It might have distracted DDG from watching for the deflection for all we know. The ball is clearly heading towards Maguire.
Everton's Disallowed Goal
- Thread starter Mindhunter
- Start date
Or we just say, this is all nonsense. The situation of a bloke sat in front of the goals for ages is quacking like a pretty obvious offside to most people.
Far too many muppets on here thinking that it wasn't: offside, and interference
We should just get a guy to lie down infront of the keeper and pepper him with shots just to troll other clubs that don't think this is offside. Oh and the guy can make sudden movements to either allow or not allow the ball through.
Even if DdG had a clear view on the ball when it was shot... the deflection requires DdG to make a reflex save.
A full grown male in front of you on the ground sitting upright is in the least bit distracting enough to not be able to make that reflex save.
Unfortunate for Everton, but its the correct call.
A full grown male in front of you on the ground sitting upright is in the least bit distracting enough to not be able to make that reflex save.
Unfortunate for Everton, but its the correct call.
It's offside - and not just because I'm a United fan.
Sigurðsson is lying directly in the path of the ball as it takes the deflection off Maguire. At the time the ball takes the deflection and starts travelling towards de Gea, de Gea has to make the decision on whether the ball will hit Sigurðsson or not (it's also besides the point of whether de Gea would have gotten to the ball or not).
As Sigurðsson is therefor impacting play - it's offside.
In addition to the above you can throw in all of the line of sight factors which do come into play as well.
Sigurðsson is lying directly in the path of the ball as it takes the deflection off Maguire. At the time the ball takes the deflection and starts travelling towards de Gea, de Gea has to make the decision on whether the ball will hit Sigurðsson or not (it's also besides the point of whether de Gea would have gotten to the ball or not).
As Sigurðsson is therefor impacting play - it's offside.
In addition to the above you can throw in all of the line of sight factors which do come into play as well.
Thats irrelevant... as an official you can't make an assumption about whether or not De Gea can save the ball.
We've see De Gea save shots before when he's started moving the other way, so whilst it's highly unlikely he'd have saved it, you couldn't say its impossible. And the referee certainly can't judge it as being impossible.
Imagine if we scored the disallowed goal and it was martial or pogba sitting down in front of their keeper!
? Hes already made the move towards where the initial shot is, once delfected hes never saving it cause hes already gone the wrong way, thats the whole point
It was clearly impossible.
It was very very harsh on Everton but anyone who thinks it wasn't offside needs to take a good read at the rules.
Nowhere it is stated that the ball must be "saveable" for a offside to be given. Sigurdsson interfered, even though he didn't have a choice. Wrong place at the wrong time is all.
Nowhere it is stated that the ball must be "saveable" for a offside to be given. Sigurdsson interfered, even though he didn't have a choice. Wrong place at the wrong time is all.
I honestly can't believe this is even a debate tbh. It's the clearest offside / interfering with play you're ever likely to see. He's literally sat in a direct line to the ball and he even moves his legs away to avoid stopping the ball going in.
It's offside. End of story.
It's offside. End of story.
A referee can not make that decision.
I'm trying to make the argument that he may not have done that.
Because he was distracted?
It is far more reasonable to assume he might have been distracted, we don't need to prove or know how it happened.
You are not PROVING that he wasn't distracted. You are just saying "oh no he wasn't"
aren't you? honestly?
? What part of he moves when the initial shot is taken do you not understand ?
Once hes done that, thats it hes out of the game.
The fact he moves where the initial shot is going means he can see the ball.
And the lino won't even be looking at the GK.
I don't know.
Perhaps he thinks the other side of the goal is blocked by an offside player?
What ? So goalkeepers only move and dive one way if the other side is covered now ???? Come on man.
Even if Sigurdsson was out of the picture, the deflection alone had taken the shot beyond de Gea and he was never keeping it out.
Therefore, disallowing the goal was harsh despite what the rule book says. Common sense by the officials should have awarded the goal.
We got lucky.
