|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2020 22:12:20 GMT
Correct decision. Clearly blocking De Geas site No it doesn’t. De Gea reacts completely the way you’d expect him to in that situation. Sigurdsson affects nothing. There’s a player lying in front of him. The keeper doesn’t know if he’s going to flick out a leg or let it roll underneath him etc. Of course it affects him.
|
|
|
Post by 1982stokie on Mar 1, 2020 22:18:08 GMT
That’s soft. I mean De Gea is stranded by the initial deflection and there’s no way he gets it. But I’d be screaming blue murder if that was defensively there for it to be disallowed. But I’m not sure it should. Agreed 100%. I understand the rule and have no problem with it at all, but there is no way that Sigurdsson had any impact on De Gea's chances of saving that ball. Why can't the so called professionals who are making these decisions see this? Because they didn’t want to see it. Since 5 th place became a champions league spot The shit have had help from VAR in every game
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on Mar 1, 2020 22:21:55 GMT
He’s on the floor in front of the keeper clearly distracting him. Keeper doesn’t know if he is going stick a leg out or not. It’s offside simple as that for obstructing the keeper and evidently interfering with play. It didn't interfere with his ability to go to the right before the deflection. But it may have stopped him diving the other way to attempt the save from the deflection.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 1, 2020 22:30:57 GMT
No it doesn’t. De Gea reacts completely the way you’d expect him to in that situation. Sigurdsson affects nothing. There’s a player lying in front of him. The keeper doesn’t know if he’s going to flick out a leg or let it roll underneath him etc. Of course it affects him. It doesn’t. What happens is exactly how you’d expect that whole scenario to play out.
|
|
|
Post by rawli on Mar 1, 2020 23:48:22 GMT
It didn't interfere with his ability to go to the right before the deflection. But it may have stopped him diving the other way to attempt the save from the deflection. No goalkeeper that ever lived would save that deflection.
|
|
|
Post by walrus on Mar 2, 2020 0:00:12 GMT
As much as a hate to see Man Utd get decisions, to my mind he was clearly impacting on play and it was correct to disallow it.
What annoys me since VAR has been introduced is the on pitch referees are more hesitant to make a decision which leads up controversy when the VAR steps in.
It would be much better if the referee had disallowed it today, with the VAR over-ruling that if appropriate, rather than letting Everton fans celebrate the goal and then cancel that.
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on Mar 2, 2020 1:48:18 GMT
But it may have stopped him diving the other way to attempt the save from the deflection. No goalkeeper that ever lived would save that deflection. No but they might dive for it with no one in front of them.
|
|
|
Post by lancashirelad on Mar 2, 2020 7:05:44 GMT
There’s a player lying in front of him. The keeper doesn’t know if he’s going to flick out a leg or let it roll underneath him etc. Of course it affects him. It doesn’t. What happens is exactly how you’d expect that whole scenario to play out. The player Sigudsson who is sitting in the 6 box in an offside position lifts his legs up and out of the way to let the ball roll in, if he had not lifted his leg it would have hit his leg (probably not gone in the net) thus offside and interfering with play.Frustrating but correct decision.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 2, 2020 7:19:33 GMT
It doesn’t. What happens is exactly how you’d expect that whole scenario to play out. The player Sigudsson who is sitting in the 6 box in an offside position lifts his legs up and out of the way to let the ball roll in, if he had not lifted his leg it would have hit his leg (probably not gone in the net) thus offside and interfering with play.Frustrating but correct decision. I don’t think it is because what De Gea does is what any keeper does there. If I was a Man Yoo fan though I would be screaming for that to be offside and I understand why it’s been given but it hasn’t made De Gea do anything different so I don’t think it should have been chalked.
|
|
|
Post by lancashirelad on Mar 2, 2020 9:07:07 GMT
The player Sigudsson who is sitting in the 6 box in an offside position lifts his legs up and out of the way to let the ball roll in, if he had not lifted his leg it would have hit his leg (probably not gone in the net) thus offside and interfering with play.Frustrating but correct decision. I don’t think it is because what De Gea does is what any keeper does there. If I was a Man Yoo fan though I would be screaming for that to be offside and I understand why it’s been given but it hasn’t made De Gea do anything different so I don’t think it should have been chalked. I agree about De Gea, but Sigurdsson is interfering with play due to him lifting his leg which would have touched the ball and stopped it going in or if it had he was offside. If the incident had happened at the other end of the pitch i hope the same decision would have been made. i cheered when it when in but on the first replay knew it was going to be dis allowed because of interference with play rather than it being Man Yoo.
