He was interfering by having to move his feet
100% he was interfering with play. Looks very harsh but VAR has observed the rules of the game. Not sure where people are getting it should have stood?
He was interfering by having to move his feet
You can’t say that the player being there impacted De Gea trying to save the ball so he’s not interfering with play. All he does is move out of the way of the ball.This logic makes zero sense whatsoever.
Yes. I'd understand the outcry if Sigurdson didn't move an inch but the moment he moved, he made the decision very easy100% he was interfering with play. Looks very harsh but VAR has observed the rules of the game. Not sure where people are getting it should have stood?
He's saying Gylfi being there didn't make a difference. De Gea has committed to moving to his right and wasn't getting there.This logic makes zero sense whatsoever.
It doesn't matter, play interference isn't necessarily linked with the keeper's ability to save the ballYou can’t say that the player being there impacted De Gea trying to save the ball so he’s not interfering with play. All he does is move out of the way of the ball.
We would have won the league if drogba had been properly called offside. That’s my opinion anyway.Balls it adds to the excitement.
Think of all the goals down the years that we wouldn't have been able to celebrate properly as soon as they were scored.
It ruins the game as far as I'm concerned
He's saying Gylfi being there didn't make a difference. De Gea has committed to moving to his right and wasn't getting there.
We got away with it, if Gylfi wasn't there we concede and lose that game.
Yeah but what is common sense for you won't necessarily be the case for someone else. A line has to be drawn somewhereWhat was the offside rule made for? It's intent wasn't to just cancel goals left and right, the most exciting part of football. Specially today, because if the player didn't exist, the exact same outcome would have ocurred (De Gea beaten and ball rolling to the net).
Maybe I'm old school but I would just take away most rules and just leave a common sense aspect to it. Just like handballs, its original intent was to stop players from carrying the ball like its rugby, not to give penalties to these extreme short distant crosses into someones hands.
You can’t say that the player being there impacted De Gea trying to save the ball so he’s not interfering with play. All he does is move out of the way of the ball.
Whether De Gea was getting there or not is irrelevant no? Facts are that Sigurdsson was directly impacting the play from an offside position. You also cannot say his presence cannot affect De Gea 0%. You see it all the time with offside attackers' presence affecting defenders, thus goals being ruled out for interfering with play. It's a similar situation to me.He's saying Gylfi being there didn't make a difference. De Gea has committed to moving to his right and wasn't getting there.
Good that you pointed it out. Offside was brought in to prevent goal hanging. Standing (or sitting) in front of the keeper to confuse him is very much a case of goal hanging.What was the offside rule made for? It's intent wasn't to just cancel goals left and right, the most exciting part of football. Specially today, because if the player didn't exist, the exact same outcome would have ocurred (De Gea beaten and ball rolling to the net).
Maybe I'm old school but I would just take away most rules and just leave a common sense aspect to it. Just like handballs, its original intent was to stop players from carrying the ball like its rugby, not to give penalties to these extreme short distant crosses into someones hands.
Yeah we we're fortunate sure, but that doesn't make it any less of an obstruction.Because people base their opinion on something else than the simple rule here. It sucks to be offside like this but it doesn't make it the wrong decision
He's saying Gylfi being there didn't make a difference. De Gea has committed to moving to his right and wasn't getting there.
We got away with it, if Gylfi wasn't there we concede and lose that game.
He’s not interfering with play imo. De Gea wasn’t saving that.
You can’t say that the player being there impacted De Gea trying to save the ball so he’s not interfering with play. All he does is move out of the way of the ball.
You can’t say that the player being there impacted De Gea trying to save the ball so he’s not interfering with play. All he does is move out of the way of the ball.
But De Gea has clear sight of the original shot, which is when the offside was called from.It's remarkable that you can't see how this very act is interfering with play.
But De Gea has clear sight of the original shot, which is when the offside was called from.
Don’t get me wrong, he’s daft for just sitting there. It created a decision for VAR to make. I don’t think a situation like that counts as offside though.The position of the offside is judged from the original shot, the offside offence is judged from when the player becomes involved.
Of course it does, he had to move out of the way for the ball to go in.Don’t get me wrong, he’s daft for just sitting there. It created a decision for VAR to make. I don’t think a situation like that counts as offside though.
Don’t get me wrong, he’s daft for just sitting there. It created a decision for VAR to make. I don’t think a situation like that counts as offside though.
Saw highlights:
1stly, Looks to me like Maguie moves his boot in a manner in which he's trying to block the ball, just looked again and he's definitely trying to block it. So couldn't be offside because "A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent, who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save), is not considered to have gained an advantage. "
2ndly, "“interfering with an opponent” means 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 " wouldn't apply anyway as De Gea can see the ball perfectly well.
3rdly, There was also a foul on Sigurdson that left him in that position in the first place, two foot up sliding lunge in to him after playing the ball which is a stone-wall penalty.
Not as bad as the no red card for what was basically a criminal stamp by Lo Celso in the Chelsea game last week though.
Pretty standard premier league VAR decision this season all up...
That's some made up rule you have come up with though. The rule is general, did Sigurdson interfere with the play ? Yes or no ? If he did (by moving) then it's offside. DDG not saving it isn't the issue at all here
1. interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate
or
2. interfering with an opponent by:
- 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
Sigurdson made an obvious action which clearly impacted DDG. Clear and easy offside, never doubted it when it was being reviewed and the ref agreedNow that is something you made up!
These are the rules: