Everton's Disallowed Goal

[Annihilate Now!]

From the Weekend Review - Chris Foy

Dermot Gallagher agrees:

INCIDENT: Everton look to have scored a late winner when Dominic Calvert-Lewin's shot deflects beyond David de Gea off Harry Maguire. With celebrations in full swing, a VAR review disallows the goal owing to Gylfi Sigurdsson lying offside in front of De Gea at the time of the shot, which is ruled is within his line of sight and affecting the play.

DERMOT'S VERDICT: I think it was right, but a lot of people don't. When you see the angle from behind, when the ball is struck, he's completely in the line of De Gea. The goalkeeper thinks he has to set himself for the ball to come completely through the line of Sigurdsson.

As it is, it hits Maguire, but as the ball rolls on he's quite clearly in his line of vision. Anyone watching the game knowing the laws would have to say it's offside.

I've listened to loads of people about this in the last 24 hours, but when you see it, that's what John Moss has seen. That evidence falls into the in line of vision, he's in line of De Gea, he's in the six-yard box, he could not be in a worse position for that ball to be played.

INCIDENT: In the build-up to the disallowed goal, De Gea pulls off a smart stop to keep out Sigurdsson's effort before the Everton man goes down under a challenge from Aaron Wan-Bissaka. He appears to be on his way down before any contact is made and VAR does not intervene.

DERMOT'S VERDICT: I saw this and I wasn't sure it was a penalty. I think Sigurdsson gets the shot away, and then goes over the leg of Wan-Bissaka. When you see that there, he collapses.

You can't give a penalty for something that hasn't happened. I don't think it's a foul, I agree he sees the leg coming in but he collapses.

https://www.skysports.com/football/...-evertons-manchester-united-winner-have-stood

Sounds like the majority of actual referee's are in agreement. The Bold part is pretty telling.

 

[OleTheGreat]

Because it involves Manchester United.

that's ridiculous that you say that. Even if he weren't a United fan, i think he would say the same. How can you possibly say that he sitting in the 6 yard box while play is going on and then clearly moving his legs is not obstructing De Gea's view is very disturbing to understand.

 

[RedDevil@84]

He was in De Gea's line of sight plus moved his leg.
Combining both is good enough for offside call.

 

[Wal2Fra]

I agree, and disagree.

I think that gets disallowed 95% of the time pre-VAR. The 5% is contingency for a badly positioned Assistant Referree.

The fact that VAR has given all Refs a safety net is part of the problem in the aftermath. “Let’s just check” is clearly their standpoint. Why make a bad decision and risk damage to your reputation when you can just kick it out to a faceless VAR team.

Referees were fallible before, but empowered. What ref in his HIGHLY QUALIFIED right mind is going to wear that decision, possibly get reprimanded, demoted, admonished, rather than send the decision elsewhere and get off scot-free?

We are not

I agree, and disagree.

I think that gets disallowed 95% of the time pre-VAR. The 5% is contingency for a badly positioned Assistant Referree.

The fact that VAR has given all Refs a safety net is part of the problem in the aftermath. “Let’s just check” is clearly their standpoint. Why make a bad decision and risk damage to your reputation when you can just kick it out to a faceless VAR team.

Referees were fallible before, but empowered. What ref in his HIGHLY QUALIFIED right mind is going to wear that decision, possibly get reprimanded, demoted, admonished, rather than send the decision elsewhere and get off scot-free?

We are not creating better referees.

In relation to the highlited paragraph, the linesman in this instance has for whatever reason failed to make the right call. Whether this is down to his positioning or using VAR as a safety net, he has missed the (obvious) call. I hope there is follow up punishments in these instances too.

