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
Everton's Disallowed Goal
- Thread starter Mindhunter
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran hold a long overdue conversation about United's awful league form with 1 win in 7. They discuss a disappointing draw at Bournemouth, a not so disappointing draw against Liverpool and a crushing defeat at Chelsea - Is time nearly over for Erik Ten Hag?
Then in a special second half of the pod, Nik welcomes Natalie ( https://twitter.com/natalie_17) to discuss the fortunes of Manchester United Women as they booked a place in the FA Cup Final after a historic first ever win vs. Chelsea.
Even if it’s not exactly blocking the keepers LOS a 6foot blob on the ground is going to at very minimum be a ‘distraction’ especially if it was moving about. So in practical, logical terms it’s offside for me.
Emotionally though I’d be gutted if it was given against us so I can see Evertons angst!!! This is why we love football though, nothing bounces the emotions about or plays a tune on us in quite the same way. It’s why for me R9 will always be better than R7, it’s a beautiful mystery!
Emotionally though I’d be gutted if it was given against us so I can see Evertons angst!!! This is why we love football though, nothing bounces the emotions about or plays a tune on us in quite the same way. It’s why for me R9 will always be better than R7, it’s a beautiful mystery!
Easy call...offside.
Rather disturbing that there’s even a serious debate over this.
Rather disturbing that there’s even a serious debate over this.
By moving his feet away, he is interfering. That is the point. Just moving his feet sounds innocent, but that decides if it is a goal or not and in half a second, De Gea had to make a decision if it hits him or goes past Sigurdsson into the goal. It distracts and he cant react quickly due to him pulling away and that changes the initial situation of the ball hitting Sigurdsson.
If Sigurdsson was sitting half a meter to the left and wasn't moving (because he has no reason to), the goal would stand
By that logic, if an offside players touches the ball before just before it drops over the line (the touch not changing the direction of the ball), with the GK not even being close enough to save the shot in the first place, must stand; which is obviously not the case and the rules are very clear about them. The GK's ability to save a shot is never in consideration before making a call for offside.
It was absolutely the correct decision and cannot believe some people in here think otherwise.
Not only was it the right call, I’d have given him a yellow.
If they review build up play resulting in a goal then they should be able to review the fk if it was wrongly awarded. It would have been the play directly before the goal was scored. Ref awards a penalty. VAR can overturn it right?
I thought it should have been a penalty as Wan-Bissaka clearly took Sigurddson out of it with a late tackle when De Gea brilliantly saved.
It of course blocked De Gea’s view even if for just a split second. Don’t understand the controversy.
I dont think they do, at least not in other leagues. If someone scores from a freekick or corner wrongly awarded, it will stand.
Unless in England it is different, but to my knowledge, this is how it is in the Bundesliga and i think CL as well.
Nope. it's a loophole VAR can never solve. It would open a can of worms. If you can review the phase of play before goal, why not one more before that and so on.
given the state of the ref's performance, surprised that didn't actually happen.100% the correct call, no grey areas.
id made this post in another thread. the offside 'interfering play' rule has nothing to do with obstructing the GKs eyesight specifically. That same incident would have been a goal if say we had a defender on the line playing sigurdsson on. There's no rule stating that you need to give the GK a clear view at all times to make a save so it doesn't matter that even if Gylfi wasn't there DDG wouldn't have saved it. In essence the right decision was made but we got saved by a technicality.
It was correct decision. Everton player was interfering with the play.
Unless he was injured, or gassed, why would he just lie there on the pitch after the ball had been half-cleared? He would have known that he would have been called offside if the ball had come in. He didn't just happen to be there.
VAR correctly surmised that he had stayed put because he was trying to steal some kind of advantage for his teammate, which eventually resulted in a tame shot squirming into the net.
It was a harsh ruling, but the right one as Gylfi had clearly stayed in an offside position for nuisance value.
The rules need to be redefined but it's not the kind of goal that you want to see deciding a cup final, so it's the 'grey area' aspect that makes it tough on Everton, not the decision itself.
VAR correctly surmised that he had stayed put because he was trying to steal some kind of advantage for his teammate, which eventually resulted in a tame shot squirming into the net.
It was a harsh ruling, but the right one as Gylfi had clearly stayed in an offside position for nuisance value.
The rules need to be redefined but it's not the kind of goal that you want to see deciding a cup final, so it's the 'grey area' aspect that makes it tough on Everton, not the decision itself.
Last edited:
why won't they implement var to ensure every decision made in a game is the correct one? that includes incorrect fouls, corners and throw ins too apart from so called critical decisions like offsides, penalties and red cards.
Get away! That's the rule Shirley
I neglected to use the term ‘dummy,’ but you are spot on.
