Care to expand on that? The Villa player was standing, as well as literally tussling with De Gea, while Lingard was in a ball on the ground, not in line of sight, and not making contact with the keeper.
Should Ronaldo's goal have been allowed?
- Thread starter Cutch
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran hold a long overdue conversation about United's awful league form with 1 win in 7. They discuss a disappointing draw at Bournemouth, a not so disappointing draw against Liverpool and a crushing defeat at Chelsea - Is time nearly over for Erik Ten Hag?
Then in a special second half of the pod, Nik welcomes Natalie ( https://twitter.com/natalie_17) to discuss the fortunes of Manchester United Women as they booked a place in the FA Cup Final after a historic first ever win vs. Chelsea.
Only if Mike Dean doesn't look like a Jasper Carrot tribute act.
More offside than the Villa player having a bumping match with De Gea?
Image in spoiler. Surely for an offside to be called the interference has to be when the Villa player heads the ball, what happens before then is irrelevant (unless we're asking for a foul rather than offside). When the scorer actually heads the ball, he's not in front of De Gea, blocking his view or obstructing him from diving towards his near post which is where the goal was scored. His arm is outstreched near De Gea but he's not actually got hold of De Gea as far as I can tell from the video footage (again, we're talking when the header was made).
If he has got hold of De Gea's shirt or barged him causing him to lose balance for example, that would be a foul, offside would be irrelevant as it's a free kick for grappling with our keeper anyway. However I've not seen anyone asking for a foul.
I definitely think we have a good case for offside in that he's close enough to the keeper to be causing a distraction, but I think we'd have to apply the same logic to the Lingard situation in that he's literally right in front of the keeper even if he's on the floor. Can you really lie down on the floor in front of the keeper and claim it's not interfering because "well the keeper can still see the ball in his eyeline". Imagine if a team had a player go lie down in the 6 yard box purposely for a period of time and there were several shots taken at the goalkeeper during that time, would we expect the ref to just let this go as the keeper can technically still see the ball fine? When he's got a player lay down directly in front of him, 2 yards away?
I do agree with the argument that Lingard is only on the floor because he's been put there by a defender after he's passed to Ronaldo, so it's definitely a weird situation where you have to maybe say that their foul negates the offside or you have to give us a somewhat soft penalty. It's a bit of a minefield.
Yes.
The picture shows a clear distraction occurring.Image in spoiler. Surely for an offside to be called the interference has to be when the Villa player heads the ball, what happens before then is irrelevant (unless we're asking for a foul rather than offside). When the scorer actually heads the ball, he's not in front of De Gea, blocking his view or obstructing him from diving towards his near post which is where the goal was scored. His arm is outstreched near De Gea but he's not actually got hold of De Gea as far as I can tell from the video footage (again, we're talking when the header was made).
If he has got hold of De Gea's shirt or barged him causing him to lose balance for example, that would be a foul, offside would be irrelevant as it's a free kick for grappling with our keeper anyway. However I've not seen anyone asking for a foul.
I definitely think we have a good case for offside in that he's close enough to the keeper to be causing a distraction, but I think we'd have to apply the same logic to the Lingard situation in that he's literally right in front of the keeper even if he's on the floor. Can you really lie down on the floor in front of the keeper and claim it's not interfering because "well the keeper can still see the ball in his eyeline". Imagine if a team had a player go lie down in the 6 yard box purposely for a period of time and there were several shots taken at the goalkeeper during that time, would we expect the ref to just let this go as the keeper can technically still see the ball fine? When he's got a player lay down directly in front of him, 2 yards away?
I do agree with the argument that Lingard is only on the floor because he's been put there by a defender after he's passed to Ronaldo, so it's definitely a weird situation where you have to maybe say that their foul negates the offside or you have to give us a somewhat soft penalty. It's a bit of a minefield.
How is Lingard more offside?
Agree. We had this one go our way and last week one against. Both right decisions imo. I remember an old Fergie saying they all equal out over a season. he was talking about pens, but can apply to anything in football.
Why do we do this? Do we not want to win the game? Do we not want goals? It was given by the on field ref and linesmen, checked and confirmed by VAR. It’s a goal, and a bloody glorious one at that.
