VAR - Thoughts

[Blue in Munich]

Heard on the radio someone was saying that Sigurdsson became “interfering” because the ball deflected towards him and he was inbetween the GK and the ball hence him moving - the initial shot he wasn’t interfering ( because he wasn’t in the line )

So as the ball was deflected by Maguire how is he then offside? If the shot had deflected off another Everton player I get that the subsequent interference is caused by the attacking team so the office is complete, but it's not the same when the ball is played by the defending team.

 

[Blue in Munich]

The only thing about this last statement is
They would 100% be given the corner because VAR doesn't get involved in decisions on corners etc (shown in the city game etc)

And a clean goal is then scored from the corner. Sigurdsson is as offside in either scenario, but one counts & one doesn't.

VAR is a mess & needs sorting or binning.

 

[Kellfire]

Funny that, if I mention red glasses you tell me not to use the default position, then tell me the only reason I'm bothered about it is because it adversely affects Chelsea; is that not the same default position you told me not to use?

My issue with it is the complete & utter inconsistency. The nearest thing to two identical circumstances that I've seen are the Son red card for the assault on Rudiger, and the Maguire non red card for the assault on Batshuayi. Yet VAR, which is to supposed to sort out these inconsistencies, introduces one comes to two completely different decisions. Even Gary Neville, whose glasses are even redder than yours, says Maguire should have gone.

It is apparently supposed to be used for incidents of serious foul play, but does not seem to be consistently be applied to these; if it is, the in the stadium are not being informed.

The system is not technically good enough to be able to judge down to an inch or two, yet it is consistently used to disallow goals for offside on that margin.

There are incidents it could be used for but isn't.

The only incident that I can immediately remember VAR correctly changing was Gazzanega's foul on Alonso. Unfortunately that's less a success of VAR than an indictment on the dreadful standard of refereeing that awarded the foul against Alonso in the first place

The system, which I hoped would cut down on cheating & professional fouling, has failed miserably and that is why I don't like it. Because it's an utter pig's ear. The crowning glory of which was the incident where VAR says no dangerous play, no red card against Lo Celso then says actually it was but then tells us it can't retrospectively ban him because it has already been looked at. It is supposed to correct screw ups, but when it screws up, it can't then correct it.

I've got far more respect for the European version where the referee goes to the screen & then makes a decision. Chelsea fell foul of that last week but I don't have an issue with it. Unfortunately that doesn't help your theory, does it.

Goodnight.

That’s a lot of words for “Evidence shows I’m angry because it’s worked against my team”.

 

[2blue]

I must say that when I saw it I called it as interfering as he was in the path of the ball & withdrew his legs for it to pass. As a neutral I thought they'd got it right.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

I must say that when I saw it I called it as interfering as he was in the path of the ball & withdrew his legs for it to pass. As a neutral I thought they'd got it right.

The problem is, he’s given offside for the shot, not the deflection.

Withdrawing his legs was to ensure he was not becoming active.

How many times over the years have you seen a player in an offside position deliberately leave a ball for a team mate or get out the way because he know’s he’s in an offside position?

Saying he’s in the keeper’s eye line when flat on the floor is the issue for me.

 

[User62651]

Rather than VAR maybe they should take the offside rule back to how it used to be - if any player of the attacking team is in an offside position (interfering or not) it's offside. Means players have to make a big effort to get back onside and their team needs to wait for them to get onside instead of them hanging about way up the pitch looking disinterested then suddenly getting involved in a 2nd phase of an attack.

 

[clubchamp98]

The problem is, he’s given offside for the shot, not the deflection.

Withdrawing his legs was to ensure he was not becoming active.

How many times over the years have you seen a player in an offside position deliberately leave a ball for a team mate or get out the way because he know’s he’s in an offside position?

Saying he’s in the keeper’s eye line when flat on the floor is the issue for me.

I agree with this.
One I don’t like is when a player is miles offside but no flag until he goes to play the ball .
So a defender can’t be sure and can pull a hamstring trying to get back .
Or one of them gets injured in an unnecessary tackle then the Lino puts the flag up.
Or forces the defender to concede a corner/ throw in and they get the decision.
The offside rule is as bad as the handball rule.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Letter of the law you could say he is


“ being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision “


He was in the line of vision

If we are to be pedantic - and by goodness there seems to be a load of pedantry around VAR - by definition 'line of vision' is quite different from 'field of view'. Indeed there may not be a 'line of vision' in a person's 'field of view'. Sigurdsson was 100% in de Gea's FOV, but 100% NOT in his LoV.

 

[Orikoru]

As a neutral here I think offside is the correct call. Sigurdsson is lying between the shot-taker and the goalkeeper, and has made no effort to get himself back onside - he lies there for quite a few seconds. Despite the fact De Gea was beaten by a deflection, Sigurdsson's presence there still could have affected his decision-making, and thus he can be deemed to be interfering with play in an offside position. It's unlucky for Calvert-Lewin and Everton, but I think it's the right call - and fingers must be pointed at Sigurdsson for sitting around in the middle of the box instead of getting himself onside and out of the way. He's cost his team the winner there.