VAR can reverse the call either way - which saw with Arsenal's goal against us (Aubemayang), which the linesman flagged for offside but VAR reversed it and gave the goal - so the linesman is better off making the call here, which is his role and has been training for and was clear and VAR will adjust the outcome if required.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

In relation to the highlited paragraph, the linesman in this instance has for whatever reason failed to make the right call. Whether this is down to his positioning or using VAR as a safety net, he has missed the (obvious) call. I hope there is follow up punishments in these instances too.

VAR can reverse the call either way - which saw with Arsenal's goal against us (Aubemayang), which the linesman flagged for offside but VAR reversed it and gave the goal - so the linesman is better off making the call here, which is his role and has been training for and was clear and VAR will adjust the outcome if required.

You may know more than me, but what was the chain of events? Was it;

- Goal
- Ref believes it’s legit
- Consult with Assistant Ref
- Assistant Ref says ‘Goal’
- Ref says ‘Check var’

?

Genuine question.

Just felt like the assistant ref didn’t put a foot wrong. Flag down until an event happens. Discussion. Var check. No goal. The Assistant Ref used his safety net.

 

[Mark_Barca]

IF that goal was chopped off for Everton against Liverpool, the opinions would completely change on here, IMO.

To me it's a bad decision, I don't buy into the blocked his vision, De Gea clearly sees the ball being hit and direction it was heading prior to it touching Maguie and moved in that direction, he was never saving that.

 

[GifLord]

IF that goal was chopped off for Everton against Liverpool, the opinions would completely change on here, IMO.

To me it's a bad decision, I don't buy into the blocked his vision, De Gea clearly sees the ball being hit and direction it was heading prior to it touching Maguie and moved in that direction, he was never saving that.

Think of it like this why are the players not sitting in front of the keeper during free kicks ?

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

IF that goal was chopped off for Everton against Liverpool, the opinions would completely change on here, IMO.

To me it's a bad decision, I don't buy into the blocked his vision, De Gea clearly sees the ball being hit and direction it was heading prior to it touching Maguie and moved in that direction, he was never saving that.

Stop talking about how you want the rule to work. It’s black and white. Written down.

The Everton player is smack bang in front of De Gea. He’s offside.

Do you understand that for the purposes of offside it doesn’t matter if the ball was going to end up in the net?

 

[Mark_Barca]

Stop talking about how you want the rule to work. It’s black and white. Written down.

The Everton player is smack bang in front of De Gea. He’s offside.

Do you understand that for the purposes of offside it doesn’t matter if the ball was going to end up in the net?

It's not black and white at all or 'written down' his movement 100% did not impact an opposition player or GK from getting to the ball and De Gea's vision was not blocked.

 

[Rozay]

If he did not move his leg, the ball would have hit him, and the goal would have been an obvious offside. The fact that he had to shift out of the way at the last second is because the ball (the ‘play’) was coming towards his foot. He was therefore interfering with it.

In any case, the refusal to rule out their goal against us at Old Trafford was frankly ridiculous, so for that alone, they can feck themselves.

 

[Wal2Fra]

You may know more than me, but what was the chain of events? Was it;

- Goal
- Ref believes it’s legit
- Consult with Assistant Ref
- Assistant Ref says ‘Goal’
- Ref says ‘Check var’

?

Genuine question.

Just felt like the assistant ref didn’t put a foot wrong. Flag down until an event happens. Discussion. Var check. No goal. The Assistant Ref used his safety net.

That is how it went (assuming there was communication between the ref and his linesman) but that is where the linesman has put a foot wrong, he missed the offside. He made an error that led to VAR interference.

But as you mentioned earlier, 5% of the pre-VAR games, this would have been missed. So whether intentionally not making the right call because of the safety net or unintentionally and the safety net was needed - neither outcome is really what we should be expecting of premier league linesmen.

 

[Grylte]

IF that goal was chopped off for Everton against Liverpool, the opinions would completely change on here, IMO.

To me it's a bad decision, I don't buy into the blocked his vision, De Gea clearly sees the ball being hit and direction it was heading prior to it touching Maguie and moved in that direction, he was never saving that.