Therefore, disallowing the goal was harsh despite what the rule book says. Common sense by the officials should have awarded the goal.
We got lucky.
It’s as obvious an interfering with play offside you’re ever likely to see. I’m stunned how you can think differently. Fans really don’t understand the rules.
Also perhaps DDG went to his right early as there was an Everton player sat on his arse protecting the right side of the goal in an offside position?
By the rules he’s offside, common sense says he isn’t. Luckily for us the former takes precedent.
Covered by an OFFSIDE player. So if it hits him great it’s not a goal.
If he moves out of the way it’ll be called as OFFSIDE.
Please tell me you understand this difference rather than just ‘if another side is covered why don’t all keepers not so that hehe’
Come on man, so disingenuous
Then why was de gea saying sigurdson obstructed his view then?
How is this debate still ongoing. It’s a clear offside no ifs or buts.
Not believing the pictures. Not believing the professionals that are explaining to you exactly why is it like that. Making up your own assertions to fit your narrative. Being one of 2-3 people arguing against the rest.
Are we in the Flat Earther thread or are we discussing offside here?
Are we in the Flat Earther thread or are we discussing offside here?
Irrelevant
I'm not a fan of VAR, but VAR, should have not even been needed in that instance, the refs there, the assistant, both could see the player offside on the ground, if it goes straight in or deflected, it's never a goal it's offside.
I don't even know why Ancelotti was having a wobler, maybe because the ref was awful all game, some of the yellow cards were a joke. He made the game worse in my opinion.
I don't even know why Ancelotti was having a wobler, maybe because the ref was awful all game, some of the yellow cards were a joke. He made the game worse in my opinion.
This thread is a disaster.
The number of posters essentially saying "well I dont know the laws but..." and then continuing on is shocking.
He is offside under the FAs articulation of how to interpret the offside rule. There really can be no debate, if you see the image from behind the initial shot Sigurdsson is clearly between De Gea and the attacker. That's all that matters.
Half the posts in here might as well read: yeah officer, I get that you've arrested me but I'm a bit hazy on drunk driving and I've not hit anyone so what's the problem?
The number of posters essentially saying "well I dont know the laws but..." and then continuing on is shocking.
He is offside under the FAs articulation of how to interpret the offside rule. There really can be no debate, if you see the image from behind the initial shot Sigurdsson is clearly between De Gea and the attacker. That's all that matters.
Half the posts in here might as well read: yeah officer, I get that you've arrested me but I'm a bit hazy on drunk driving and I've not hit anyone so what's the problem?
It's offside. It's irrelevant whether or not he touches the ball or De Gea can save it. Offside doesn't just exist in the confines of the box. If this was 20 yards back down the pitch it would have been flagged.
Exactly. Professional refs have explained why it was clear offside and very easy decision but somehow people want ref to give the goal for some odd reason.
I mean, we're just in transition period before artificial intelligence fully takes over refereeing job.
That period will be 20 years, minimum.
Aye, we've seen goals ruled out for offside based on the length of a man's chest hair, yet people are in uproar over this very easy call.
The same thing happened in France between Lyon and St. Etienne. Exact same thing with a player in an offside position moving out of the way of a goal bound ball. It was chalked off for offside by var.
So for people thinking not offside, because DDG was not saving it, Do you think this should have been a goal as it is going in irrespective of Nani's touch and the goal keeper had no chance?
Not sure why it is even debated. The moment he is in offside position and also between the Goalkeeper and the shot, he is influencing/interfering with play and it is offside. Doesn’t matter he is sitting or standing or hiding the ball or not.
The point is it doesn't matter that people think he might not have got to it. That's not the law of the game. IT DOESN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE. I'm not sure what's hard to grasp with this.
LAW 11 Offside
Position + Involved in Active Play = Offside.
He had to move his feet to allow the ball to pass through to the goal. That's absolutely an active play.
Position + Involved in Active Play = Offside.
He had to move his feet to allow the ball to pass through to the goal. That's absolutely an active play.