Everton's Disallowed Goal

[Mindhunter]

I didn't see a thread about this on the forum so creating one. Please merge if another one exists.

So which side of the fence are you on? Do you think that it was an off-side and VAR made the right decision?

In my opinion, the rules aren't clear. He tried to "not interfere" with the play by moving his legs out of the way. As long as a player doesn't interfere or influence the play then he shouldn't be deemed off-side. Also, I don't buy the argument that he restricted DDG's view of the ball as he was on the ground and DDG would have had no chance whatsoever of saving that goal with or without him. So based on my understanding it should have been a goal.

However, something feels totally off when a player is offside within the opposition's penalty box and is moving out of the way to let the ball in. I don't think regular field rules should apply in the box. The rule in my opinion should be that any player inside a box should be deemed off-side irrespective of whether he is influencing play or not.

 

[MyOnlySolskjaer]

I don't care as long as it rules in our favour.

 

[V.O.]

I think it's borderline enough to where I'd be massively fecked off if it had been allowed against us, but probably just as fecked off if we'd scored it and had it disallowed.

 

[Bubz27]

I can't see how a player can be laid down 4 feet in front of a goalkeeper and not be influencing the play.

I don't care if he wasn't exactly in line of sight between the ball and keeper, vision has a much wider line of sight than that.

 

[tombombadil]

Moving his leg affected the keeper. Just being in the way could affect the keeper. The view of the deflection or its path might be obstructed as well.

Harsh? Yes.

 

[Zlatan 7]

He’s sat in the 6 yard box offside while his teammate takes a shot. I don’t know how much more offside he could be

 

[Rafaeldagold]

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

 

[11101]

If you draw a line between De Gea's eyes and DLC's boot as he strikes the ball, Sigurdsson is sitting right in the middle of it. It's clearly offside.

 

[DWelbz19]

Blatantly the correct decision.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Of course it shouldn’t have stood. You can’t just sit there in front of the goalie like that, especially in the offside position.

 

[12OunceEpilogue]

I didn't see a thread about this on the forum so creating one. Please merge if another one exists.

So which side of the fence are you on? Do you think that it was an off-side and VAR made the right decision?

In my opinion, the rules aren't clear. He tried to "not interfere" with the play by moving his legs out of the way. As long as a player doesn't interfere or influence the play then he shouldn't be deemed off-side. Also, I don't buy the argument that he restricted DDG's view of the ball as he was on the ground and DDG would have had no chance whatsoever of saving that goal with or without him. So based on my understanding it should have been a goal.

However, something feels totally off when a player is offside within the opposition's penalty box and is moving out of the way to let the ball in. I don't think regular field rules should apply in the box. The rule in my opinion should be that any player inside a box should be deemed off-side irrespective of whether he is influencing play or not.

I agree with you. It seems harsh to say he was interfering but equally you don't want players able to sit a yard from goal then lift their legs up.

That kind of goal is enraging if given against you and enraging if it's chalked off for you, a grey area that pisses people off either way.

 

[Carl]

Very obviously offside.
Very obviously the correct decision.
Very obviously shit officiating in the first place to miss it.

Surprised at the controversy around it tbh.

 

[GazTheLegend]

It's the right decision

If I was an Everton fan I'd be pissed off at Sigurdsson because he just lay there - made it look like he knew exactly what he was doing. If he'd got to his feet faster maybe it wouldn't have counted at all but he sort of had a look at de Gea and that makes the decision easy really

I'd have been furious if Fred's knee / (non handball) had ended up in a goal and pretty sure there'd be zero controversy about that so it's hard to feel guilty really

 

[sullydnl]

Clear offside.

Even ignoring any notion of whether he was interfering with De Gea's sight at any point, the fact that he was initially blocking the goal before taking action to allow the ball past is enough to influence the decision De Gea has to make. That's enough for it to be offside, even if De Gea's actions would likely have been the same regardless.

If he was standing up and he dummied the shot to allow it into the net, he would have been flagged offside. The principle is the same. Just because he tried to get out of the way doesn't mean he wasn't interfering with De Gea's thought process, as De Gea is aware of him being there in the path of the ball.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

It's 100% offside.

The ball was going to hit him, the fact that he had to move to avoid it means he is interfering with play..

 

[The Hilton]

If you have to move out of the way, then by definition you're in the way.

Clearly the correct decision - if I were an Everton fan I'd be annoyed at Sigurdsson for lying on the floor for so long instead of getting up and out of the way!

 

[C'est Moi Cantona]

Right decision, but still not sure if the ref and linesman would have worked it out without the VAR.

 

[Inigo Montoya]

Are there some Utd fans disputing the decision?

Stone them!

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Anyone got a gif?

 

[USREDEVIL]

Tough call. But the player was between the keeper and the ball which could have affected his view of the ball’s movement so I think that puts the balance to offside. But I’d be pissed if I was an evertonian

 

[Mindhunter]

It's 100% offside.

