 

Rafaeldagold

New Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2015
Messages
2,036
The rule states that a player is offside if they are deemed to be 'interfering'


By a very strict interpretation of the rules, Sigurddsson was classed as 'interfering'

I think we where lucky because I don't think he actually WAS interfering, in reality

Forget 'lucky' in relation to the decision, I mean 'lucky we didn't concede a late goal' due to a piece of 'bad luck' for Everton

Of course he was interfering- he was sat on his arse right in front of de gea & had to literally move out of the way otherwise the ball would have hit him & no goal.

How much more interfering can you get??
 

Lynty

Full Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2014
Messages
3,094
If Sigurdsson wasn't there, that would mean there wouldn't have been a save for De Gea to make in first place which sent the ball unpredictably in the air to Calvin-Lewin. He sat on the floor for 5 seconds watching play, can only blame himself.
 

montpelier

Full Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
10,637
That photo on the previous page at the point of the deflection.

You are on a ref's course.

"Do you think the offside player sat in front of the GK is active/interfering/relevant or whatever its being called this season?"

"No"

Is not a serious answer is it?
 

Annihilate Now!

...or later, I'm not fussy
Scout
Joined
Nov 4, 2010
Messages
49,674
Location
W.Yorks
No..….why does that come into it?

Interesting how many on this forum can't even entertain the idea we got lucky or that the rules could have been interpreted differently.

Whatever people think, it's tribalism. For evidence, go over to the Everton forum and I'll bet a good amount they are having the same conversation but 90% of them think it should have stood
Because thats basically what he did - he dummied the ball by moving out of it's way.

When a player dummy's a ball he is effecting the path of the ball (by getting out of its way).

De Gea was well within his rights to think that Gylfi might stop the ball, get up and shoot... because it's not up to De Gea to know whether someone is offside or not, and so should play the game assuming everyone is onside.
 

AdamColeBebe

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Nov 23, 2019
Messages
991
Supports
Man Utd
Apologies if this has already been asked, but why the hell did Gylfi just sit there after he went down? I can't get my head around it. Why didn't he get back up and run onside? HE cost Everton the game, not the ref. So so weird.
 

Velvet Revolver

Full Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
1,334
Location
Inside Scholes's Brain
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
By this logic anything and everything can be overrule no?

IF lewin had not struck the ball would it have been a goal?
IF Maguire had not deflected it would it have been a goal?
IF we had only 1 min of injury time would it have been a goal?

Based on the events that happened, It was 50/50 and we happened to get the benefit of the doubt. Everyone is making it seem like Everton got relegated because of that disallowed goal. Liverpool have been given even more dodgy decisions in their favor which doesn't event get a mention in MOTD and other formats let alone a CAF
 

Lentwood

Full Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2015
Messages
6,783
Location
West Didsbury, Manchester
By this logic anything and everything can be overrule no?

IF lewin had not struck the ball would it have been a goal?
IF Maguire had not deflected it would it have been a goal?
IF we had only 1 min of injury time would it have been a goal?

Based on the events that happened, It was 50/50 and we happened to get the benefit of the doubt. Everyone is making it seem like Everton got relegated because of that disallowed goal. Liverpool have been given even more dodgy decisions in their favor which doesn't event get a mention in MOTD and other formats let alone a CAF
None of those points make any sense because we are talking about a specific rule which states 'interference'. I think most posters/pundits are of the opinion that the ball would have gone in the net anyway and therefore the 'interference' angle is somewhat of a contradiction.

By the logic of most, Sigurddsson was 'interfering' but his presence made no difference to the outcome - which is a contradiction

You've also got other posters going on about Sigurddsson 'dummying the ball', DDG being 'unsighted' or 'confused' by Sigurddsson and DDG having to account for Sigurddsson being there - none of which are accurate in my opinion

I hate to see how bad some of you lot are discussing football down the pub. I imagine if we'd had a goal chalked off at the other end you would have been using exactly my points to refute 'interference'
 

12OunceEpilogue

In perfect harmony
Scout
Joined
Oct 2, 2016
Messages
18,392
Location
Wigan
All these hypothetical questions are ridiculous :lol:

What if Sigurdsson hadn't been there?
What if Sigurdsson had a vagina instead of a penis?
What if Sigurdsson was on the moon when the ball was struck?
What if Sigurdsson swung his arm at the ball? Can't score with the arm, eh?
What if Sigurdsson had the coronavirus?
I deffo would
 

montpelier

Full Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
10,637
None of those points make any sense because we are talking about a specific rule which states 'interference'. I think most posters/pundits are of the opinion that the ball would have gone in the net anyway and therefore the 'interference' angle is somewhat of a contradiction.

