mrb85
Player Valuation: £35m
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.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.
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.