Match Thread Everton v Manchester United - Preview, Match Report and MotM Poll

[sw blue]

If siggy was injured in the floor, I bet it would have counted.

 

[Jeff Jones]

Would have helped if Siggurdson could have just finished like a 40 million pound footballer in the first place. Biggest bottler ever.

We've all been concentrating on the disallowed goal and failed to notice that Sigurdsson was tripped by their right back when trying to get that goal.
I've just been watching a recording of ESPN's coverage of the League Cup Final and the pundits talked about it at half time. Mark Halsey had pointed it out to them and said Everton should have had a penalty.

While I'm here, a few posters here seem to think that a player isn't allowed to get out of the way of a teammates on target shot on goal. Er,???

 

[Jeff Jones]

Offside aside, if Siggurdsson wasnt so [Poor language removed] we win!!!! How the hell has he hit the keeper from there........

Probably because he lost his balance when he was tripped as he was getting in position to shoot.

 

[ToffeeTim]

Sigurdsson was on the deck because he was clattered by a nasty challenge attempting to wipe him out. No attempt to play the ball.

 

[Deleted member 38674]

By the letter of the law it's a goal. Sitting on the ground didn't affect De Gea's line of sight. He saw Bernard's kick leave his boot and reacted to it by moving
to right where the ball was going. He saw the ball deflected and tried to change direction to the left where the ball was now going. So, no issue with line of
sight. Sigurdsson deliberately avoided contact with the ball as he'd have been offside if it had gone in after contact. The fact that he was sitting on the ground
has nothing to do with it. Players on their feet in that situation deliberately choose not to touch the ball and that often means moving out of the way.
Var got it wrong again and the referee probably has to take some blame, too.

Active and inactive. That’s the rule

When Sigurdsson moved his legs at the last second so the ball could go past him, he became active and therefore his offside position was deemed to have had even a 1% influence in the goal, which is sufficient to disallow.

You couldn’t step over or dummy a shot in that position, as you’d be offside, what Sigurdsson did was no different.

De Gea’s position, the trajectory of the ball , whether it would have gone in or not, are all totally irrelevant to the decision.

 

[Disgruntledgoat]

Active and inactive. That’s the rule

When Sigurdsson moved his legs at the last second so the ball could go past him, he became active and therefore his offside position was deemed to have had even a 1% influence in the goal, which is sufficient to disallow.

You couldn’t step over or dummy a shot in that position, as you’d be offside, what Sigurdsson did was no different.

De Gea’s position, the trajectory of the ball , whether it would have gone in or not, are all totally irrelevant to the decision.

But that's not the explanation the premier league gave...

 

[ToffeeTim]

Active and inactive. That’s the rule

When Sigurdsson moved his legs at the last second so the ball could go past him, he became active and therefore his offside position was deemed to have had even a 1% influence in the goal, which is sufficient to disallow.

You couldn’t step over or dummy a shot in that position, as you’d be offside, what Sigurdsson did was no different.

De Gea’s position, the trajectory of the ball , whether it would have gone in or not, are all totally irrelevant to the decision.

Kieran, you don't know the offside rule. Moving out of the way does not make you active. Players move out of the way coming back from an offside position all the time.

Rules states pretty clearly, for Sigurdsson to have been offside, either:

He must have blocked De Geas vision. Clearly not true.

Or

He must have stopped De Gea moving for the ball. Clearly not true.

Everything else is opinions.

Theres even an argument that Maguire creates a new phase of play by his attempt to clear the ball.

All I've learned over last 24 hours is just how many football fans have no clue about the rules.

 

[Deleted member 38674]

All I've learned over last 24 hours is just how many football fans have no clue about the rules.

But you do.

More than 3 officials with a combined 20 years+ top level reffing experience, 2 ex professionals who won the lot and our own manager who called the decision “borderline” (therefore not a grand injustice).

Makes sense.

 

[ToffeeTim]

But you do.

More than 3 officials with a combined 20 years+ top level reffing experience, 2 ex professionals who won the lot and our own manager who called the decision “borderline”.

Makes sense.

I do yes.

 

[Deleted member 38674]

I do yes.

Fair enough mate, at least your consistent.

 

[Gaffa]

Im
Fuming about the penalty not even being reviewed
No point having referees anymore just have a siren and someone in an office

 

[Disgruntledgoat]

But you do.

More than 3 officials with a combined 20 years+ top level reffing experience, 2 ex professionals who won the lot and our own manager who called the decision “borderline” (therefore not a grand injustice).

Makes sense.

Have a read of the rule Keiran and tell me where it says what you assert.

The VAR ahs just decided it looks wrong and not worked through the process. It's a blown call.

 

[Gwladysstreetlad]

What is the point anymore. Just look at these statistics. There is no level playing field in football, it's about as level as the deck of the titanic after it hit after it hit the iceberg. The bias couldn't be more blatant .

 

[JAYMULL]

A dream situation for the FA/Premier League. Utd struggling to get into the CL they needed help and they got it. I don't know the rules anymore.

 

[Steve Wigan]

If Siggy had not been there,would DeGea have saved the deflected shot? Answer; No he would not save the shot. Therefore a goal. Simple.