Everton and VAR

Status
Not open for further replies.
You're by and large right about this. But the one area that it isn't true is offside. This is what it says in the laws of the game:

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:

  • interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or
  • 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


There's no grey area there at all. And I challenge anyone to tell me that Gylfi clearly did any of the things that make someone offside without touching the ball. Clearly obstructing the line of vision? Nope. De Gea saw it the entire way. Challenging an opponent? Nope. Attempting to play the ball? He's literally done the opposite. He tried to not play it. Making an obvious action? I fail to see how moving his feet toward his body is an obvious enough hindrance to anyone.

It's just such a ridiculous decision. Unfortunately my memory isn't strong enough to remember another one where a player was similarly positioned and it was let stand, but I've definitely seen it. They've chosen in a huge moment to make a call that is never made and is not in the spirit of the rules, if even within them at all, and of course it goes against us.

I'm still fuming if you can't tell.
Many of us are still fuming, in my case mainly because of the ignorance of the rules evident in the statements of those who say it was the right VAR call. I totally agree with the conclusion that there is absolutely nothing in the rules that should have led to the goal being disallowed. The part being quoted by most commentators is that concerning the line of sight issue. But there's no need to even look at that matter. You only need to read as far as "preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball....." to conclude that the goal was a valid one, since De Gea was in no way, under any interpretation, prevented from doing what he would/could have done with or without Sigurddson's involvement.
There have been dozens of goals scored this season where there has been a line of sight issue and in which the ultimate determining factor has been whether the keeper could have done anything about it anyway -- witness the first Arsenal goal at Portsmouth.
It truly beggars belief that Moss's call means that the incident must have been deemed to be clear and obvious yet the disgraceful assault on Sigurddson that left him on the ground in the first place was not! If Moss knew the rules and had looked properly at the penalty incident (despite statements to the contrary I suspect he didn't) then the order of events meant that he should have awarded the penalty, with the fact that the ball ended up in the net being irrelevant. [Oh, but I forgot, Sigurddson according to one so-called reffing expert at Sky Sports, dived! Unbelievable.]
One more thing, again examining properly the actual rules, where did this notion that the offside call was right because de Gea was distracted come from??? There isn't even an implicit insinuation in the rules that distraction is a genuine reason for a ref to disallow a goal. Just as well, as otherwise half the goals scored would be struck off since a goalkeeper if doing his job right will be attracted/distracted by everything in his sights.
 
Not long after appealing umpires decisions in cricket started, and considering how many are upheld, I wondered how many test match and even series results would have been different had the technology been available before then. I'm now wondering about VAR and football. Offside rules have changed, for the better, imo, and were easier to judge before the change, but looking at it together with decisions applied by VAR in other areas of the game I think match
results and trophies won would have been even more remarkably different.

Damian Martyn got given out 2/3 times LBW in that 2005 ashes series when he shouldnt have been, that's before getting into the fact the the 2 run win shouldnt have been. That series probably changed english cricket immeasurably.

In football the obvious one is us aainst bolton in the 0-0 that sent them down.
 
Damian Martyn got given out 2/3 times LBW in that 2005 ashes series when he shouldnt have been, that's before getting into the fact the the 2 run win shouldnt have been. That series probably changed english cricket immeasurably.

In football the obvious one is us aainst bolton in the 0-0 that sent them down.
That Bolton thing is often quoted. It was never confirmed that the ball went over the line though. And as I recall it (could well be wrong), Bolton had an hour or so left to win the match and another 15 or so games to get the point they needed to have stayed up.Similarly Everton have 10 games to make up for the 2 pts denied them on Sunday and if we're a point short at the end of season it would be wrong to blame it purely on the Utd result.
 
I wonder what would have happened had we not 'scored'....as VAR was all about looking at the goal and deciding to disallow it. Without that they may have concentrated on the possible penalty instead.
I am fuming as much as everyone else...add to the fact I had a bet on Everton to win the game and DCL next goal
 
I wonder what would have happened had we not 'scored'....as VAR was all about looking at the goal and deciding to disallow it. Without that they may have concentrated on the possible penalty instead.
I am fuming as much as everyone else...add to the fact I had a bet on Everton to win the game and DCL next goal

We all know there wouldn't have even been a VAR check on the penalty at that end
 

That Bolton thing is often quoted. It was never confirmed that the ball went over the line though. And as I recall it (could well be wrong), Bolton had an hour or so left to win the match and another 15 or so games to get the point they needed to have stayed up.Similarly Everton have 10 games to make up for the 2 pts denied them on Sunday and if we're a point short at the end of season it would be wrong to blame it purely on the Utd result.
[/
What people forget is that it was a blatant foul on Southall anyway
Justice was done by the goal not being allowed
Would VAR looked at that?
Nah probably allow the goal it’s Everton don’t forget!
 
Damian Martyn got given out 2/3 times LBW in that 2005 ashes series when he shouldnt have been, that's before getting into the fact the the 2 run win shouldnt have been. That series probably changed english cricket immeasurably. In football the obvious one is us aainst bolton in the 0-0 that sent them down.
I don't remember the circumstances in the matter of Martyn's LBW's - gee, you'd be stiff to get 3 bad calls in one series - but I defended Everton's position in
the Bolton goal that wasn't given decision when it was raised by a Liverpool supporter in the Echo letters forum years ago. I pointed out that you can't take one bad decision in one match to make your argument. You'd have to look at every controversial decision in every match involving clubs in the relegation battle
to see how wrong ones, if any, would have changed the final table. He posted back and agreed. Again ,I can't comment on the LBW'S, but we agree on the
Bolton goal thing, and that was my point. How many bad decisions were made before VAR. Probably thousands.
 
Cost Vs benefits. When 99% of offside decisions were made correctly before VAR, what's the benefit of VAR for offside decisions? The cost is obviously to the fan experience.

Absolutely spot on. I can't remember a terrible offside decision going against us in all my years of going the game. We've scored goals that were just offside and had goals scored against us that were just offside. To ruin a whole game that relies on being fast and furious for it's entertainment, is criminal. But not a shock when the game's run by idiots.You would have thought no-one could spoil the best sport in the world. How wrong we were.
 
Absolutely spot on. I can't remember a terrible offside decision going against us in all my years of going the game. We've scored goals that were just offside and had goals scored against us that were just offside. To ruin a whole game that relies on being fast and furious for it's entertainment, is criminal. But not a shock when the game's run by idiots.You would have thought no-one could spoil the best sport in the world. How wrong we were.

John Terry scored from about 5 yards offside.

McFadden got one incorrectly ruled out.

Newcastle scored a ludicrously offside goal against us a few years ago as did Arsenal fairly recently.

I don't really have a point except to say i do remember the bad decisions ha.
 

John Terry scored from about 5 yards offside.

McFadden got one incorrectly ruled out.

Newcastle scored a ludicrously offside goal against us a few years ago as did Arsenal fairly recently.

I don't really have a point except to say i do remember the bad decisions ha.
I seem to remember one against Blackburn where the Brad Freidel came way out of goal, ball got played through and we scored. Got given offside even though there were 3 defenders playing on our striker. I think that was a genuine case of the linesman not knowing the rules.
 
We are going to get a verrrrrrrrrryyyyyyy dodgy decision going our way tomorrow which will wrap up three valuable points for us,Septic Dario has spoken, you heard it here first;)lollol
 
We are going to get a verrrrrrrrrryyyyyyy dodgy decision going our way tomorrow which will wrap up three valuable points for us,Septic Dario has spoken, you heard it here first;)lollol

17c.png
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top