 

[Swango1980]

Agree with Orikoru. Calling Sigurdsson as offside yesterday was absolutely correct. He was directly in line with the ball being struck and De Gea. Although you could argue De Gea could see the ball, it is also obvious that he can see Sigurdsson on the ground directly in front of him. That could influence De Gea's movement, (and potentially make it more difficult to track the ball as he is peering over the player). As Sigurdsson lies on the ground at his near post, any shot that is hit in that direction would very likely to be blocked by Sigurdsson himself. So, De Gea moves across to the right to start covering other side of the goal, as that is the most vulnerable part of his goal. Then the deflection moves ball straight at Sigurdsson, who has to move out of the way for the ball to go in. Had Sigurdsson not been there at all, the movement of De Gea may very well have been different.

So, to simply say Sigurdsson could have no impact on De Gea's decision making, simply because he could probably see the ball, is a stretch too far. The fact that De Gea claimed immediately and adamantly could even indicate that Sigurdsson was quite a significant factor in his head at that point. Maybe had he not claimed at all, or only half heartedly, would have indicated that Sigurdsson wasn't in his head, and it was only really clutching at straws.

But of course, I guess some people's opinion is anything but objective at times.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

As a neutral here I think offside is the correct call. Sigurdsson is lying between the shot-taker and the goalkeeper, and has made no effort to get himself back onside - he lies there for quite a few seconds. Despite the fact De Gea was beaten by a deflection, Sigurdsson's presence there still could have affected his decision-making, and thus he can be deemed to be interfering with play in an offside position. It's unlucky for Calvert-Lewin and Everton, but I think it's the right call - and fingers must be pointed at Sigurdsson for sitting around in the middle of the box instead of getting himself onside and out of the way. He's cost his team the winner there.

4 seconds between Sigurdsson being wiped out by Wan-Bisakke and DCL’s shot, even your explanation has doubt. So not clear and obvious.

DeGea had no doubt as he attempted to save the shot, obviously wasn’t put off by Sigurdsson.

If Sigurdsson had jumped to his feet and moved back to the centre he would of gone in front of De Gea and definitely interfered! Lying on the floor he was not active, blaming Sigurdsson is ridiculous.

Question to yourself as very few have answered it.

The decision was given when DCL shot, not the deflection or Sigurdsson moving his legs. Can you honestly say Sigurdsson was blocking De Gea’s view?

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Agree with Orikoru. Calling Sigurdsson as offside yesterday was absolutely correct. He was directly in line with the ball being struck and De Gea. Although you could argue De Gea could see the ball, it is also obvious that he can see Sigurdsson on the ground directly in front of him. That could influence De Gea's movement, (and potentially make it more difficult to track the ball as he is peering over the player). As Sigurdsson lies on the ground at his near post, any shot that is hit in that direction would very likely to be blocked by Sigurdsson himself. So, De Gea moves across to the right to start covering other side of the goal, as that is the most vulnerable part of his goal. Then the deflection moves ball straight at Sigurdsson, who has to move out of the way for the ball to go in. Had Sigurdsson not been there at all, the movement of De Gea may very well have been different.

So, to simply say Sigurdsson could have no impact on De Gea's decision making, simply because he could probably see the ball, is a stretch too far. The fact that De Gea claimed immediately and adamantly could even indicate that Sigurdsson was quite a significant factor in his head at that point. Maybe had he not claimed at all, or only half heartedly, would have indicated that Sigurdsson wasn't in his head, and it was only really clutching at straws.

But of course, I guess some people's opinion is anything but objective at times.

Can you be anymore condescending?
You’re a Man Utd fan who agrees with the decision and then have the laugh to put “ I guess some people's opinion is anything but objective at times.”

You need to look in the mirror.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

The fact that De Gea claimed immediately and adamantly could even indicate that Sigurdsson was quite a significant factor in his head at that point.

For that to be correct needs a degree of honesty from footballers. Players look to con the ref constantly, keepers particularly. Our own Jordan Pickford has made some hashes this year and then runs to the ref claiming an arm on him at a corner, a mystery block or foul. It is what they do to try to fool the ref. In this and other instances the VAR should be above that as they do not have the keeper in their ear pleading for the goal to be taken away.

This is a subjective one that is not going to get universal approval. Obviously, my decision is the correct one though

 

[Orikoru]

4 seconds between Sigurdsson being wiped out by Wan-Bisakke and DCL’s shot, even your explanation has doubt. So not clear and obvious.

DeGea had no doubt as he attempted to save the shot, obviously wasn’t put off by Sigurdsson.

If Sigurdsson had jumped to his feet and moved back to the centre he would of gone in front of De Gea and definitely interfered! Lying on the floor he was not active, blaming Sigurdsson is ridiculous.

Question to yourself as very few have answered it.

The decision was given when DCL shot, not the deflection or Sigurdsson moving his legs. Can you honestly say Sigurdsson was blocking De Gea’s view?

