Under The Lights
ORDER NOW
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
No the Hutchison against
reading that it is obvious why it was disallowed. Siggursson clearly impeded Martial!Offside offence
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:
- 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
If Sigurdsson who was fairly slowly messing around in the 6 yard box had got up off his backside and either stepped off the pitch or back in to what we would once have described as on side this debate would now not be taking place as to whether he was in De Gea's line of sight and we would have more than likely be celebrating 3 points and being only a few points off 5th place.
ha ha, leaving the ball alone makes you active? Heard it all now.Gutted but you can see Sigurddson pull his feet out of the way to let it go in. I imagine that makes him active. If he's inactive the ball doesn't go in the goal.
Do you not think it should be a penalty in that case?
I assume you mean for the Sigurdsson chance that he hit straight at De Gea?
Nobody claimed for one at the time and none of the players or Carlo mentioned it after so you'd assume Gylfi didn't think so, I didn't see a foul at the time either to be honest.
Absolutely. It was a 'Sky Six' decision.FWIW as soon as that disallowed goal went in, I knew it wouldn’t be given.
If it would’ve been at the other end though, I’d have been certain they would have allowed it.
Gutted but you can see Sigurddson pull his feet out of the way to let it go in. I imagine that makes him active. If he's inactive the ball doesn't go in the goal.
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:
- 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 bal
I mean for Wan Bissaka on Sigurdsson where he clattered him.
But I'm gobsmacked you didnt think it was a foul but was a clear offside.
Here's the rule...
SO which of those did Sigurdsson do?
I don't believe football is corrupt, I do believe, however that it's offciated by incompetents. The VAR has just decided it looks bad and not worked through the law in his head before making his decision.
Well that's just not true. Loads have.Literally nobody other than you I've seen is claiming a foul.