The ball was going to hit him, the fact that he had to move to avoid it means he is interfering with play..

So if it hits him he is off-side and if he moves out then it is off-side too? So basically any player in the direct line of sight to the goalkeeper is off-side irrespective of his actions?

 

[siw2007]

By the letter of the law, he was offside. I can understand Everton feeling aggrieved but you simply are not allowed to position yourself there, in line with the shot and in front of the keeper.

The correct decision was made, emotions are running high and there will be accusations made by their side about the call, but this was the correct call.

 

[UnofficialDevil]

Was De Gea's ability to make a save affected in any way by Sigurdsson? I dont think so. For me it should be a goal.

 

[El Zoido]

It was clearly the correct decision. I mean, he hand to move out of the way for the shot. It’s obvious.

 

[Vidyoyo]

De Gea wasn't saving it but there was definite interfering with play as Siggy was sunbathing in the six yard box.

 

[sullydnl]

So if it hits him he is off-side and if he moves out then it is off-side too? So basically any player in the direct line of sight to the goalkeeper is off-side irrespective of his actions?

It isn't just that he was in the keeper's line of sight, he was also directly in the ball's path to goal.

 

[Inigo Montoya]

Anyone got a gif?

A Gylf?

 

[Vidyoyo]

Was De Gea's ability to make a save affected in any way by Sigurdsson? I dont think so. For me it should be a goal.

Not at all because he was never getting there but his positioning would have been affected by the player in the box (I think).

 

[Mindhunter]

By the letter of the law, he was offside. I can understand Everton feeling aggrieved but you simply are not allowed to position yourself there, in line with the shot and in front of the keeper.

The correct decision was made, emotions are running high and there will be accusations made by their side about the call, but this was the correct call.

Can you post the law that explicitly says that? I believe that the whole controversy started because the law is inconclusive around what constitutes interfering with play. For most of us, his lying in front of DDG is interfering with play but others may not agree. So who decides that?

 

[M4YON]

By moving his legs out of the way he becomes 'active' interfering with play in the same way a striker is ruled offside if he runs to the ball when offside

If he doesn't move his legs the ball hits him, if he does he's 'active' and is also offside.

Verdict: He shouldn't of stayed sat on the floor his team would have had a second and a winner against us. Correctly ruled out.

 

[Mindhunter]

It isn't just that he was in the keeper's line of sight, he was also directly in the ball's path to goal.

So any player who is directly in the ball's path to goal should be off-side? I don't think the law says that actually.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

So if it hits him he is off-side and if he moves out then it is off-side too? So basically any player in the direct line of sight to the goalkeeper is off-side irrespective of his actions?

Basically.

A keeper shouldn't be a mind reader. They can't just assume that a player will get out of the way... How is he to know he's offside? What if someone on the far side is playing him on?

 

[MAME DIOUF 32]

I think moving his legs probably worked against him because he then became an even clearer distraction to the goalkeeper.

tbh I think I'm against many people in that I think if you're in an offside position in the keeper's field of view, you're offside. Surely any top quality goalkeeper is alert to everything going on around his penalty area. Being stood 5 yards offside but also 5 yards to the right of where a shot ends up going is surely taking some of his focus.

 

[Red_toad]

I didn't see a thread about this on the forum so creating one. Please merge if another one exists.

Why not start a thread on why at least 1 Everton player wasn't sent off? Or Whay Shaw actually did to get a yellow card.


VAR made the correct decision, that is all.

 

[Zlatan 7]

So any player who is directly in the ball's path to goal should be off-side? I don't think the law says that actually.

He’s sat in the box offside when the shot is taken! He’s offside, he may aswell be doing a step over over the ball to fool the keeper, same as lying there and moving his legs, he’s clearly interfering with play

 

[Deery]

Obstructing the view of the keeper is interfering with play, his presence alone would put the keeper off.
Goal shouldn’t of been given.

 

[fergosaurus]

Not sure how anyone can think he wasn't interfering with play being in the position he was. Definitely the correct decision by VAR.

 

[Mindhunter]

He’s sat in the box offside when the shot is taken! He’s offside, he may aswell be doing a step over over the ball to fool the keeper, same as lying there and moving his legs, he’s clearly interfering with play

I agree with this. It's just that the law is inconclusive here and doesn't call this out clearly. In fact, I enjoyed the whole drama and a typically calm Ancelotti acting like a truculent kid and then being sent to the stands.

 

[peridigm]

I'm more concerned about the lack of VAR review for the Fred handball. Had they scored that free kick, it would have been a monumental feck up for the VAR argument because they apparently can't review it.

 

[ReddBalls]

Why would any fan want to question the validity of a correct (or even grey area) offside decision that their own team benefits from? Baffles the mind.