A&H

Everton

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Referee Store
RustyRef said:
I'm baffled as to how they have reached that decision. For it to be offside for interfering with an opponent it has to meet one of these conditions ...

• preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
• challenging an opponent for the ball or
• clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
• making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

Keeper has full sight of the shot at all times. He hasn't challenged an opponent. He hasn't attempted to play the ball and has actually done the opposite. And his movement has zero impact on De Gea's ability to play the ball as by that time he has already dived the wrong way.

The original decision by Con Hatzidakis was spot on and I suspect we will have another "VAR got it wrong" message coming out from PGMOL.
Click to expand...
• making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

That can be the only justifications, surely. Not line of sight.


We just had a classroom session all day today (!) looking at this and similar.

We discussed how you can decide if an action is "obvious" enough and the biggest factor was proximity. We looked at all kinds of situations where attackers came from offside positions and came close to defenders as e.g. they were about to play the ball. We looked at the UEFA clips and others.

In this case, Sigi makes an obvious action that is right next to the ball, he couldn't get much closer without touching it. So, I think, based on what we looked at today, the offside is justified.

However, my feeling here is that, there was no way De Gea was saving this, and it is the deflection that has sent him the wrong way - obviously, rather than Sigi - so the decision seems incredibly harsh. But we can't see inside De Gea's mind. So, I accept the offside.
 
santa sangria said:
• making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

That can be the only justifications, surely. Not line of sight.


We just had a classroom session all day today (!) looking at this and similar.

We discussed how you can decide if an action is "obvious" enough and the biggest factor was proximity. We looked at all kinds of situations where attackers came from offside positions and came close to defenders as e.g. they were about to play the ball. We looked at the UEFA clips and others.

In this case, Sigi makes an obvious action that is right next to the ball, he couldn't get much closer without touching it. So, I think, based on what we looked at today, the offside is justified.

However, my feeling here is that, there was no way De Gea was saving this, and it is the deflection that has sent him the wrong way - obviously, rather than Sigi - so the decision seems incredibly harsh. But we can't see inside De Gea's mind. So, I accept the offside.
Click to expand...
An obvious action was made by sigi but I feel you slightly forgot about this part:
"which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball"

No way was De Gea's ability to play the ball impacted by Sigi's action.
 
Maximum (negative) Impact, Nuclear Interference

Off topic a bit, but I watched a BT Sport game tother day. I find that channel utterly intolerable
In a game in which VAR was not a factor, I lost count of the number of times the commentator said, "VAR will be taking a look at that ('check' at most)".... "let's bring in Peter (sic Walton).....sigh". So even in a game in which VAR was anonymous, refereeing was centre stage throughout. It's so depressing :(
 
Here are my thoughts from watching this on TV from the other side of the pond. First, WHAT A FUN GAME TO WATCH from a refereeing standpoint! Lot of heated play, some refereeing challenges you dont see often, lot of game management challenges, good confrontation at the end of the second half and game getting very heated, many YC coming out settling the game down, player re-entering improperly getting a yellow, a RC after the game to the manager, oh.... I almost forgot... CR did call a non-existent (but from his angle probably understandable) handling on Fred and gives an EXCELLENT YC to Fred for dissent. Now THE offside. I won't get into the VERY stupid play by De Gea but you don't see mistakes that bad often... ok... it is De Gea.

