Him moving his legs so as to not interfere with play was interfering with play as without it the ball would have hit him.
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.
Questioning people's intelligence is unnecessary. Just accept it and move on if others don't agree with you (even if they are likely wrong).
Dear god, this is still being argued? Even after sleeping on it & watching it again today with a clear mind, the play still screams ‘offside’ on the same multiple levels.
100% interfering with play and offside. I can understand why some are arguing the point but that comes down to how vague VAR rules actually are, which is a separate discussion altogether.
So you mean that you can have a player standing in an offside position and as long as you bounce the ball off a defender it’s not offside?
This. I'm amazed some people cannot understand it like that
If this is not an offside then from now on teams can have players standing a yard in front of a goalie and another player taking shot at. Then the standing players could jump or dive, as long as they don't touch the ball.
Would be a fantastic brand new tactic.
Would be a fantastic brand new tactic.
The fact that he tried to avoid the ball hitting him means he's interfering with the play.
It's as simple as that and I'm not sure why people are arguing about the decision
It's as simple as that and I'm not sure why people are arguing about the decision
It doesn’t matter though. If a player stands in front of the goalkeeper to block his vision, is the goal legit as long as the incoming shot is struck well enough?
thats the thing though, there is no rule saying you cannot block the keeper's vision. as long as you are not doing what you said while you are offside it is allowed, goals are frequently scored in a crowded box where the keeper can't see where the shot comes from or in set piece situations where a scrap leads to some pinball and the ball falling into the net.
Profession ref clearly explained the rule but for some odd reason it's really hard to people to understand just because rule is not designed as they want.
Thanks @GifLord for the video.
Thanks @GifLord for the video.
I obviously meant from an offside position...
From first viewing on my stream i was too busy cursing conceding to realise.
But pretty clear your take is 100% spot on.
Imagine if they allowed it. You'd basically have licence to stand or sit anywhere you like as long as you don't touch the ball. Itd be carnage.
Agreed. Otherwise it'd surely be impossible to be offside unless you touch it.
This and your previous post is close to how they framed the big change to offside interpretation in the days of Henry and RVN starting scoring every week.
That a player must be actively interfering, if you like. Once you start trying to write that, people start being able to say stuff like they are here, he doesn't really do anything, DDG isn't affected and so on. Because what he does do, isn't actually specified quite exactly enough for them to understand.
And it seems that offside is an inconvenience to us seeing goals, which is all that matters. We don't even like offsides that are offside if they're a bit too close.
Just hooked that on to what you say as a low key rant. I'm not arguing against it
And the Chelsea guy is having a WUM I think. If its motivated by Maguires non red VAR incident, I can maybe understand why.
There are 2 or 3 I think in this thread, maybe because of how close we are in table.
Yeah, could well be, innit. Can understand a bit if they see us getting them - the VAR stuff - all the time, atm.
He's lying motionless on the floor! Besides, I've not even commented on the 'right and wrong' of this....my two posts have both stated my opinion that we were LUCKY that the rules were interpreted in our favour given the fact that had Sigurddsson NOT been in that position, the outcome would have been exactly the same and we would have lost the game 1-2
Simple question.....yes/no answer
IF Sigurddsson had not been there, would the events still have played out in the same way?
My answer to that question is 'yes' and therefore, as I said earlier, we were lucky that we got away with it on a technicality
Exactly. It could not be clearer that the goal was rightly disallowed.
But he was there and that's why he's offside. He had enough time to get up and run to an onside position but he was just sitting on his ass ballwatching.
I'm not sure why you're making up a scenario just to say that we got lucky with the call. The call was correct because if he didn't actively try to avoid the ball, it would have hit him in an offside position, rendering the goal having to be called off anyway.
So in the light, do you think it would be fine for offside players to dummy the ball?
Was not goal
/thread
/thread
I’m not sure why people are saying the fact he is had to move his legs out of the way means he was interfering. That’s not the rule and is just causing confusion. If De Gea had, for some reason, been out by the corner flag and all other events had played out the same way then there is no doubt that the goal would have stood. The fact he moved his legs is more or less irrelevant.
