Everton's Disallowed Goal

[Inigo Montoya]

IMO he didn’t interfere in the play, he stand still and just moved his feet so he wouldnt touch the ball, if its such a logical play and there’s no controversy we wouldn’t have this thread. So you mas not be as smart as you think. Simple

If he's not interfering with play, then what's he doing there right in front of DDG? Waiting for a bedtime story?

 

[UDontMessWith24]

IMO he didn’t interfere in the play, he stand still and just moved his feet so he wouldnt touch the ball, if its such a logical play and there’s no controversy we wouldn’t have this thread. So you mas not be as smart as you think. Simple

Because anyone can’t create a thread about whatever they want? Flawless logic

 

[devips]

Was the Red given to the Brugge player the correct decision? I am just asking, in the spirit of the debate going on here.

 

[ManUArfa]

Two reasons why this was a clear offside:

1. Sigurdson, who was in an offside position, made a movement to allow the ball through and clearly distracted the keeper.

2. At the point when the ball was first shot forward (before it got deflected) Sigurdson was blocking DDG's direct line of site to that action.

 

[OverratedOpinion]

If you're laying directly in front of the keeper then you are affecting him.

 

[Sky1981]

Who cares. 1-1 is the official score.

Ask any United fans they'll answer A
Ask any Everton fans they'll answer B

at the end of the day, 1-1 is the score

 

[edgecutter]

He had time to get up and move away from goal. Correct decision

 

[Annihilate Now!]

IMO he didn’t interfere in the play, he stand still and just moved his feet so he wouldnt touch the ball, if its such a logical play and there’s no controversy we wouldn’t have this thread. So you mas not be as smart as you think. Simple

That, by its very definition, is interfering with play.

 

[KW2006]

Easy. If he didn't move his leg, the ball touched him, then his is offside. If he moved his leg, he is interfering the keeper, thus offside. Won't complain even if this happened to our attackers.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

How is there even a discussion over this? There’s not even a question.

 

[Pow]

Two reasons why this was a clear offside:

1. Sigurdson, who was in an offside position, made a movement to allow the ball through and clearly distracted the keeper.

2. At the point when the ball was first shot forward (before it got deflected) Sigurdson was blocking DDG's direct line of site to that action.

Thats clearly not true. In fact de gea moves towards where the initial shot is going.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

How is there even a discussion over this? There’s not even a question.

You should see the Reddit thread on this goal... has something like 3,000 comments.

It's also full of absolute raving morons... like Reddit in general to be fair.

 

[SER19]

So obviously offside it shouldn't have a thread

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

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.

There are no ‘Sides of the fence’

It was offside. Absolutely open and shut textbook.

Anyone continuing to breathe in to this needs to realise they are talking about rule changes. Not a decision.

 

[mark_a]

It was offside - it's controversial because it#s VAR & us.

We'd be gutted if it was our disallowed goal, but chances are we'd be criticising VAR not the rules.

But god bless VAR eh, for years the chattering idiot pundits have begged for it but now it's here they're constantly criticising it. Almost like they get paid to fill dead air with words.

We could be discussing how a couple of Everton players escaped bookings in the first half for dangerous challenges (they were booked later so did affect the game).

 

[simplyared]

First the shot. DDG dives to his right to stop it. The ball hits Maguire's legs and is deflected into the goal. How the feck has Sigurdsson interfered with that?

 

[iHicksy]

I really can't be arsed reading this thread but i'll just say he is interfering with play because he's making De Gea doubt where the ball is going by sheer virtue of being lying on the floor in front of him in the six yard box. He doesn't need to touch the ball.

 

[GaryLifo]

First the shot. DDG dives to his right to stop it. The ball hits Maguire's legs and is deflected into the goal. How the feck has Sigurdsson interfered with that?

Because he had to dummy it so it can go in.

If he'd been standing in the same place and dummied the ball it would be offside just the same.

Also when the shot was taken he was sat up and sky showed he was directly in line between keeper and the player taking the shot.

I'm not sure why anyone is still arguing about this. I'm wondering if it's the Ole out brigade upset because they wanted it to be a goal so they could rage about the manager needing to be fired.

 

[Ibi Dreams]

Moving his legs out of the way so the ball would go in is interfering with play.

This was posted like 4 pages ago and should explain why it was obviously offside.

If he does nothing, the ball hits him and he's offside. If he moves his leg to let the ball past, then he interferes with play. Anything he does to impact the trajectory of the ball (i.e hitting it OR moving out of its way) is interference from an offside position

Basically Sigurdsson couldn't have done anything in that situation, he was offside and interfering with play whether the ball hit him or not.

 

[Inigo Montoya]

Was the Red given to the Brugge player the correct decision? I am just asking, in the spirit of the debate going on here.

Correct decision.

Deliberate handball, preventing a goal bound attempt. It’s not an unusual case. There have been loads of reds for this since the start of the PL.

 

[Ainu]

I thought it was an interesting situation so I had a quick look at the laws of the game. In "Law 11 - Offside":

In the context of Law 11 – Offside, the following definitions apply:
• “nearer to his opponents’ goal line” means that any part of a player’s head, body or feet is nearer to his opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent. The arms are not included in this definition
• “interfering with play” means playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a team-mate
• “interfering with an opponent” means preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or challenging an opponent for the ball
• “gaining an advantage by being in that position” means playing a ball
i. that rebounds or is deflected to him off the goalpost, crossbar or an opponent having been in an offside position
ii. that rebounds, is deflected or is played to him from a deliberate save by an opponent having been in an offside position

So the only considerations are these:
- Is he touching the ball?
- Is he playing the ball?
- Is he clearly obstructing the opponent's line of vision?
- Is he challening an opponent for the ball?

In my opinion the answer to all four questions is no. Not offside for me. Didn't stop me from celebrating the VAR decision of course. I guess the only point of discussion would be when is a player deemed to "play the ball".

 

[Annihilate Now!]

I thought it was an interesting situation so I had a quick look at the laws of the game. In "Law 11 - Offside":


So the only considerations are these:
- Is he touching the ball?
- Is he playing the ball?
- Is he clearly obstructing the opponent's line of vision?
- Is he challening an opponent for the ball?

In my opinion the answer to all four questions is no. Not offside for me. Didn't stop me from celebrating the VAR decision of course. I guess the only point of discussion would be when is a player deemed to "play the ball".

He's doing this:

- "interfering with an opponent” means preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or challenging an opponent for the ball

Thus, offside.

 

[LawCharltonBest]

Was the Red given to the Brugge player the correct decision? I am just asking, in the spirit of the debate going on here.

Dunno the rules about straight reds for handball now, but I think why the ref watched the video so many times to see if Mingeolet was diving when the Brugge player stopped the ball with his hand. As the handball happened, Mingeolet had not started diving yet, so probably a red yes.

 

[bsCallout]

The other point may be that if he wasn't there then De Gea may have been standing where he was, therefore he is interfering with play.

 

[Ainu]

He's doing this:

- "interfering with an opponent” means preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or challenging an opponent for the ball

Thus, offside.

How? If you look at the replay, you see De Gea's vision tracking the exact line of the ball all the way through. I don't see how he's "clearly" obstructing his line of vision. He's not challenging De Gea either. I don't see how it qualifies.

 

[Doracle]

He's doing this:

- "interfering with an opponent” means preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or challenging an opponent for the ball

Thus, offside.

I don’t think that’s clear. The key question is whether he was preventing De Gea from playing the ball. As De Gea has already set out to save the original shot, before the deflection took it the other way, arguably he had no impact.

That said, I think the benefit of doubt has to favour the defending team in this type of scenario. Given how close he was to the ball, and that he clearly was between De Gea and the ball when it was hit, I think it was the right call here. It’s not as clear as some are suggesting in this thread though.

 

[Rooney24]

Obviously we will take it. I thought we were a bit lucky with it to be honest.

When I first saw it I thought the touch from Maguire puts him onside regardless of anything else. Clearly not.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

How? If you look at the replay, you see De Gea's vision tracking the exact line of the ball all the way through. I don't see how he's "clearly" obstructing his line of vision. He's not challenging De Gea either. I don't see how it qualifies.

In terms of line of sight the ball is obviously not 100% in DDG's view 100% of the time, so that is a factor.

But more then that, he is obviously impacting De Gea's ability to play the ball (as he's a keeper, playing the ball for him = saving the ball). It is not up to De Gea to know whether or not he is offside... what if someone has gone rogue and is playing him on at Right Back? As a footballer you should never just assume someone is offside.... thus De Gea should not be expected to know that Gylfi is going to move his feet out of the way and avoid contact with the ball. For all he knows, he could stop the ball, get up and put it in... and if he did that and De Gea had already dived to the right he'd have looked like a total tit.

Basically, as soon as he moves his legs he is changing the outcome of the ball and its destination... that is impacting how De Gea should attempt to play the ball.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

I don’t think that’s clear. The key question is whether he was preventing De Gea from playing the ball. As De Gea has already set out to save the original shot, before the deflection took it the other way, arguably he had no impact.

That said, I think the benefit of doubt has to favour the defending team in this type of scenario. Given how close he was to the ball, and that he clearly was between De Gea and the ball when it was hit, I think it was the right call here. It’s not as clear as some are suggesting in this thread though.

Exactly... and it is not up to the referee to determine De Gea's ability. He almost certainly wouldn't have saved it, but the referee cannot judge that because he can not know 100%. Afterall we've all seen De Gea save shots he has had no right to save in the past.

The referee can not judge a game on ability... it's like when someone gets a red card for fouling someone as a last man, despite there being a very quick defender close by. We all may know that said quick defender will probably make it back in time to make a tackle, but the referee isn't allowed to make that call, so must issue a red card.

 

[Ainu]

In terms of line of sight the ball is obviously not 100% in DDG's view 100% of the time, so that is a factor.

But more then that, he is obviously impacting De Gea's ability to play the ball (as he's a keeper, playing the ball for him = saving the ball). It is not up to De Gea to know whether or not he is offside... what if someone has gone rogue and is playing him on at Right Back? As a footballer you should never just assume someone is offside.... thus De Gea should not be expected to know that Gylfi is going to move his feet out of the way and avoid contact with the ball. For all he knows, he could stop the ball, get up and put it in... and if he did that and De Gea had already dived to the right he'd have looked like a total tit.

Basically, as soon as he moves his legs he is changing the outcome of the ball and its destination... that is impacting how De Gea should attempt to play the ball.

But that's the thing, according to the exact definition, he should be preventing De Gea from playing the ball by clearly obstructing his vision or challenging him. Influencing the opponent by his mere presence is not included in the definition. Intuitively, I'm sure we'd all say him being there is interfering but I can find nothing to support that in the actual definitions. I guess it all sounds a bit silly and I'm looking at this from a purely academical point of view, but I can't help it, that shit interests me.

Having said all that, without over analyzing it, it's the sort of decision you can understand while at the same time understanding why the other team would be furious. Just one of those things.

 

[Kostov]

Feck Everton and their cocky bastards, I wish we won it with the most controversial goal. Jammy fecking cnuts.

 

[TMDaines]

Paraphrasing Surfsupforthesummer from Reddit:

If this is legal, the best use of Lingard would be to just sit down in front of the keeper in an offside position whilst his teammate’s taking a shot. Would be a great idea during free kick.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

But that's the thing, according to the exact definition, he should be preventing De Gea from playing the ball by clearly obstructing his vision or challenging him. Influencing the opponent by his mere presence is not included in the definition. Intuitively, I'm sure we'd all say him being there is interfering but I can find nothing to support that in the actual definitions. I guess it all sounds a bit silly and I'm looking at this from a purely academical point of view, but I can't help it, that shit interests me.

Having said all that, without over analyzing it, it's the sort of decision you can understand while at the same time understanding why the other team would be furious. Just one of those things.

No it's in there.. from the FA website.

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:

- making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

Nothing to do with line of sight or vision. He has made an obvious action, and it has impacted De Gea.

 

[Ainu]

No it's in there.. from the FA website.

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:

- making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

Nothing to do with line of sight or vision. He has made an obvious action, and it has impacted De Gea.

Ah, I hadn't looked into the specific interpretations of the English FA and limited myself Fifa's own definitions. Fair enough, that's slightly more nuanced. Though each FA having their own interpretations sure doesn't make it any easier.

 

[sincher]

I think we got very lucky and many refs would have given the goal.

 

[Rafaeldagold]

Imagine thinking that’s not offside.

Crazy

 

[Rafaeldagold]

I think we got very lucky and many refs would have given the goal.

Yes all the ones that don’t understand the offside rule.

I think more than anything this incident had shown me how little fans know of the rules.

It’s textbook offside interfering with play

 

[Pughnichi]

He was in line of GK and ball but not in line of sight with De Gea clearly being ale to see the ball.

he did move as well albeit to get out of the way so he was a distraction.

DeGea wouldn’t have got near it in fairness had Sigurdsson quickly got off the deck.

but just being in line and a distraction I think was enough for it to be the right decision.

that said, I’d be frustrated had it been given against us. But perhaps accepted it was the right decision.

It’s all made worse by the fact that De Gea wouldn’t have got near it anyway

 

[izec]

I think we got very lucky and many refs would have given the goal.

Yeah because some of them dont know the rules.

Situations like these used to be offside all the time in the past. Now it is more nuanced, but there are still rules and common sense to be applied. I dont think the decision was that difficult

 

[El Zoido]

It’s an easy and correct decision, which is why they took 5 seconds to disallow it rather than the 5 minutes it usually takes when it’s a difficult decision.