Now the critical offside. Lot of decisions/judgments made and not all at the same time. First was he in an offside position at the time the ball was last played/touched by a teammate? - yes. Was the contact by McGuire deliberate or deflection? - yes. Now, keep in mind that his involvement is not judged only when the ball is last played by a teammate. ONLY HIS POSITION. So now we must determine if he became involved in active play by or touching the ball - no. Did he interfere with an opponent by:
  1. This is the one that I think applies - preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent's line of vision??? Don't rush on this one. Keep in mind it is not just when the ball is struck which I think De Gea could clearly see. Here is the critical second judgment that makes me think they have this correct. A critical point of judgment is when the ball hits McGuire. Did the offside attacker block his view of that critical moment? I think so. It doesn't matter if De Gea's movement was in the opposite direction if the offside player blocks his view of the redirecting of the ball. Is there a possibility that De Gea could get there or stop his movement quicker if the attacker doesn't block this view? I don't know... maybe. I don't think it is a clear "no chance" he could make a play. I think this is the critical moment and what makes me think they got it right (more below the pic). Still tight decision and tough judgment call.Offside Man U Everton.jpg
  2. by challenging an opponent for the ball - clearly no
  3. clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent - no - no attempt made to play the ball, in fact he does the opposite
  4. making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball - he makes no action other than tries to get out of the way. I understand that some may argue that De Gea would clearly expect a rebound from the seated player thereby freezing De Gea but but I would say that kind of mind reading is beyond our scope and I would argue that getting out of the way does not fit this criteria
  5. The situations given in the LOTG also state that a player standing in (presumably sitting in is equal to) an offside position is in the way of an opponent and interferes with the opponents movement toward the ball is an offence is an offense if it impacts on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball.
    1. This is an interesting one. I don't think it applies here but is good food for thought. Does the offside player's position interfere with movement toward the ball. I do not believe this one applies as DeGea doesn't actually move toward the ball in the direction of the seated player. Yes De Gea "could" dive that way and this position does restrict that ability (although this is a very much a long shot as a decent GK would dive toward the post and not toward the ball in this situation). hypothetical.... If De Gea had been stepping/running forward and had to stop because of the offside player? Offside? I think so. Great things to think about in an uncommon situation before we encounter it in our games.
I think they got it right. VERY tough call. Good challenging game for referees. Great to watch, learn and take notes before seeing any of this stuff in our next games.
Offside 1.jpg
 
Last edited:
Mr Dean said:
An obvious action was made by sigi but I feel you slightly forgot about this part:
"which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball"

No way was De Gea's ability to play the ball impacted by Sigi's action.
Click to expand...
I didn't forget, I pointed out that we don't know what was going through De Gea's head in those nano seconds.
Could De Gea have saved that whatever: highly unlikely. Very, very unlikely. But he was less likely to even attempt a save because of the attacker in front of him.

There's wider context here. No one wants attackers lying down in front of the goal. That's not what football expects...
 
Hoosier Ref said:
Here are my thoughts from watching this on TV from the other side of the pond. First, WHAT A FUN GAME TO WATCH from a refereeing standpoint! Lot of heated play, some refereeing challenges you dont see often, lot of game management challenges, good confrontation at the end of the second half and game getting very heated, many YC coming out settling the game down, player re-entering improperly getting a yellow, a RC after the game to the manager, and now this offside. I won't get into the VERY stupid play by De Gea but you don't see mistakes that bad often... ok... it is De Gea.

Now the critical offside. Lot of decisions/judgments made and not all at the same time. First was he in an offside position at the time the ball was last played/touched by a teammate? - yes. Was the contact by McGuire deliberate or deflection? - yes. Now, keep in mind that his involvement is not judged only when the ball is last played by a teammate. ONLY HIS POSITION. So now we must determine if he became involved in active play by or touching the ball - no. Did he interfere with an opponent by:
  1. This is the one that I think applies - preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent's line of vision??? Don't rush on this one. Keep in mind it is not just when the ball is struck which I think De Gea could clearly see. Here is the critical second judgment that makes me think they have this correct. A critical point of judgment is when the ball hits McGuire. Did the offside attacker block his view of that critical moment? I think so. It doesn't matter if De Gea's movement was in the opposite direction if the offside player blocks his view of the redirecting of the ball. Is there a possibility that De Gea could get there or stop his movement quicker if the attacker doesn't block this view? I don't know... maybe. I don't think it is a clear "no chance" he could make a play. I think this is the critical moment and what makes me think they got it right (more below the pic)View attachment 4109
  2. by challenging an opponent for the ball - clearly no
  3. clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent - no - no attempt made to play the ball, in fact he does the opposite
  4. making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball - he makes no action other than tries to get out of the way. I understand that some may argue that De Gea would clearly expect a rebound from the seated player thereby freezing De Gea but but I would say that kind of mind reading is beyond our scope and I would argue that getting out of the way does not fit this criteria
  5. The situations given in the LOTG also state that a player standing in (presumably sitting in is equal to) an offside position is in the way of an opponent and interferes with the opponents movement toward the ball is an offence is an offense if it impacts on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball.
    1. This is an interesting one. I don't think it applies here but is good food for thought. Does the offside player's position interfere with movement toward the ball. I do not believe this one applies as DeGea doesn't actually move toward the ball in the direction of the seated player. Yes De Gea "could" dive that way and this position does restrict that ability (although this is a very much a long shot as a decent GK would dive toward the post and not toward the ball in this situation). hypothetical.... If De Gea had been stepping/running forward and had to stop because of the offside player? Offside? I think so. Great things to think about in an uncommon situation before we encounter it in our games.
I think they got it right. VERY tough call. Good challenging game for referees. Great to watch, learn and take notes before seeing any of this stuff in our next games.
View attachment 4108
Click to expand...
Your point 1 excellent and well made. Great still pic too.
 
