Var debate 2019/20

[mexico1970]

I thought the Everton goal was a good one wasn't it? Doesn't a player become live after a deflection from an opposing player?

 

[davek1808]

and when someone is a full toe offside, they'll say it's still too close, then a foot, then a leg. Football is an analogue sport being (mis)controlled by a digital system.

Yeah they say they'll use a thicker line for offside, only thing is some teams lines will be thicker than others.

 

[Salford_Blue]

How could he be obstructing De Gea's view? Prior to the deflection, he going off in the direction of the initial shot, so could quite clearly see the ball then.

Why does this suddenly come into play once it goes in the net?

Absolute farce

 

[BigJoe#1]

Here's a suggestion to rid ourselves of this VAR offside joke.

Why not scrap offsides altogether? Would make the pitch much bigger wouldn't it?

It's about as good a suggestion as the decisions being made by VAR.

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

Here's a suggestion to rid ourselves of this VAR offside joke.

Why not scrap offsides altogether? Would make the pitch much bigger wouldn't it?

It's about as good a suggestion as the decisions being made by VAR.

"Gabriel Jesus like this"

 

[Tuearts right boot]

Here's a suggestion to rid ourselves of this VAR offside joke.

Why not scrap offsides altogether? Would make the pitch much bigger wouldn't it?

It's about as good a suggestion as the decisions being made by VAR.

Quite agree, would make for some great games, and scores......It worked OK before

 

[Manc Born & Bred]

How could he be obstructing De Gea's view? Prior to the deflection, he going off in the direction of the initial shot, so could quite clearly see the ball then.

Why does this suddenly come into play once it goes in the net?

Absolute farce

It was a decision to keep them nearer top 4. The alpaca saw the original shot as he clearly moves to his right. The ball deflects to his other side which again he could see as starts to shift his weight. If a player lying on the ground is in the eyesight of a 6ft+ keeper then the keeper has a problem. If he wasn't on the ground the ball still would have crossed the line. Awful decision and it was quite clearly a bent one

 

[give it to gordon]

The Everton 'goal' has to be in the top 3 for dodge decisions ever. Even now 24hrs later I still cant see how VAR have got it so wrong, other than really fat envelopes in the VAR Shed.
They really is no other reason, the game is bent.

 

[asahartford1]

I thought the Everton goal was a good one wasn't it? Doesn't a player become live after a deflection from an opposing player?

No you are wrong .

 

[asahartford1]

Definitely ite offside in my opinion.

And the lazy git should be fined for lying around on the floor.

Cost Everton 2 points

 

[mexico1970]

No you are wrong .

This is the rule apparently, unless they've changed it.

One example of the rule change would be if an attacking player plays the ball toward a teammate who is in an offside position (behind the defender) and the defender jumps to head the ball. The ball hits the defender’s head but he/she does not control it. The ball continues to the attacking player who was originally in the offside position. With this rule change the attacking player is no longer considered offside since the defender deliberately tried to play the ball.

Another example would be when an attacking player plays the ball toward a teammate who is in an offside position. The defender attempts to kick the ball to clear it away, but miss kicks the ball and it continues forward to the attacker who was initially in the offside position. The attacker receives the ball. This is legal since the offside was negated when the defender miss kicked the ball.

 

[asahartford1]

This is the rule apparently, unless they've changed it.

One example of the rule change would be if an attacking player plays the ball toward a teammate who is in an offside position (behind the defender) and the defender jumps to head the ball. The ball hits the defender’s head but he/she does not control it. The ball continues to the attacking player who was originally in the offside position. With this rule change the attacking player is no longer considered offside since the defender deliberately tried to play the ball.

Another example would be when an attacking player plays the ball toward a teammate who is in an offside position. The defender attempts to kick the ball to clear it away, but miss kicks the ball and it continues forward to the attacker who was initially in the offside position. The attacker receives the ball. This is legal since the offside was negated when the defender miss kicked the ball.

