Clattenberg thought it was a goal
Everton's Disallowed Goal
- Thread starter Mindhunter
- Start date
Which it should have been
He had to move to get out of the way of the ball, meaning he is interfering with play whether he touches the ball or not.
Quite clearly offside and not sure why it even is a debate.
Quite clearly offside and not sure why it even is a debate.
Don't understand the controversy. Are people trying to say the player wasn't in de geas eye line to the ball ? Whether he could see the ball or not isn't for the official to decide , there is an offside player in his eye line is my understanding
It is offside. Not only did he sit right in front of him, he moved his legs away as well and interfered actively. Otherwise he would have blocked the shot himself. He didnt touch the ball, but he was still actively impacting the situation in a heavy manner. Only a debate in England, everywhere else it is offside. The offside rules are the same everywhere, but some are still used to different rules it seems
Nah, he's offside, he's in front of the goal, he has to move out of the way.
It's enough surely, or you turn every decision into a meticulously researched farce. What if there are 3 forwards stood around in there?
The decision making should be about being clear and obvious to steal a phrase from somewhere.
Bingo
Did you see how the ref just went and made the right call, on purpose? It was intentional!
It’s the correct call, but no way the player affected De Gea, it was a deflection, the keeper was already heading in the other direction. Whether the player was there or not didn’t make any difference. But it was still the right call ultimately.
Surprised by the number of people who seem to think it is material or not whether De Gea would have saved either the initial shot or the deflection.
Rules are rules. Otherwise, you could have players doing silly things in front of the GK all the time and irritating him, even if the shots are unsaveable. That is not important.
Anyone who says that isn’t the right decision is either blatantly biased or doesn’t understand the offside rule, players and managers often don’t so why would the fans. The fact that Sigurdsson has to move his body to avoid touching the ball basically means he interferes with the play and thus, it’s offside.
I once made a similar call as a referee, I think it’s not as complicated as everyone thinks. If it looks like the attacker could potentially touch the ball, and he makes some movement acknowledging the ball, it’s an offside.
I once made a similar call as a referee, I think it’s not as complicated as everyone thinks. If it looks like the attacker could potentially touch the ball, and he makes some movement acknowledging the ball, it’s an offside.
Clear offside. There is no argument.
Very lucky today. Thought we were really poor. Got to seriously raise our game for next weekend.
The fact he moved his legs and if he didn't it would have hit him. In this case a short player can stand in front of the keeper when a free kicks is taken would not be offside either. It's not a question of line of sight but interfering with the play by raising his legs. It's the right decision.
Look where the ball hits Maguire. DDG view is strictly obstructed of that. It’s a little silly. The ball hit Maguire on the bottom of his ankle - clearly it’s on the floor (where he is)
He doesn't lean right to look past Sigurdsson, he moves to the right in reaction to the shot. You can see in this image that De Gea hasn't even reacted to the initial shot yet. The ball is moving at high speed, not in slow motion. So if De Gea hasn't even reacted to the initial shot yet, how can you seriously expect him to react a second time and save the deflected shot? De Gea is not Quicksilver.Of course he could have.
This was DDG's starting position before he had to lean right to look past Sigurdsson.
It's not definite, but saving a near post shot from there is theoretically possible. The ref's decision is only decide what could happen without an offside interference, not what would happen.
It shouldn’t had been disallowed, if it was us I would be furious.
Nailed it, it happened against Chelsea when two correctly disallowed goals were being talked about as the reason to change the rules.
If this happened yesterday for Liverpool against Watford nothing would be said.
Was clearly an illegal goal, nothing to see here.
Well you’re not very intelligent when it comes to the offside rule then. Simple
Check the other images in my earlier post.
Again, you're making judgements about his ability rather than what's physically possible as per the rules.
More to the point, why does Sigurdson make no attempt to move into an onside position? He's just sitting there like a tit in a trance.Of course he could have.
This was DDG's starting position before he had to lean right to look past Sigurdsson.
It's not definite, but saving a near post shot from there is theoretically possible. The ref's decision is only decide what could happen without an offside interference, not what would happen.
I'd be having words if I was Ancelotti.
Onside if you’re a united fan or a “neutral”. Definitely offside if you are a non-United fan. 
I wish he would have sat there like a tit in a trance. But he didn't.
The thing is Sigurdsson is offside before the deflection even happens. Just by being in front of the keeper at that moment he is interfering with play. De Gea could have chosen to move forward for example but he has to be aware of an offside attacker on the floor in front of him. By definition, he has affected that phase of play.
Btw - we also got stupid decisions before VAR. If anything VAR has taken the flak away from refs who don't get criticized anymore. It's always VAR's fault now.
I think it was correct to chalk it off but we got a bit lucky that it went our way
Because for almost the entire SAF era this club was accused of intimidating and or buying off refs, always getting dodgy decisions and generally being undeserving of our incredible success.