He doesn't have to be blocking his view to affect his decision-making. I think Swango made a good point that De Gea would assume any low straight shot hits Sigurdsson and therefore doesn't go in. But even without trying to guess what De Gea was thinking, Sigurdsson is between him and the shot-taker, and he definitely would have considered him in some way, therefore I think he's interfering with play. I mean the ball very nearly hit him.

Was Clough that said "if he's not interfering with play he shouldn't be on the pitch"?

 

[Pathetic Shark]

Opinions on VAR by a fan or manager can be summed up by "did it benefit or impede my team?"

 

[Deleted member 16999]

He doesn't have to be blocking his view to affect his decision-making. I think Swango made a good point that De Gea would assume any low straight shot hits Sigurdsson and therefore doesn't go in. But even without trying to guess what De Gea was thinking, Sigurdsson is between him and the shot-taker, and he definitely would have considered him in some way, therefore I think he's interfering with play. I mean the ball very nearly hit him.

Was Clough that said "if he's not interfering with play he shouldn't be on the pitch"?

Doesn’t answer the question, you know full well attackers can be in an offside position and be deemed not interfering with play.

De Gea reacted to the shot going to the far side, absolutely everyone has agreed that!

 

[Orikoru]

Doesn’t answer the question, you know full well attackers can be in an offside position and be deemed not interfering with play.

De Gea reacted to the shot going to the far side, absolutely everyone has agreed that!

Yeah if they're well out of the way, not directly in between the guy shooting and the goal! I think you're just clutching at straws here and not for the first time. It wasn't a stonewall decision by any means, but surely it's at least acceptable that he could be deemed as interfering with play when he's directly between the ball and the goal and even has to shift his legs at the last second to avoid it hitting him? I don't really have any more to say on it, I just gave my opinion on it as a neutral that's all. I'm not going to argue the toss since it doesn't affect me at all.

 

[Kellfire]

4 seconds between Sigurdsson being wiped out by Wan-Bisakke and DCL’s shot, even your explanation has doubt. So not clear and obvious.

DeGea had no doubt as he attempted to save the shot, obviously wasn’t put off by Sigurdsson.

If Sigurdsson had jumped to his feet and moved back to the centre he would of gone in front of De Gea and definitely interfered! Lying on the floor he was not active, blaming Sigurdsson is ridiculous.

Question to yourself as very few have answered it.

The decision was given when DCL shot, not the deflection or Sigurdsson moving his legs. Can you honestly say Sigurdsson was blocking De Gea’s view?

He didn’t say he was blocking his view. Ugh. This is so ridiculous how people can’t see it’s so obviously offside.

 

[Swango1980]

Can you be anymore condescending?
You’re a Man Utd fan who agrees with the decision and then have the laugh to put “ I guess some people's opinion is anything but objective at times.”

You need to look in the mirror.

Let me guess, you are NOT a Man Utd fan, who doesn't agree with the decision? Who do you support?

I will happily admit when a decision has gone Uniteds way, when it shouldn't have. I'm not the only one that thought it was offside. VAR thought it was offside. The Premier League (or whoever represents the referees), made a statement confirming why it was offside. The pundits on Sky agreed it was offside. The pundits on Match of the Day 2 agreed it was offside. Even Ancelotti, once the dust settled, was still obviously frustrated, but could see why that decision was made.

So, although individual sources can often get it wrong, there seems to be a lot of agreement between a range of sources that the decision was correct, most of who could be considered to have a neutral opinion.

Yet, you say that the only reason I agree with the decision is that I am a Man Utd fan. Well, does that mean I shouldn't be allowed an opinion on anything to do with Man Utd?

If this had happened against Liverpool, and the goal was given, Liverpool fans would be enranged. Same with Everton fans, Man City fans, Chelsea fans, Arsenal fans, etc. And, they'd have every right, because it WAS offside.

Maybe you're the one being condescending if you simply think others should agree with your opinion? Which, in my opinion, is wrong.

 

[Kellfire]

Let me guess, you are NOT a Man Utd fan, who doesn't agree with the decision? Who do you support?

I will happily admit when a decision has gone Uniteds way, when it shouldn't have. I'm not the only one that thought it was offside. VAR thought it was offside. The Premier League (or whoever represents the referees), made a statement confirming why it was offside. The pundits on Sky agreed it was offside. The pundits on Match of the Day 2 agreed it was offside. Even Ancelotti, once the dust settled, was still obviously frustrated, but could see why that decision was made.

So, although individual sources can often get it wrong, there seems to be a lot of agreement between a range of sources that the decision was correct, most of who could be considered to have a neutral opinion.

Yet, you say that the only reason I agree with the decision is that I am a Man Utd fan. Well, does that mean I shouldn't be allowed an opinion on anything to do with Man Utd?

If this had happened against Liverpool, and the goal was given, Liverpool fans would be enranged. Same with Everton fans, Man City fans, Chelsea fans, Arsenal fans, etc. And, they'd have every right, because it WAS offside.

Maybe you're the one being condescending if you simply think others should agree with your opinion? Which, in my opinion, is wrong.

You’re going to struggle to get biased fans to agree with you.