I don’t think this evens anything out. Watkins was interfering with DeGea and impacted his positioning and ability to react to the header. He’s offside the whole time. Lingard was on the floor because of the actions of two Villereal players. If Watkins had been pushed towards DeGea by one of our players then fair enough.
He’s already headed that ball in the frame.Image in spoiler. Surely for an offside to be called the interference has to be when the Villa player heads the ball, what happens before then is irrelevant (unless we're asking for a foul rather than offside). When the scorer actually heads the ball, he's not in front of De Gea, blocking his view or obstructing him from diving towards his near post which is where the goal was scored. His arm is outstreched near De Gea but he's not actually got hold of De Gea as far as I can tell from the video footage (again, we're talking when the header was made).
If he has got hold of De Gea's shirt or barged him causing him to lose balance for example, that would be a foul, offside would be irrelevant as it's a free kick for grappling with our keeper anyway. However I've not seen anyone asking for a foul.
I definitely think we have a good case for offside in that he's close enough to the keeper to be causing a distraction, but I think we'd have to apply the same logic to the Lingard situation in that he's literally right in front of the keeper even if he's on the floor. Can you really lie down on the floor in front of the keeper and claim it's not interfering because "well the keeper can still see the ball in his eyeline". Imagine if a team had a player go lie down in the 6 yard box purposely for a period of time and there were several shots taken at the goalkeeper during that time, would we expect the ref to just let this go as the keeper can technically still see the ball fine? When he's got a player lay down directly in front of him, 2 yards away?
I do agree with the argument that Lingard is only on the floor because he's been put there by a defender after he's passed to Ronaldo, so it's definitely a weird situation where you have to maybe say that their foul negates the offside or you have to give us a somewhat soft penalty. It's a bit of a minefield.
The still picture above clearly shows why the Villa goal shouldn’t have stood. De Gea is basically having to fight the offside player as the ball is headed. It’s much worse than at least one of the Leicester ones that was disallowed.
I have a very easy way of judging if a player is offside or not, if it's against United it's offside but if it's in favour of United it's not.
It would have been a joke if the Villa goal had been disallowed.
If it wasn't for completely incompetent refereeing in the Brighton/Leicester game this wouldn't even be an issue
Seriously (or wumming)?
Watkins was stood inches in front of De Gea, deliberately took that position and held his arms out wide to try to impede De Geas movement.
Lingard was pushed over so not his choice to be there and made no movement at all to impede goalie or his vision.. in fact, did the exact opposite by trying to make himself smaller (though to avoid getting a ball smashed at him t.b.h)
By your rules, defenders should just shove an opposing forward behind them and the line all push up? “Ref, he’s offside”?
Nah, go back a few frames/half a second. Watkins was more in front. And what he did before isn’t irrelevant… it impacts in where De Gea could have moved to. Unlikely he’s saving it but being as he tipped a point blank header over v Villarreal, if he’d had the option of taking a step to his right, could have got a hand to it… who knows? The point is Watkins impacts De Geas movement and options from an offside position. That’s offside.Image in spoiler. Surely for an offside to be called the interference has to be when the Villa player heads the ball, what happens before then is irrelevant (unless we're asking for a foul rather than offside). When the scorer actually heads the ball, he's not in front of De Gea, blocking his view or obstructing him from diving towards his near post which is where the goal was scored. His arm is outstreched near De Gea but he's not actually got hold of De Gea as far as I can tell from the video footage (again, we're talking when the header was made).
If he has got hold of De Gea's shirt or barged him causing him to lose balance for example, that would be a foul, offside would be irrelevant as it's a free kick for grappling with our keeper anyway. However I've not seen anyone asking for a foul.
I definitely think we have a good case for offside in that he's close enough to the keeper to be causing a distraction, but I think we'd have to apply the same logic to the Lingard situation in that he's literally right in front of the keeper even if he's on the floor. Can you really lie down on the floor in front of the keeper and claim it's not interfering because "well the keeper can still see the ball in his eyeline". Imagine if a team had a player go lie down in the 6 yard box purposely for a period of time and there were several shots taken at the goalkeeper during that time, would we expect the ref to just let this go as the keeper can technically still see the ball fine? When he's got a player lay down directly in front of him, 2 yards away?
