VAR - Thoughts

[Blue in Munich]

I don't understand this quote.

What are you trying to say here? Are you saying that if a player is an offside position when a teammate plays the ball, but the ball is subsequently touched by an opposition player, you are no longer offside?

So, is your logic that, Sigurdsson was in an offside position when the Everton player kicked the ball. However, once it was deflected by Maguire, then he was not in an offside position, because the ball arrived to Sigurdsson from a player in the opposition?

When the Everton player shot, he shot away from Sigurdsson, and De Gea moved to his right to cover the shot. Although Sigurdsson is clearly in an offside position, he is not interfering with play as the ball is going away from him and De Gea's movement clearly shows that he can see the ball. Maguire then plays the ball towards his own goal & Sigurdsson. De Gea still clearly sees this as he turns his head to follow the path of the ball into his net, so there is no question of Sigurdsson obstructing De Gea's vision. Sigurdsson's interference, if there is any, has only come about as a result of the opponent playing the ball so is not offside. The ball has been put into the net by Maguire completely wrong footing his own keeper so I'm not sure what interference Sigurdsson has actually had. He didn't touch the ball, he didn't attempt to play the ball and he didn't obstruct De Gea's vision.

I'm saying that if he wasn't interfering with play when the first shot went in (and if he was that should have been given by the match officials), he can't be offside when Maguire puts the ball into his own net.

 

[Kellfire]

When the Everton player shot, he shot away from Sigurdsson, and De Gea moved to his right to cover the shot. Although Sigurdsson is clearly in an offside position, he is not interfering with play as the ball is going away from him and De Gea's movement clearly shows that he can see the ball. Maguire then plays the ball towards his own goal & Sigurdsson. De Gea still clearly sees this as he turns his head to follow the path of the ball into his net, so there is no question of Sigurdsson obstructing De Gea's vision. Sigurdsson's interference, if there is any, has only come about as a result of the opponent playing the ball so is not offside. The ball has been put into the net by Maguire completely wrong footing his own keeper so I'm not sure what interference Sigurdsson has actually had. He didn't touch the ball, he didn't attempt to play the ball and he didn't obstruct De Gea's vision.

I'm saying that if he wasn't interfering with play when the first shot went in (and if he was that should have been given by the match officials), he can't be offside when Maguire puts the ball into his own net.

He was interfering at that point. You still just don’t get it and you never will. Accept that you’re vastly outnumbered in your interpretation of the laws of the game and move on before you have a heart attack.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

????

If Sigurdsson would've done better you wouldn't have had to educate them now ?

Manure fans mate, they’d of found something else for VAR to overturn it.

Haven’t they had more decisions overturned than that team at the top they call LiVARpool?

 

[Blue in Munich]

He was interfering at that point. You still just don’t get it and you never will. Accept that you’re vastly outnumbered in your interpretation of the laws of the game and move on before you have a heart attack.

That's in remarkably poor taste even by your standards.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

He was interfering at that point. You still just don’t get it and you never will. Accept that you’re vastly outnumbered in your interpretation of the laws of the game and move on before you have a heart attack.

Calm down now - there is a way to talk to people and right now that is a really poor way

 

[Kellfire]

Calm down now - there is a way to talk to people and right now that is a really poor way

That's in remarkably poor taste even by your standards.

I genuinely don’t get it? If I’ve missed a member of the forum being affected by this issue recently then I definitely apologise, but it’s not an uncommon expression to tell someone to calm down before they have a heart attack or stroke etc.

 

[Swango1980]

Blue in Munich, your interpretation is just completely wrong, in my opinion, and it seems in the opinion of people that are more qualified in the area of offside.

Paul, I really have no idea what point you are trying to make now. Do you? Not sure why you are directly comparing it to the Lovren / Kane incident. I cant remember it perfectly, so I can't even make an opinion whether it was borderline or not. But, I think if I remember rightly, the argument was whether Lovren DELIBERATELY played the ball, and started a new phase of play. This argument doesn't apply from yesterdays incident

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Blue in Munich, your interpretation is just completely wrong, in my opinion, and it seems in the opinion of people that are more qualified in the area of offside.