Now that VAR seems to suggest that we do none of that and are occasionally wronged by decisions certain people need to keep up the narrative that we didn't merit those trophies.
Even for the initial shot though Sigurdsson is offside. As soon as the ball leaves DCL's foot and Sigurdsson is directly in front of our GK it should be offside. Line of sight or not its a distraction to a keeper. He could have taken a split second glance to make sure he didn't step on the player and that could delay his reaction to the initial shot etc. There are a million tiny distractions going on. Even in the peripheral vision, it would have an influence.
I'm not even sure it matters whether De Gea could or couldn't have made the save. The call is based on whether there was an impact on De Gea, not whether he was capable of making a save without that impact. Crucially, "impact" in this context includes an impact on his ability to make a decision, not just his ability to act.
Basically if Siggy impacts on what De Gea thinks he should do then it's an offside, regardless of whether De Gea would actually be able to do it. And you'd have a hard time arguing that Siggy's action wouldn't have an impact on what De Gea thinks he should do given it determines whether the ball rolls in or not.
The problem was created by the linesman not putting his flag up. I think if that's disallowed from the off there's very little fuss made. He's literally sat directly in front of the keeper.
I thought it was harsh at first because they gave the goal then ruled it out an De Gea move for the initial shot, but looking at it again, there's not much room for debate. You can't really claim you're not interefering with the keeper's ability to make a save, when you literally try to roll out the way of the ball as it goes past you.
I'd be pissed if it was the other way, but again more so because the goal was allowed to start with, and once you're overturning a decision there's the inevitability of over analysing it.
I thought it was harsh at first because they gave the goal then ruled it out an De Gea move for the initial shot, but looking at it again, there's not much room for debate. You can't really claim you're not interefering with the keeper's ability to make a save, when you literally try to roll out the way of the ball as it goes past you.
I'd be pissed if it was the other way, but again more so because the goal was allowed to start with, and once you're overturning a decision there's the inevitability of over analysing it.
We were very lucky that Sigurdson happened to be lying in the exact position to be offside from the deflection, because that deflection was making its way into the goal regardless imo.
Once he was in that position though then it's a pretty clear-cut offside decision, so I don't think we were lucky on the call itself. Siggy was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
He was involved in the play due to his being in the sight line of DDG. His obstructing DDG’s view in an offside position means the goal was rightly disallowed. About as clear cut as it gets. He also moves out of the way to allow the ball to pass, another reason. If he was standing in the keeper’s sight line while offside & moves out of the way to let the ball pass, he should be adjudged correctly offside. No difference if the man is on the deck.
If it's not offside or interfering then every team should just do the same, sleep or sit in front of opposition keeper.
As much as it seems harsh, there is nothing in the rules about "its only offside if the goalkeeper can't save it". There are vagaries tat you can point to but allowing it would give rise to a very effective tactic of making sure you have a player standing between the striker of the ball and the keeper. If it goes in then you can go to the VAR and start subjectively discussing if the keeper might have been able to save it. There would be such a huge advantage in posting a player in front of the keeper to interfere everyone would have to do it.
Yep. It's the same principle as if he dummied the ball into the net. Even though he hasn't touched the ball or changed its path, the act of allowing the ball past him in a way the keeper might not anticipate makes him an active part of the goal.
This in addition to however his presence directly in the goalkeeper's line of sight may have had an effect.
Correct. De Gea is known with his quick reflect which makes it very possible for him to save it without the interference of Siggy.
DDG only saw the ball when Calvert Lewin launched the shot, but as soon as it deflected by Maguire’s feet, the ball changed direction and he couldn’t see where it went since it was blocked by Siggy.
Beside, the ball went towards Siggy’s feet, DDG could also expect the ball was blocked by Siggy’s feet, but Siggy get them out which means he could also involve with DDG‘s decision making not just his vision on the ball.
In the words of Gary "what is he doing on the pitch if he is not interfering with the play"
Let's do it. 8 men running back and forth right in front of the keeper on free kicks.
It's hilariously dumb. I feel sorry for any person who has been watching football for more than 10 months to be thinking this isn't offside. Every time a player in an offside position is directly involved in a goal it will be called. Normally the linesman even call the offside before the player in the offside position has touched the ball. Just because that didn't happen here doesn't make this an actual discussion. The player in the offside position played the ball by moving his feet out of the way. If he wasn't involved in the play he wouldn't have moved, and if he didn't he would have been offside. It's just always offside.
Only thing VAR has done in this instance is enforce the correct rule even if the refs didn't have a clue in the first place. This is right up there with the attack on DDG when all of a sudden it's allowed to use excessive force against the goalkeeper just because it's United and a mistake is expected.