We were lucky and it arguably covered up another defensive/keeping error.
No VAR, we'd have dropped more points here.
No VAR, we'd have dropped more points here.
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.
If he hadn’t been there it would still have been a goal, no doubt in my mind. He should have got up though because he could have, and I’m fine with that being ruled out for offside as the alternative can of worms is too much to bear thinking about.
It is not his job to be an expert on the rules. A passing knowledge of them will do for a manager.
Do you also have an expectation that players be experts on the rules?
Or is this something that should be left to match officials who truly rely on having a crystal clear understanding of the rules to do their job effectively (despite the consistent demonstrative evidence that even they do not)?
Or is this just another irrational stick to beat Ole with?
But there is VAR.
Come on, absolutely the manager of Manchester United should know the offside rule..right?
The basics, sure, but the expectation that the manager knows the rule inside out, even to the point of being able to clearly opine on as unique a situation as we saw on Sunday is preposterous.
The only irrational thing is a Football coach not knowing the Football offside rule, which is the most contentious rule of them all.
Hmm I don’t know..it was pretty obvious. Even VAR took 3 seconds to clear it up- wasn’t that difficult.
No. Most of the time that would have been disallowed for offside.
Why are you saying this?
Not having a go, but there’s no evidence base for this comment.
Yet here we are on page 11.
Was obvious on review but in realtime maybe not such an easy assessment.
Just because fans who don’t know the offside rule have gone on for 11 pages doesn’t mean it wasn’t an easy decision...
I repeat it took the slow & cumbersome VAR about 3 seconds.
It was a very very easy decision
Yes. Obviously. That's the whole point.
Like I said, seeing the replay it seemed pretty obviously offside, maybe in realtime it wasn't so obvious.
It also shows that your argument comes from what you think the rule should be, not what it actually says, which invalidates your arguments as to the Gylfi situation.
This thread is still running 
It usually starts to get really good when somebody sells his opinion as a theory
It usually starts to get really good when somebody sells his opinion as a theory
How are we on page 11 is the question. The second the ball went in, I knew that it would be ruled offside as he had moved his legs, thus making him an active part of the play.
In an ideal scenario, the linesman should have raised the flag then and there and we wouldn't have had any controversy. I've no idea who was the commentator there, but he just added to the confusion by bringing in line of sight crap, something that is never a part of the offside rule.
But football games are often affected by luck, aren't they? If Sigurdsson had not been there, the ball would likely have gone in off Maguire and we'd be bemoaning our bad luck in conceding such a random goal to lose in the 92nd minute.
All good man, all good! How's things over there in continental Europe? What you making of the season overall?
This is 100% my opinion as well.
I said the same thing in the pub: "How is it even up for debate?". He moves his legs out of the way - even if only fractionally - so it's interfering with play.
No, my logic is that the question relates to interference. The entire decision hinges on whether Sigurddsson 'interfered'.
Remember, the rules ALLOW for a player to be in an offside position PROVIDING they are not interfering with play.
Sigurddsson lying prone in an 'offside' position is not in of itself a reason to disallow the goal
Hence my question is valid - did Sigurddsson being in that 'offside' position in any way effect or alter the chain of events that followed?
My own personal conclusion is 'no' but I can UNDERSTAND why the referee felt differently. That in my book constitutes good luck on the basis a different official could have interpreted it differently
As Keane said on Sky, Ancelotti should be more furious that the guy just sat there in an offside position without a care in the world. It's a definite offside and completely avoidable. I'm only surprised that the officials on the field didn't rule it out before VAR took care of making the right decision.
He couldn’t, unless he’s incompetent. That’s the law for all officials to follow.
A lot of Referee's Managers and Coaches don't know the rule. Well they come on, and ask why the goal was ruled out, and Referees contradict each other, whether he was interfering with play or not.
Spot on. I really don’t understand why anyone is finding this difficult to follow. It really highlights the lack of understanding of the offside rule that so many comments think lifting his feet out of the way of the ball is, in itself, interfering.
But he was. FFS are we making scenarios now?
It is the fecking rules, that is why the referees goes courses, to learn the rules, not common fecking sens.