By the logic of most, Sigurddsson was 'interfering' but his presence made no difference to the outcome - which is a contradiction

You've also got other posters going on about Sigurddsson 'dummying the ball', DDG being 'unsighted' or 'confused' by Sigurddsson and DDG having to account for Sigurddsson being there - none of which are accurate in my opinion

I hate to see how bad some of you lot are discussing football down the pub. I imagine if we'd had a goal chalked off at the other end you would have been using exactly my points to refute 'interference'
But decision making doesn't exist in a vacuum, because you have to seek fairness with comparable decisions.

So, offside player - yes. Does he look like he might be interfering - yes. Am I interested if DDG us saving the ball - probably not.

If the offside player is 6 yards away and not in line, and the ball goes through the GKs hands, then I'm more inclined to give the goal, patently far less interference to events.

But here, you're working so hard to say there isn't interference, you've lost all balance of general fairness.

Next week, different game, anyone can do anything.

Controversial here, would be if DDG is beaten on the open side of the goal but it trickles past an offside player and you want to ignore that via a contrived argument that he doesn't do anything, except that he does.

I'm using the dummy to attack your argument, I don't think it actually matters here tbh.
 

Velvet Revolver

Full Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
1,334
Location
Inside Scholes's Brain
None of those points make any sense because we are talking about a specific rule which states 'interference'. I think most posters/pundits are of the opinion that the ball would have gone in the net anyway and therefore the 'interference' angle is somewhat of a contradiction.

By the logic of most, Sigurddsson was 'interfering' but his presence made no difference to the outcome - which is a contradiction

You've also got other posters going on about Sigurddsson 'dummying the ball', DDG being 'unsighted' or 'confused' by Sigurddsson and DDG having to account for Sigurddsson being there - none of which are accurate in my opinion

I hate to see how bad some of you lot are discussing football down the pub. I imagine if we'd had a goal chalked off at the other end you would have been using exactly my points to refute 'interference'
So based on that logic your initial premise is invalid, and so does any future discussions on this. If you are talking about hypotheticals you can't say be selective.

Coming back to the original scenario, distraction is distraction. Some people don't get distracted that easily some do, but going by benefit of the doubt which the VAR gave to United it was a fair decision. Like i said 50/50. GK's are usually given the benefit of the doubt in most cases and this was one of them.

And all those things the other posters are mentioning are valid in it's own terms.
 

Adam-Utd

Part of first caf team to complete Destiny raid
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
39,954
Apologies if this has already been asked, but why the hell did Gylfi just sit there after he went down? I can't get my head around it. Why didn't he get back up and run onside? HE cost Everton the game, not the ref. So so weird.
Because he realised he had the chance to win it, a tap in from 5 yards out and he put it close enough to David to save it.

He obviously felt so embarrased and ashamed that his legs stopped working and had to sit there so the fans felt sorry for him - then he ended up costing them another goal. :D
 

Rafaeldagold

New Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2015
Messages
2,036
How dense do you have to be to not see disallowing that goal was such an easy decision.

Even fcking the slowest & most shite system in the world VAR cleared it up In about 3 seconds
 

UnrelatedPsuedo

I pity the poor fool who stinks like I do!
Joined
Apr 15, 2015
Messages
10,047
Location
Blitztown
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
If Sigurdsson was not there, then no, he could not have been offside.
 

Foxbatt

New Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2013
Messages
14,297
Isn't he also restricting the ability of DeGea to take a couple of steps forward and narrow the angle of the initial shot? If that's not interfering that what is interfering? DeGea with his ability may well have saved it without Siggy.