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Mar 2, 2020 9:52:12 GMT
I'd say it was correct though. But plenty of refs would have allowed it. Which defeats the object of var really.
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Mar 2, 2020 9:57:28 GMT
the everton winner should have stood, De Gea could see over siggurdsons head, he could see the path of the ball because he followed its path and went to his right, it then deflected, he wouldn't have saved it even if siggurdson wasn't there.
|
|
|
Post by wolfinsheepsclothing on Mar 2, 2020 10:32:18 GMT
the everton winner should have stood, De Gea could see over siggurdsons head, he could see the path of the ball because he followed its path and went to his right, it then deflected, he wouldn't have saved it even if siggurdson wasn't there. It’s not about actually seeing, it is line of sight, which it clearly was
|
|
|
Post by raythesailor on Mar 2, 2020 10:36:59 GMT
A fairly clear decision. Don’t know why the Linesman didn’t flag?
Maybe to let the VAR take the flack !
|
|
|
Post by cheekymatt71 on Mar 2, 2020 10:47:31 GMT
I don’t think it is because what De Gea does is what any keeper does there. If I was a Man Yoo fan though I would be screaming for that to be offside and I understand why it’s been given but it hasn’t made De Gea do anything different so I don’t think it should have been chalked. I agree about De Gea, but Sigurdsson is interfering with play due to him lifting his leg which would have touched the ball and stopped it going in or if it had he was offside. If the incident had happened at the other end of the pitch i hope the same decision would have been made. i cheered when it when in but on the first replay knew it was going to be dis allowed because of interference with play rather than it being Man Yoo. Sounds like a good argument BUT there are goals regularly scored where an offside player JUMPS over the ball as a shot comes in. A goal is always awarded in that case despite the player being in the way of the ball until he jumps. Lack of consistency again
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Mar 2, 2020 12:58:31 GMT
the everton winner should have stood, De Gea could see over siggurdsons head, he could see the path of the ball because he followed its path and went to his right, it then deflected, he wouldn't have saved it even if siggurdson wasn't there. It’s not about actually seeing, it is line of sight, which it clearly was he was lying down, he wasn't in de geas line of sight at all.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Mar 2, 2020 19:34:45 GMT
It’s not about actually seeing, it is line of sight, which it clearly was he was lying down, he wasn't in de geas line of sight at all. He was sitting up, and at the moment of the deflection, directly in De Gea's line of vision between him and the ball. No debate really.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Mar 2, 2020 19:50:31 GMT
Can't believe I missed this, I love a good VAR debate! At first I thought the line of vision thing was debatable because De Gea can definitely see through to the ball at the moment of the shot. However, the ball comes across the penalty area and Sigurdsson is sitting plumb in line between De Gea and the ball at the time of the deflection, and then the ball passes right next to him on the wrong side, by definition obscuring De Gea's vision.
Makes no difference whatsoever that Sigurdsson didn't play the ball, or whether De Gea would/could have done anything differently. Them's the rules.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 2, 2020 19:55:38 GMT
Can't believe I missed this, I love a good VAR debate! At first I thought the line of vision thing was debatable because De Gea can definitely see through to the ball at the moment of the shot. However, the ball comes across the penalty area and Sigurdsson is sitting plumb in line between De Gea and the ball at the time of the deflection, and then the ball passes right next to him on the wrong side, by definition obscuring De Gea's vision. Makes no difference whatsoever that Sigurdsson didn't play the ball, or whether De Gea would/could have done anything differently. Them's the rules. I’m not having that it obscures anything sorry. But I would be screaming blue murder for it. They got lucky imo but I can see why it was disallowed.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Mar 2, 2020 20:13:11 GMT
Can't believe I missed this, I love a good VAR debate! At first I thought the line of vision thing was debatable because De Gea can definitely see through to the ball at the moment of the shot. However, the ball comes across the penalty area and Sigurdsson is sitting plumb in line between De Gea and the ball at the time of the deflection, and then the ball passes right next to him on the wrong side, by definition obscuring De Gea's vision. Makes no difference whatsoever that Sigurdsson didn't play the ball, or whether De Gea would/could have done anything differently. Them's the rules. I’m not having that it obscures anything sorry. But I would be screaming blue murder for it. They got lucky imo but I can see why it was disallowed. From the moment of the deflection how could Sigurdsson not be in the line of vision between De Gea and the ball? It passes almost underneath him on the blind side. They definitely got lucky in the sense that there happened to be an offside player sat there, but by the rules it's a clear offside.
