A&H

Everton

Status
Not open for further replies.
I was expecting the goal to be disallowed when I first saw it. I'm not sure De Gea would have saved it anyway and the technicalities of the law can be debated either way but I think when a player is clearly offside in the six yard box, between the posts and right in front of the goalkeeper then it doesn't feel like too much of an injustice to me if the goal is disallowed. Probably one that VAR could have gone either way on - I don't imagine the PGMO will be issuing an apology this time.
 
The Referee Store
Hi, my take on it is that Sigurdsson did not interfere with DeGea’s line of sight. Apparently the official line was that he was in De Geas line of sight and made an obvious action that impacted de Gea’s ability to make a save. So it looks like it given for making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball. That is a big maybe maybe
If De Gea thought the ball was going to hit Sigurdsson and decided accordingly then yes but the ball hitting Maguire changed the direction of the ball that DeGea had anticipated. If Sigurdsson was not there what would have happened and that is the big question. Would De Gea have been caught flat footed moving to his right? I would say yes
Personally i think it was the wrong decision and it is an old school opinion of here is a player clearly in an offside position some two yards from the GK in tne way, moves to avoid and in old money it would be given as offside.
It also raises the question of the referee taking the rap for this at the game whereas we know it was VAR who called it. I believe this should have been a monitor decision by the referee rather than deferring to VAR. Does PMGOL think that it takes the heat off the referee as it is a VaR official making tne call in Stockley Park?. Ancelotti did not think so as he said enough to merit a red card.
 
RustyRef said:
He can't possibly have been interfering with play as he didn't touch the ball. The only debate is whether he was interfering with an opponent or not.
Click to expand...
Yeah the terminology I used wasn't right but to elaborate my view point from yesterday.

The deflection isn't a new phase of play. It is a ball kicked at an opponent that he has little time to react to so it isn't a deliberate attempt to play the ball.

Sigurdsson blocks the view of De Gea seeing the deflection by remaining in an offside position. This might not be correct interpretation of the law but Everton have gained an advantage by Sigurdsson being offside.

*Not a United fan.
 
How about the foul on Sigurdsson by Wan-Bissaka in the build-up which is what brought him down in the first place? Wan-Bissaka slid in and made contact with him after he got his shot away. Surely if it's not a goal Moss should have been looking at that as a potential penalty, no?
 
At the end of the day, we can debate the technicalities of the Law all day long in order to claim the goal should have stood, but it didn't.

The bloke was offside, affected play and his proximity to the GK had an impact.

I'm no Man Utd fan (far from it) but I think the goal being disallowed was the right decision. :)
 
@Kes you keep saying 'affecting play' . Everyone who is on the field effects play someway or other. Who was the manager who said if my players are not affecting play i'd take them off. Should everyone in an offside position be called offside then? If an offside player runs after the ball he affects play because defenders will change their decision accordingly. That is affecting play. But the attacker doesn't commit an offence untill he interferes with play or with an opponent according to the defenitions in law. So yes it is about going by the definitions that the law give so that we can all be consistent. If we are not going by those then we are making them up as we go. If the law is not clear then feel free to do what your understanding of what it is meant to be, but when it is clear, then you'd have to do what it says.
 
one said:
@Kes But the attacker doesn't commit an offence untill he interferes with play or with an opponent according to the defenitions in law.
Click to expand...

This ^ ^ ^ (is what actually happened). I understand the point you're trying to make, but for me, it ain't rocket science. Sigurdsson both interfered with play and affected his opponent.
 
But I don't hink you do understand what I am saying. According to the laws he did not interfere with play because he did not play or touch the ball. That's the point, there is no for me or four you in this. That is very clear with the law and what happens on the field.
 
I can go with the reasoning that Sig's movement and very presence is enough to affect the keeper. Even if it is just getting out of the way of the ball, it is still going to have an impact, if I were the keeper I'd be in two minds as to whether he's going to deflect it, or block it etc, which would stop me from committing fully to an action.