No still wrong, it has to be a deliberate play by the defender to play onside an opposition player otherwise in an offside position.

The deflection was not deliberate, the Everton player was in an offside position and interfering offside
And a lazy git

 

[MillionMilesAway]

No still wrong, it has to be a deliberate play by the defender to play onside an opposition player otherwise in an offside position.

The deflection was not deliberate, the Everton player was in an offside position and interfering offside
And a lazy git

I think you're close, just maybe with slightly different wording.
I think what it can't be is a simple shot block or save (for the keeper).

A keeper parry or defender blocking a shot is a deliberate play, but does not put someone on side.
In this case the block doesn't play Sigurdsson onside. Whether he is interfering with play is a different question.

Relevant excerpt:

A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:
...
• gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when it has:
••been deliberately saved by any opponent

A ‘save’ is when a player stops, or attempts to stop, a ball which is going into or very close to the goal with any part of the body except the hands/arms (unless the goalkeeper within the penalty area).

 

[MillionMilesAway]

This is the rule apparently, unless they've changed it.

One example of the rule change would be if an attacking player plays the ball toward a teammate who is in an offside position (behind the defender) and the defender jumps to head the ball. The ball hits the defender’s head but he/she does not control it. The ball continues to the attacking player who was originally in the offside position. With this rule change the attacking player is no longer considered offside since the defender deliberately tried to play the ball.

Another example would be when an attacking player plays the ball toward a teammate who is in an offside position. The defender attempts to kick the ball to clear it away, but miss kicks the ball and it continues forward to the attacker who was initially in the offside position. The attacker receives the ball. This is legal since the offside was negated when the defender miss kicked the ball.

I'm pretty certain that if a player is in an offside position when a ball is played to him, he'll be offside even if a defender attempts to cut the ball out but it still goes to him. It's drawn in the laws notes - he's definitely gained an advantage from being there.

 

[blueinsa]

Definitely ite offside in my opinion.

And the lazy git should be fined for lying around on the floor.

Cost Everton 2 points

Slabhead plays the ball, badly as per usual so how you think its accidental i have no idea?

He plays the lad on, he is not in the keepers eye line because he is on the floor and he makes no attempt to play the ball.

Its a goal unless you are PiGMOB or a paid shill trying to explain to the media its a correct decision.

 

[mexico1970]

Slabhead plays the ball, badly as per usual so how you think its accidental i have no idea?

He plays the lad on, he is not in the keepers eye line because he is on the floor and he makes no attempt to play the ball.

Its a goal unless you are PiGMOB or a paid shill trying to explain to the media its a correct decision.

Yup, the player that was 'Offside' didn't touch the ball or indeed obstruct the line of sight of the goalie, If united would have scored it then more than likely the goal would have stood IMO.

 

[GaudinoMotors]

Slabhead plays the ball, badly as per usual so how you think its accidental i have no idea?

He plays the lad on, he is not in the keepers eye line because he is on the floor and he makes no attempt to play the ball.

Its a goal unless you are PiGMOB or a paid shill trying to explain to the media its a correct decision.

Bang on - puzzling some of the interpretations on here.

 

[Whymewhynot]

Bang on - puzzling some of the interpretations on here.

I’d have to check the laws to be fair. Isn’t there something in there about a movement towards the ball though? It is a tricky one. The United hater in me is saying goal but then to the laws it sounds like the right decision was made. I wish common sense would come into it sometimes, if De Gea was never ever going to get it does it matter that much? I remember newcastle scoring a screamer again at us that was disallowed for someone offside, it was a rocket in the top corner, Hart was never saving it yet offside was given.

 

[Garry's Coock]

You answered yourself, the movement was a movement away from the ball hence why he tucked his legs in to not interfere

 

[its grim up north]

I'm pretty certain that if a player is in an offside position when a ball is played to him, he'll be offside even if a defender attempts to cut the ball out but it still goes to him. It's drawn in the laws notes - he's definitely gained an advantage from being there.

But the ball was not played to him ,it was a shot at goal.