Nope - to first bit.

If he didn't move his legs, the ball would hit him, he moves his legs and the ball goes in.
He is literally affecting where the ball goes.
How can people say he isn't interfering?

 

[Johnson Yip]

Simple!

- to be NOT offside, then he has to be a dead object.
- to be a dead object, then he shouldn't have moved.
- he moved, so he is not a dead object.
- and if he didn't move, in this case, the ball must hit him and wouldn't roll into the net.
- so, he interfered the play and the offside call was 1000% correct.

If he didn't move and the ball rolled in without touching him, then fair enough, the goal can be deemed legitimate.

 

[cyberman]

I agree, and disagree.

I think that gets disallowed 95% of the time pre-VAR. The 5% is contingency for a badly positioned Assistant Referree.

The fact that VAR has given all Refs a safety net is part of the problem in the aftermath. “Let’s just check” is clearly their standpoint. Why make a bad decision and risk damage to your reputation when you can just kick it out to a faceless VAR team.

Referees were fallible before, but empowered. What ref in his HIGHLY QUALIFIED right mind is going to wear that decision, possibly get reprimanded, demoted, admonished, rather than send the decision elsewhere and get off scot-free?

We are not creating better referees.

But it went in so has to be checked. I dont think the goal was ever given

 

[montpelier]

DDG will clearly notice the player being there. Is that not enough?

Why does greater distraction than that have to be stonewall proven?

It's more reasonable to assume DDG is distracted imo. And at the point the shot is taken, not the deflection by Maguire.

 

[SAFMUTD]

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

When a player stands still on a play while being offside is marked as not interfering, if he moved then it would been a clear offside, I get the part that he moved his feet so he wouldn’t touch the ball but thats the debatable part, the player shouldn't move even if going to be hit by the ball?

 

[sullydnl]

It's not black and white at all or 'written down' his movement 100% did not impact an opposition player or GK from getting to the ball and De Gea's vision was not blocked.

1) Siggy doesn't have to be blocking De Gea's view of the ball to be impacting on his field of vision. Being a present distraction would be enough for an offside to be awarded.

2) "Impacting on his ability to get the ball" doesn't mean he has to physically be preventing him from getting the ball. If Siggy's action even theoretically impacts on De Gea's decision making then it's enough to count as inpacting on his ability to get the ball. And it's impossible for his action not to impact on the decision facing De Gea given it's the difference between the ball going in the goal and the ball bouncing away from goal.

 

[UpWithRivers]

Even if De Gea was not obstructed at all visually it still obstructs him because consciously or more likely subconsciously first your mind calculates oh it will hit the player and if the player was not there your mind would calculate you should move to where the player is to get the ball but there is an obstruction there so it needs to calculate what happens based on the obstruction. Its seconds/milliseconds but its still obstructing the keepers normal instinctive reaction to that ball hitting Lindleof and heading to the goal. What would happen if you lined three or four players in front of the keeper at a free kick and then they moved out of the way at the last second.

 

[SAFMUTD]

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

Yes thats my point, I get why it was marked offside but its one of those calls that the team that gets it against feels robbed.

 

[TMDaines]

Nope - to first bit.

If he didn't move his legs, the ball would hit him, he moves his legs and the ball goes in.
He is literally affecting where the ball goes.
How can people say he isn't interfering?

Disagree on this quite strongly and I maintain the goal was offside. Getting out of the way of the ball is perfectly acceptable in an offside position. We see this all the time where players in an offside position at the time of the cross or pass, leave the ball for a teammate who was in an onside position. This is not an offside offence. It is the fact that Sigurdsson is in an offside position so close to the GK in the line of the ball when the shot is taken that is the only reason he is offside.

If De Gea was for example in front of Sigurdsson and failed to make the save once the ball deflected off Maguire, and then Sigurdsson moved his legs out of the way for the ball to trickle in, then the goal should and would have stood.

 

[TheRedDevil'sAdvocate]

DDG will clearly notice the player being there. Is that not enough?

Why does greater distraction than that have to be stonewall proven?

It's more reasonable to assume DDG is distracted imo. And at the point the shot is taken, not the deflection by Maguire.

I think you're looking at it and trying to justify it from a wrong pov. It's a textbook offside call and Everton should feel unlucky but certainly not aggrieved. And we don't need to do any self-flagellation either.

Whether De Gea could or could not make the save is irrelevant in the eyes of the law. It's not something for the referee to decide no matter how "obvious" the outcome may seem. And as the video posted by Gilflord shows, sight and vision are not the same things. Sight is confined to your current environment, while vision sees beyond your now to your future possibilities. Sigurdson doesn't block De Gea's sight (he sees the ball clearly and that's why he's moving to his right) but he disrupts his line of vision because when he moves his feet to let the ball pass, he becomes active (the most active player near the ball) and he creates a new variable (if the ball had touched him, he would have been offside) to which De Gea can't possibly react due to Sigurdson's proximity. The rules of the game talk about obstructing the line of vision of the defender.

It reminds me of the debate about what is deliberate handball and what is not after last year's night in Paris. As if any defender wants to play the ball with his hands... He made his body bigger with his raised arm by deliberately trying to block a shot. Dalot's shot had more chances of killing a bird outside the stadium than finding its target but the referee is not there to judge that. He's there to enforce the law and he (and VAR) got congratulations from UEFA. Again, should PSG blame their luck? Yes. Feel that the ref stole them a win? No.

 

[Maticmaker]

I don't think VAR was even necessary, any movement by a player in that sort of offside position is bound to distract the goalkeeper's attention whether he touches the ball or simply moves to allow the ball to go past him.

There was something of a lucky balance struck for us at both ends of the game, some bad luck in the first minute and good luck in the last minute. Que sera sera !

 

[FujiVice]

Sigurdson got what he deserved. Get up and continue the game, you muppet.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

But it went in so has to be checked. I dont think the goal was ever given

Exactly. I don’t think the Lino put a foot wrong.

 

[Raees]

Imagine trying to work out of he is offside or onside without use of VAR and in the context of amateur football. Would set a ridiculous precedent and be impossible to enforce. Correct decision to rule it out.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

That is how it went (assuming there was communication between the ref and his linesman) but that is where the linesman has put a foot wrong, he missed the offside. He made an error that led to VAR interference.

But as you mentioned earlier, 5% of the pre-VAR games, this would have been missed. So whether intentionally not making the right call because of the safety net or unintentionally and the safety net was needed - neither outcome is really what we should be expecting of premier league linesmen.

You’re making some of the story up.

I don’t think the Lino missed the offside. I think he saw what he saw, the ref spoke to him, and they both know they’ve got a get out clause by sending a late-game decision to VAR.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

It's not black and white at all or 'written down' his movement 100% did not impact an opposition player or GK from getting to the ball and De Gea's vision was not blocked.

Dude... he’s right in front of him. Have you even watched it? When the ball is hit, Sigurdsson is in front of the goal. Between the ball and DDG.

 

[montpelier]

Imagine trying to work out of he is offside or onside without use of VAR and in the context of amateur football. Would set a ridiculous precedent and be impossible to enforce. Correct decision to rule it out.

Amateur footy gives us a good way of looking at this for me.

Amateur lino sees blue shirt shoot the ball, ought not to be interested in an obviously accidental deflection (could be unsure on that I suppose) then sees obviously offside 2nd blueshirt right next to DDG.

Aside from deflection question, I'm putting my flag up. Why wouldn't you?

 

[Lentwood]

So you're saying it's on De Gea to know that Gylfi would definitely get out of the way of the ball? Surely he can't know that?