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Mar 3, 2020 10:13:37 GMT
he was lying down, he wasn't in de geas line of sight at all. He was sitting up, and at the moment of the deflection, directly in De Gea's line of vision between him and the ball. No debate really. De Gea actually bends down/forward slightly, he's not on his toes trying to see over siggurdssons head, he can see the ball, he follows its line of trajectory because he moves to his right before it defects, siggurdsson isn't in his line of sight.
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on Mar 3, 2020 10:51:53 GMT
He was sitting up, and at the moment of the deflection, directly in De Gea's line of vision between him and the ball. No debate really. De Gea actually bends down/forward slightly, he's not on his toes trying to see over siggurdssons head, he can see the ball, he follows its line of trajectory because he moves to his right before it defects, siggurdsson isn't in his line of sight. You don't have to be blocking someones vision completley to be "In the line of sight". De Gea shouldn't have to be on his toes looking over or around an offside player to get a good view of the ball. We all know he wouldn't of saved it because he'd already gone to his right but if he hadn't then there's no way he could tell if that ball was gonna roll into the net or past the post or even hit Siggurdsson's arse, they got mighty lucky but with so many possible variables it's rightly offside.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Mar 3, 2020 11:36:57 GMT
He was sitting up, and at the moment of the deflection, directly in De Gea's line of vision between him and the ball. No debate really. De Gea actually bends down/forward slightly, he's not on his toes trying to see over siggurdssons head, he can see the ball, he follows its line of trajectory because he moves to his right before it defects, siggurdsson isn't in his line of sight. Key words: before it deflects. From the deflection onwards he’s absolutely plumb in line.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Jul 11, 2020 10:04:54 GMT
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Jul 11, 2020 10:07:43 GMT
Read somewhere the other day that the handball rule is being changed yet again from next season
|
|
|
Post by sheds1862 on Jul 11, 2020 10:11:41 GMT
None at all. Billion pound industry with chumps sat in a portakabin eating their butties whilst watching football. The adage of the first goal is important still stands, particularly when you are facing relegation. The Villa decision was scandalous. I know they lost 3-0 but who knows what would of happened if they hadn't had the stuffing kicked out of them Got to be some end of season review or enquiry, it simply hasn't worked, yet in my humble opinion it worked a treat in the World cup
|
|
|
Post by AlliG on Jul 11, 2020 12:51:18 GMT
It is a noble idea to try to get every decision correct but the underlying "problem" with VAR is that the Laws of the Game were written by the Victorians as basically a set of guidelines about how the game should be played, to keep the game moving and to prevent what they saw as serious unsporting behaviour within the game. They were written to be applied to transgressions that were clear and obvious to the human eye and not only visible in slow motion or with a microscope or zoom lens. The referee was there to ensure "fair play" and not to micro-manage the game. So for example, penalties were introduced to prevent blatant cheating, punching the ball off the goal line or blatant and/or cynical fouls in the penalty area and not to penalise close range accidental handballs or players "feeling contact" or diving into defenders. Then it would appear you have officials "looking out for each other", which seems to have been the problem this week, where the VAR official didn't want to over rule for fear of "upsetting" a fellow referee. (I am not buying the "they need an ex pro in the review booth to tell them what is and isn't a dive or accidental contact" defence of referees that Sky were using yesterday. The Southampton penalty couldn't have been a more obvious dive into the defender if he had been wearing trunks and goggles).
|
|