Would I give that in real time? No. But personally, I find those calls extremely difficult to judge and it is fairly uncommon so I haven't much practice at them!
 
one said:
But I don't hink you do understand what I am saying. According to the laws he did not interfere with play because he did not play or touch the ball. That's the point, there is no for me or four you in this. That is very clear with the law and what happens on the field.
Click to expand...

Oh but I do my Aussie chum. ;) :D

We can argue the semantics of it all day mate and still not agree. You say he didn't touch the ball - I agree, but .... based on his position, deliberately lifting/pulling his legs out of the way is, (IMO) "playing" the ball. Particularly when you consider that had he not, he'd have been penalised anyway. You could also argue that again, his position right next to De Gea which allowed him to do this and create the goal, means that he was clearly gaining an advantage by being in that (offside) position. Either way, the correct decision was reached. :p
 
In live action, I thought it was offside because Sigurdsson's position and his effort to pull his legs toward his body constituted gaining an advantage (i.e. he knew he was in the way of the ball, or very close to it). Watching the replay behind the goal confirmed my initial opinion. I can see why others disagree, but I think this is one of those instances where not overthinking all of the potential issues makes the call somewhat simple.

That being said, this is absolutely the kind of play where Kavanagh would have been well-served by going to the monitor himself. First, he would have had angles of the play that he didn't have on the field to render a final decision. Second, on a play that decided the game, he could then see for himself and be able to explain his final decision. I felt for him as he sent off Ancelotti. I know he's the referee and has final say, but the optics of having VAR in his ear giving him advice without him doing an on-field review just looks bad. In every other competition using VAR, Kavanagh would have seen the play himself and used that information to make a final call.

I wish PGMOL would take this play as the final straw breaking the camel's back for allowing referees to review monitors. Kavanagh might have still reversed the on-field call, but he at least could have explained what he saw to Ancelotti. There might have still been a send-off, but at least it would have been an argument based on what Chris Kavanagh saw and ruled upon with his own eyes as opposed to relying sight unseen what Jon Moss was telling him from Stockley Park.
 
Last edited:
I still don't understand why CK didn't look at the monitor. He could then have made his own decisions. 1 on the goal and 2, if he disallowed the goal, on the penalty shout. VAR yet again making the ref appear incompetent
 
StiltonRef said:
I still don't understand why CK didn't look at the monitor. He could then have made his own decisions. 1 on the goal and 2, if he disallowed the goal, on the penalty shout. VAR yet again making the ref appear incompetent
Click to expand...
Because PGMOL doesn’t want referees looking at monitors except in VERY limited circumstances.
In other words, the issue is with Mike Riley, not Chris Kavanagh.
 
RefIADad said:
Because PGMOL doesn’t want referees looking at monitors except in VERY limited circumstances.
In other words, the issue is with Mike Riley, not Chris Kavanagh.
Click to expand...
This should have been one of the limited cases though. If nothing else it would have helped sell whichever decision they ended up with
 
MattTheRef said:
Yeah the terminology I used wasn't right but to elaborate my view point from yesterday.

The deflection isn't a new phase of play. It is a ball kicked at an opponent that he has little time to react to so it isn't a deliberate attempt to play the ball.

Sigurdsson blocks the view of De Gea seeing the deflection by remaining in an offside position. This might not be correct interpretation of the law but Everton have gained an advantage by Sigurdsson being offside.

*Not a United fan.
Click to expand...

Answer me this then, how can a player sitting on the floor block the view of a 6'4" keeper? OK he is bent down a bit, but the camera angles conclusively showed there was no way he was blocking his view. Yes, he was in his eyesight, but that doesn't make it an offence.

De Gea dives as the shot came in and had full sight of the ball. Once Maguire deflects the shot there is not a keeper in the World that could have saved it once they had gone the wrong way, and Sigurdsson's position played no part in him not being able to save the shot. I can see the part of the offside law that people might say means it could be disallowed, as below, but the bit in bold simply is not met in this case.

making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

There's a definite action, but it is impossible that this action impacted De Gea's ability to play the ball.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top