None of those points make any sense because we are talking about a specific rule which states 'interference'. I think most posters/pundits are of the opinion that the ball would have gone in the net anyway and therefore the 'interference' angle is somewhat of a contradiction.
By the logic of most, Sigurddsson was 'interfering' but his presence made no difference to the outcome - which is a contradiction
You've also got other posters going on about Sigurddsson 'dummying the ball', DDG being 'unsighted' or 'confused' by Sigurddsson and DDG having to account for Sigurddsson being there - none of which are accurate in my opinion
I hate to see how bad some of you lot are discussing football down the pub. I imagine if we'd had a goal chalked off at the other end you would have been using exactly my points to refute 'interference'
But decision making doesn't exist in a vacuum, because you have to seek fairness with comparable decisions.
So, offside player - yes. Does he look like he might be interfering - yes. Am I interested if DDG us saving the ball - probably not.
If the offside player is 6 yards away and not in line, and the ball goes through the GKs hands, then I'm more inclined to give the goal, patently far less interference to events.
But here, you're working so hard to say there isn't interference, you've lost all balance of general fairness.
Next week, different game, anyone can do anything.
Controversial here, would be if DDG is beaten on the open side of the goal but it trickles past an offside player and you want to ignore that via a contrived argument that he doesn't do anything, except that he does.
I'm using the dummy to attack your argument, I don't think it actually matters here tbh.