The key issue is whether he was preventing De Gea from playing the ball by being in his line of vision. Given that De Gea could clearly see the original shot and moved to start to try and save it, my personal view is that there is a reasonable argument that he wasn’t interfering. Had the ball sailed straight into the top left corner I’ve no doubt it would have been given. However, there is perhaps some (unlikely) prospect that De Gea could have got back had he been able to see the deflection more clearly and, in that scenario, my view is the benefit of doubt has to go to the goalkeeper.
What this definitely is not is a clear cut decision. The right one in my view but much more nuanced than is being suggested.
The key issue is whether he was preventing De Gea from playing the ball by being in his line of vision. Given that De Gea could clearly see the original shot and moved to start to try and save it, my personal view is that there is a reasonable argument that he wasn’t interfering. Had the ball sailed straight into the top left corner I’ve no doubt it would have been given. However, there is perhaps some (unlikely) prospect that De Gea could have got back had he been able to see the deflection more clearly and, in that scenario, my view is the benefit of doubt has to go to the goalkeeper.
What this definitely is not is a clear cut decision. The right one in my view but much more nuanced than is being suggested.
Every official who has commentated on this has clearly stated its offside.
The problem lies in posters who are treating a law of the game as a differing opinion.
Why is there even a debate about this. The call was correct, he was offside and he interfered with play by dummying the goalie.
We were lucky to get away with it but only in the sense that we were lucky Gylfy was stupid enough to lie there and do what he did. Otherwise the deflection has Dave beaten.
We were lucky to get away with it but only in the sense that we were lucky Gylfy was stupid enough to lie there and do what he did. Otherwise the deflection has Dave beaten.
This happens often when a player is walking back from an offside position. They will hold their hands up and step out of the way, whilst one of their onside teammates runs through. If they get in the way of a defender, they are interfering and offside. If they don’t, it’s not a valid argument for the defending team to say that by leaving the ball they interfered.
But he WAS in that position...that seems a silly argument to make. He was there interfering with play in an offside position
If his ass wasn't blocking the area, de Gea wouldn't have shifted his position because that's the danger area and he wouldn't have an illegal wall blocking the goal for him.
Arguing an offside call and claiming that the goal would stand because the person that's offside wasn't there is just dumb as feck. His presence is literally the only reason why the goal is offside.
But in that scenario the player is signaling his intent to not participate by holding his hands up and walking away from the ball. If the player just stands there and lets the ball roll towards him as if it's going to hit him, and then in the last second does a jumping jack, then his obvious action has interfered with the opponents (as they've stopped because if it hits him then it's offside), and thus making him offside.
Differences:
1) Usually that scenario involves inaction on their part (i.e. standing still and letting the play go past them) rather than action (i.e. actively moving their foot in relation to the ball that is going straight to them). Plus holding your hands up and stepping out of the way isn't the same as staying where you are and allowing the ball to run through you.
2) Usually that senario involves the ball going to their teammate rather than directly into the goal.
3) Usually players in that scenario aren't also deemed to be obstructing the goalkeepers line of sight.
This is completely different to letting the ball run through your legs.... which is what a dummy usually entails.
This is not a VAR debate. Obviously someone get to see the replay N times, but it is more about interpretation of Offside rule. It is not about handball, foul or whether someone is 1cm offside or not. It is a simple interpretation of offside rule.
Clear as day offside, not even debatable. Hes sat upright in an offside position (not injured) right in front of and close to the keeper. He had every chance to get up and move but thought he would have a little sit down rest right there 2 yards from goal.. His behaviour was pathetic.
Quite right.
What really surprised me was that when questioned about it during the post match press conference was that Ole clearly didn't understand the rules.
He waffled about it but seemed to admit that he did not understand it.
How can any one at his position not be crystal clear on the rules of the sport.
You can see Sigurdsson 's head is directly between De Gea's eyeline and the ball at the moment it deflects off Maguire. Keeper had no chance of reacting to the deflection because he couldn't even see it happen. Easiest offside call ever.
And he would have stopped the shot going in as well. It’s incredible that this has received 9 pages of discussion, it’s one of the most clear and obvious offside decisions I’ve ever seen.