It highlights the lack of understanding of the rules by some fans and some commentators on the rules of offside. Many refs and even including the one in France, the same day between Lyon and St. Ettiene was ruled offside because a player in an offside position jumped out of the way of a goal bound shot. If Siggy was not in that position what is to stop DeGea taking a few steps forward to cut the angle? He may well have saved even the deflection from Maguire if his angle is narrower. Siggy in that position denied him that opportunity. Also he was in the line of his vision.
Only Clattenburg would argue that the goal should have stood. Because he is a self confessed "biased" ref who fixes matches to suit his agenda.
It is when the player is in line of vision of the goal keeper, as confirmed by ex refs.
There was interference, he moved his legs to make way for the ball to go into the goal. However slow or meek the attempt may be ,logically it is interference. Was it so confusing for DDG to react to this is debatable. However based on the rules you are referring to it is interference in my opinion.
Fecking hell, this thread is still going?
It's great fun is this. I'm going to try something else.
When the shot is taken, before the deflection. We don't know whether DDG will save it or not, we don't know where the shot is going. Siggo us deffo interfering at this point, because he is blocking half the goal and could be where DDG wants to dive.
Unless you want to try and say that the deflection creates another phase of play? That is interference by an offside player right there in the instant the shot goes towards the goal.
Surely the idea that the deflection changes him to sitting there not interfering from definitely proven as interfering is too much?
Technically, DDG could stand still saying "look at this ridiculously offside player lying in the goal"
"I won't dive where the shot is going, in case a deflection and me diving plays him back on despite the ball then rolling so close to him, he has to move"
If that isn't considered to be offside, we might as well give up.
When the shot is taken, before the deflection. We don't know whether DDG will save it or not, we don't know where the shot is going. Siggo us deffo interfering at this point, because he is blocking half the goal and could be where DDG wants to dive.
Unless you want to try and say that the deflection creates another phase of play? That is interference by an offside player right there in the instant the shot goes towards the goal.
Surely the idea that the deflection changes him to sitting there not interfering from definitely proven as interfering is too much?
Technically, DDG could stand still saying "look at this ridiculously offside player lying in the goal"
"I won't dive where the shot is going, in case a deflection and me diving plays him back on despite the ball then rolling so close to him, he has to move"
If that isn't considered to be offside, we might as well give up.
I have always thought that the offside rule is of no benefit in the modern game.
It really servers no useful purpose and almost always causes problems.
The game is far too compressed in the midfield and so stretching the play could lead to more open and expansive football.
Football is an entertainment business and it is goals that are the highlight.
While the offside position is determined at the moment DCL strikes the ball, the offside offense only occurs when Siggy becomes relevant to play, which I suspect would probably only be deemed to have occurred after the deflection.
So I'm not sure DDG deciding not to dive because he was worried about a deflection would count, because Siggy technically wouldn't have been relevant to play at that point. It's only after the deflection (when the ball is now heading directly towards Siggy) that the impact on DDG's ability to make a decision comes into play. Otherwise pretty much anyone in an offside position would have to be penalised as the possibility of a deflection towards them will usually be there.
If we're talking about what would have happened without the deflection, it depends on where DCL's shot would have gone I guess. Assuming it would have gone to DDG's right, one of the two factors cited for the offside call (Siggy moving his foot out of the way) would been eliminated straight away.
That would just leave the subjective call of whether Siggy was still intruding on DDG's line of sight. I'm not sure that would have been enough on its own if the ball was directed across the goal in that way but who knows really.
Agree. Without it, the game would be stretched, creating more end to end stuff. Don’t see a downside to it and all this Bollox would be a thing of the past.
I would agree with you totally if he wasnt sat in the goalmouth (interfering).
For example, if he's 10 yards to the side of the goal (not interfering). If the ball hits this guy etc, then his status changes.
Then you'd just get strikers standing in the box, defenders would just end up man marking all over the pitch and it would turn into a giant game of 6 aside and be awful.
And put another way, I'm saying that Siggy is ALWAYS relevant, always interfering, because of where he is. DDG is entitled to claim that, surely?
He'd be entitled to claim it sure but without the deflection it would be one of those decisions that could go either way, I think. The referee/VAR might think "well DDG saw the shot the whole way despite Siggy being near him and was always going to have to move away from Siggy to make the save so it didn't have enough of an effect".
It's only with the deflection taking the ball through Siggy that it becomes a complete no-brainer.