His mere presence there & the movement of the body in a matter that was active to the play completely warrant the offside call.
Getting out of the way, such as removing your leg, is an action, interfering play, not agree?
I thought it was harsh but understandable. Harsh because De Gea was wrong footed and would've been beaten regardless, understandable because the Everton player was offside and more importantly, actually moved his feet to avoid the ball coming into contact with him.
If you're allowed to do that, what's stopping strikers from positioning themselves offside in front of goalkeepers and dummying over shots?
If you're allowed to do that, what's stopping strikers from positioning themselves offside in front of goalkeepers and dummying over shots?
That’s the biggest problem with people’s perception of VAR.
If the officials on the pitch don’t make the wrong decision, ie give the offside right away, VAR doesn’t have to do anything but confirm it which takes five seconds. But because the ones on the pitch can’t apply the rules correctly everyone’s going mental at VAR taking so long etc.
I think this is one of those plays that can go either way as I can see arguments for both sides. I'm glad it went in our favour today but if that was at the other end of the pitch I would be pissed
Totally commented in the spirit of the ref
Is a clear offside, but as it is with the English everything must be controversial just to create an unnecessary drama.
Clear offside.
Clear offside.
Offside. The player is in the path of the shot and the keeper's line of vision. Line of vision is not a literal line, its an area. The close proximity of the player to the ball and the keeper makes him an obvious obstruction within that area.
He may have block the vision, but to be fair I don’t see there any intention of it, he just simply fall into ground and no much time to avoid the situation. He did try his best not to touch the ball though.
Yeah that was just absurd. The fact that he got awarded with a yellow as well for protesting makes it even worse
Useless, insecure ref
So you can have a player in an offside position standing and jostling with the keeper and it’s not an offside if a shot goes top bins as the keeper wasn’t saving it anyway?
Well, the point is we don’t know that.
Gylfi sitting there in front of him might have affected de Gea’s view of the spin (which is quite severe after Maguire’s deflection) so he couldn’t track the path of the ball and see which way the ball was going.
Most likely he’s not saving it anyway but the offside player’s position casts enough of a doubt that he has to be judged offside by the ‘interfering with an opponent’ criterion.
Challenge system would solve that. On top of what’s currently reviewed by the VAR, allow one challenge per half to be used anywhere. If we’re right we get to keep it.
Fred’s handball would’ve been overturned if he was so sure that it didn’t hit his hand at all. His yellow for squaring up to the ref might not, but with a challenge to be used he might not have needed to square up to the ref like that.
Here is why it's offside :
He moves his legs to allow the ball to go in.If he does not move his legs the ball does not go in.
Therefore his state before movement is a state of interference.
Interference does not only mean "changing the trajectory of the ball to so that it goes into the goal".
He moves his legs to allow the ball to go in.If he does not move his legs the ball does not go in.
Therefore his state before movement is a state of interference.
Interference does not only mean "changing the trajectory of the ball to so that it goes into the goal".
You can't be that close to the ball and the goalkeeper as the ball goes in and still be considered to be excluded from play. If he stayed perfectly still and it went past him and in then it's trickier, but he didn't. His movement was necessary for the goal to be scored. He's involved.
If we scored the same goal, I'd fully expect it to be ruled out and understandably so.
If we scored the same goal, I'd fully expect it to be ruled out and understandably so.
Last edited:
He is literally fecking sat in front of the goalkeeper he is offside and intefering just by being that close.
But he’s interfering by being right in front of DDG & then if he doesn’t move the ball hits him & it’s a no goal & he’s flagged offside..how much more interfering can you get?
It’s 100% the right call
When it was happening I thought this was a straightforward one that wont create problems here or elsewhere, but nope haha every one is still arguing, even the damn pundits. How can they all not know football? If Sigurdson was not at all interfering, why did he follow the ball and his body behaved in ways, pretending as if he would interfere? Thats all you need to know. Not care whether he actually blocks pathway or not. He knew he was offside, he moved to cover it. By moving, he automatically comes INTO play. and hence, interferes, whether you agree to the angles or not. That is it.
Pretty staggering that so many people don't understand Law 11 and the legal difference between interfering with play and interfering with an opponent.
It's not even a debatable decision, it's a clear offside, there's even an example of almost exactly this situation in the FIFA website.
It's not even a debatable decision, it's a clear offside, there's even an example of almost exactly this situation in the FIFA website.
Those who don't think it's offside are morons and should stop watching football. It's a blatantly offside.
I'm really not sure if this is the right interpretation of the rule, but for me it felt pretty clear. If he hadn't moved, there would've been no goal, so him moving his legs out of the ball's way was actually the act that made him an active participant of the episode, hence why his initial position should've counted.
He was guilty as a puppy standing next to a pile of poo.