No....I'm saying

a) Sigurddsson didn't impair DDGs view
b) Sigurddsson didn't make a move towards the ball or a sudden move in-front of DDG
c) The shot was going in anyway

On that basis, I think it's fair to say we were 'lucky' that Sigurddsson was deemed as 'interfering' when I personally don't really see who or what he interfered with.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

Amateur footy gives us a good way of looking at this for me.

Amateur lino sees blue shirt shoot the ball, ought not to be interested in an obviously accidental deflection (could be unsure on that I suppose) then sees obviously offside 2nd blueshirt right next to DDG.

Aside from deflection question, I'm putting my flag up. Why wouldn't you?

The deflection Doesn’t matter. He’s offside when the ball is struck. Jesus.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

No....I'm saying

a) Sigurddsson didn't impair DDGs view
b) Sigurddsson didn't make a move towards the ball or a sudden move in-front of DDG
c) The shot was going in anyway

On that basis, I think it's fair to say we were 'lucky' that Sigurddsson was deemed as 'interfering' when I personally don't really see who or what he interfered with.

LOOK AT HIM! He’s between goalkeeper and ball. How do you not see that?!?

 

[poleglass red]

I'm not sure of the rules in this scenario, but De Gea was moving the other way, the richochet of Maguire had him wrong footed, nothing to do with the player in front of him who was miles offside.The player offside was arguably not interfering with play but the min he pulls his feet back to let ball pass him, surely then he is interfering with play. Glad it didn't count.

 

[sullydnl]

LOOK AT HIM! He’s between goalkeeper and ball. How do you not see that?!?

I think they're mixing up "impairing De Gea's view" with "blocking De Gea's view". Point being that even if De Gea can see the ball, the distraction of having Siggy directly in front of him can still count as having his vision impaired. Whereas they think that if De Gea can see the ball it doesn't count, which is wrong.

 

[Pow]

Hes not obstructing de gea, de gea moves exactly where the initial shot is going thats it.

 

[Pow]

De gea claiming to not see the deflection off maguire is irrelevant cause hes already gone the wrong way.
Sigurdson has no bearing on that goal

 

[Annihilate Now!]

No....I'm saying

a) Sigurddsson didn't impair DDGs view
b) Sigurddsson didn't make a move towards the ball or a sudden move in-front of DDG
c) The shot was going in anyway

On that basis, I think it's fair to say we were 'lucky' that Sigurddsson was deemed as 'interfering' when I personally don't really see who or what he interfered with.

He 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.

 

[Grylte]

Disagree on this quite strongly and I maintain the goal was offside. Getting out of the way of the ball is perfectly acceptable in an offside position. We see this all the time where players in an offside position at the time of the cross or pass, leave the ball for a teammate who was in an onside position. This is not an offside offence. It is the fact that Sigurdsson is in an offside position so close to the GK in the line of the ball when the shot is taken that is the only reason he is offside.

If De Gea was for example in front of Sigurdsson and failed to make the save once the ball deflected off Maguire, and then Sigurdsson moved his legs out of the way for the ball to trickle in, then the goal should and would have stood.

Sometimes you see the players standing in front of the gk, moving to get out of offside. But in this case, if the player didn't move at all, the ball wouldn't go in, it would stop/change direction in the attacker.
By moving his legs, he makes a path for the ball into the goal. So yeah, he is literally affecting if the ball goes in or not, by moving.
It is offside if he is hit or not, because he is in the path of the ball when the shot is released.

 

[montpelier]

The deflection Doesn’t matter. He’s offside when the ball is struck. Jesus.

From the sideline he might think Maguire is kicking the ball (Lovren vs Spurs) to put them all back onside again. He shouldn't but he might.

And dare I say, the deflection is a distraction for the lino?

 

[Gio]

Looks fairly straightforward and his own fault for lazing in the 6-yard-box.

 

[Pow]

He 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.

How can it impact de gea when hes already gone the wrong way from the initial shot ?