I can't bring myself to read the VAR protocol (because we know it's written on bog role). Does C&O trump all other considerations in this instance?
 
De Gea only becomes unsighted because of his own initial movement. At the point the shot is taken, he can see perfectly fine. Only when he sidesteps to the right before it takes the deflection does he then become unsighted. LOTG states that the player is only penalised by his position when the ball is first touched by a team mate. At that time, he was doing nothing wrong
 
I'm more inclined to give the goal than not.
Looks like the player is actively trying NOT to interfere with play.

Football needs to decide if it wants accuracy to a scientific level or allow the grey of opinion. VAR isn't either of these things atm and it needs to move one way or the other. Personally I feel it would kill the game if we start trying to calculate what De Gea can/can't see so we need to accept the grey. The football community needs stop ripping apart every decision as all it's doing is driving people away.
 
Kes said:
I'm undecided.

He was in an offside position. He affected play by pulling his legs out of the way in order to allow the deflection to go into the net. Had he not, the shot would have hit him and offside given surely?
Click to expand...
Then every player in an offside position is committing an offside offence. Because if they go to the ball and play the ball they will be given offside, by not doing that they will interfere with play.

The law is clear that being in an offside position is not an offence. And the definition of interfering with play is just as clear.
 
santa sangria said:
• making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
Click to expand...
santa sangria said:
I didn't forget, I pointed out that we don't know what was going through De Gea's head in those nano seconds.
Could De Gea have saved that whatever: highly unlikely. Very, very unlikely. But he was less likely to even attempt a save because of the attacker in front of him.

There's wider context here. No one wants attackers lying down in front of the goal. That's not what football expects...
Click to expand...
Hence the word 'clearly'. Your description puts so much doubt on if De Gea was impacted. If we are basing impact on what 'may have' been going on in his head then it is a very loooong stretch of the word clear.


On the line of vision argument, we have had instances where keeper had lost sight of the ball (albeit momentarily) due to offside position attackers and goal was given. It is very clear here De Gea never lost light of the ball due to any Everton players.
 
QuaverRef said:
De Gea only becomes unsighted because of his own initial movement. At the point the shot is taken, he can see perfectly fine. Only when he sidesteps to the right before it takes the deflection does he then become unsighted. LOTG states that the player is only penalised by his position when the ball is first touched by a team mate. At that time, he was doing nothing wrong
Click to expand...
This is incorrect. Offside position is judged when the ball is last played by a teammate. Whether he becomes involved in active play, interferes or gains an advantage is not judged at the single moment the ball is struck. In fact most offences occur after ball was struck

In this instance there are two critical points when i think his involvement/interference/gaining needs to be judged. When the ball is struck and when the ball is deflected. When it is struck, i believe De Gea has a clear view and there is no offside offence although in OP. When the ball is deflected is another matter (as offside has not been reset by a deliberate play, new touch by a teammate, etc.). Here is where id like to see all the angles VAR saw. From the TV view it looks possible that the Everton player's head may be in direct line between DeGea and McGuires deflection. This is closer than the initial strike and on the basis of geometry he might be high enough to block De Gea's view. Tough to say without a straight on view but definitely a possibility.
 
Forget the main argument going on for a sec.

Can anyone honestly say that they believe De Gea would have kept it out, even if Sigurdsson wasn't there I think that's still resulting in a goal.

Now if I'm going down that route there is nothing in law that says anything like that but is this more of a the law is wrong, rather than the officials got it wrong?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top