I do agree with the argument that Lingard is only on the floor because he's been put there by a defender after he's passed to Ronaldo, so it's definitely a weird situation where you have to maybe say that their foul negates the offside or you have to give us a somewhat soft penalty. It's a bit of a minefield.
(EDIT. Just glanced through your other recent posts, I get it now. No point replying as I know it’ll go absolutely nowhere)
The most interesting conversations happen when people have no vested interest in the answer.
Jesse was fouled either way.
A pen should have been given.
A pen should have been given.
No fecking way it’s offside, anyone who says otherwise is ABU.
I was there in the Stretford End and it happened so quick but me and my mate knew there was a fumble on the ground with Lingard and then the next thing Ronnie has shook the back of the net .. it was absolute euphoria!
Was he interfering? Never!
Was he interfering? Never!
Or A.B.O?
The only ones questioning this goal are United haters like Pepe Reina who, like many of his team mates, has never had anything good to say about us; some people, including it seems supposed United supporters, simply dont want us to win. Ignore them.
Lingard is directly in front of the keeper. Villa player is off to the side of De Gea.
On the Villa one at no point is De Gea's vision of the ball blocked and unless he was stood on the near post he wasn't saving it anyway. It would have been ridiculous to rule it out it was a perfectly good goal.
In the same vein Lingard doesn't block the keeper's vision of the ball or have any impact on the trajectory of the ball, it would have been some stupid technicality to rule it out and he only ended up where he did because of their players. Both goals are fine.
In the same vein Lingard doesn't block the keeper's vision of the ball or have any impact on the trajectory of the ball, it would have been some stupid technicality to rule it out and he only ended up where he did because of their players. Both goals are fine.
What do you want Lingard to do? stare at the ball and let Ronaldo smash his face?
He is only on the floor because of Pau Torres challenge.Can I start off by saying I don't actually really care about the answer to this, but did we get away with one?
I was convinced watching the replays that Lingard was offside, and then it panned to the ref on the half way line who seemed to be consulting with VAR for quite a period of time. I was shocked but ecstatic it was then allowed.
Can it be argued that it wasn't an obvious error or Lingard wasn't interfering?
Yeah on the floor...
Neither player is hindering the keeper's line of sight, one of them is hindering/trying to hinder the keeper's person though.
How does having an academic discussion after the match affect any of that. Let the people discuss, it's the entire purpose of the forum.
Yes.
That’s what I thought. Lingard got a clean touch on the ball. The defender didn’t. How else does Jesse end up on the deck without being tripped? I wonder if that was a factor in the VAR decision.
Do you not think it takes the fun and joy of a thrilling last minute winner out of it a bit though to forensically dissect the goal? Seems a bit pedantic and unnecessary. Enjoy the moment and the win.
If Aston Villa's Hause goal valided, I don't see why Ronaldo goal have not be allowed.
Actually lingard was doing them favor by blocking an angle. (Not his fault though)
Fed up of these goals where it's offside because a player is within a farts distance of the keeper.
Unless he's properly putting him off/blocking his view, or they literally have to take evasive action to get out of the way of the ball (like Sigurdsson for that Everton goal) then just give the goal.
Unless he's properly putting him off/blocking his view, or they literally have to take evasive action to get out of the way of the ball (like Sigurdsson for that Everton goal) then just give the goal.
Sorry
It definately didn't affect my enjoyment of the win, was just a bit curious after I'd finished celebrating if it was the right decision, as I was bricking it when I seen it being reviewed. I can see now why it wasn't overruled by VAR
Ref into his mic, to VAR official..... I am not bothered.. its an 'effing goal'....I've got to get off this pitch!!
Perfect goal.
Those threads always attract guys with too strong 'unbiased' opinions just for the sake of it.
In no world is that an offside.
In no world is that an offside.
I don't think there's anyway Lingard can do more to not intervene there. He make himself as small as possible as he's not blocking the keeper sight by any means.
Should AWB's red card ban be extended to 3 games?