Paul, I really have no idea what point you are trying to make now. Do you? Not sure why you are directly comparing it to the Lovren / Kane incident. I cant remember it perfectly, so I can't even make an opinion whether it was borderline or not. But, I think if I remember rightly, the argument was whether Lovren DELIBERATELY played the ball, and started a new phase of play. This argument doesn't apply from yesterdays incident

Seeing as how in post #349 you made accusations towards me and my behaviour, you then made a statement putting a word in Capitals, which had nothing to do with yesterday, but a wide statement, which I have completely, 100% proved you wrong on and instead of holding your hands up you once again deflect it back on to me, despite stating you can’t remember it completely and you can’t make an opinion, then give an opinion.

I’m out.

 

[TheDiablo]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1234457590605713408

Week in week out this guy provides the best insight to the weekends VAR decisions in a digestable format. Worth a follow.

 

[Swango1980]

Seeing as how in post #349 you made accusations towards me and my behaviour, you then made a statement putting a word in Capitals, which had nothing to do with yesterday, but a wide statement, which I have completely, 100% proved you wrong on and instead of holding your hands up you once again deflect it back on to me, despite stating you can’t remember it completely and you can’t make an opinion, then give an opinion.

I’m out.

Proved me wrong? You are very much mistaken. I put a word in capitals because I was simply trying to highlight that word. If you are offended by that (maybe you thought I was shouting at you), would you prefer I highlighted words using a bold font instead? Or italics, or underline?

Probably best for you to opt out on this one. No point in debating offside when you dont understand offside

I wonder what the next VaR debate will be about

 

[Kellfire]

What do you expect mate, he’s a knob

Do you want to explain this one to me because so far no one has?

 

[Tashyboy]

Anyway else where in the world of VAR. It is reported in the Manchester evening news that VAR people are looking at making the conversations between the Referee and Stockley park heard by fans in the ground at this weekend Manchester v Salford game.

 

[Kellfire]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1234457590605713408

Week in week out this guy provides the best insight to the weekends VAR decisions in a digestable format. Worth a follow.

This guy says nothing that myself, Swango, Phil et al haven’t said already. I assume those who keep claiming it wasn’t offside will now magically say this “new information” has cleared it up for them.

 

[Blue in Munich]

Blue in Munich, your interpretation is just completely wrong, in my opinion, and it seems in the opinion of people that are more qualified in the area of offside.

Here's the VAR explanation;

“In the 91st minute of Everton v Manchester United, Dominic Calvert-Lewin’s goal was disallowed following a VAR Review for an offside offence against Gylfi Sigurdsson.

”The on-field decision was to award the goal, but the VAR advised the referee that Sigurdsson was in an offside position directly in the line of vision of David de Gea and made an obvious action that impacted de Gea’s ability to make a save.”

Here's the extract from the laws of the game;

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

When the people in charge of VAR release an explanation that clearly differentiates from, and contradicts the laws of the game that they are supposed to be clarifying and enforcing I'll stick with trusting my own judgement thanks, no offence intended. Whilst Sigurdsson was in De Gea's line of vision, he clearly did not obstruct his vision as De Gea's head movement proves. The only thing that prevents De Gea making the save is Maguire deflecting the ball, Sigurdsson's actions have no impact on this. It's another wrong one for me.

Not sure there's anything more to discuss on this incident.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Proved me wrong? You are very much mistaken. I put a word in capitals because I was simply trying to highlight that word. If you are offended by that (maybe you thought I was shouting at you), would you prefer I highlighted words using a bold font instead? Or italics, or underline?

Probably best for you to opt out on this one. No point in debating offside when you dont understand offside

I wonder what the next VaR debate will be about

You stated I’d embarrassed myself then posted the following:

“What if a team mate played a ball through to a player who was offside, but the ball got a nick off a defender on the way through? You saying it should not be offside because it last came off the defender. CLEARLY, he would still be offside.”

Kane was in an offside position. The ball nicked/deflected/sliced etc off Lovren, Kane was then onside, CLEARLY he wasn’t any longer offside, which happened 100% in a PL Match making your statement above incorrect. So if you are 100% behind yesterday’s decision, why the doubt on the Lovren incident? Has the result changed in either match on your opinion.

And please don’t try engage me in small talk and winking emoji’s.

 

[Kellfire]

Move on, lads. You don’t understand the situation despite multiple attempts to explain it to you. Just accept it.

 

[ColchesterFC]

You stated I’d embarrassed myself then posted the following:

“What if a team mate played a ball through to a player who was offside, but the ball got a nick off a defender on the way through? You saying it should not be offside because it last came off the defender. CLEARLY, he would still be offside.”

Kane was in an offside position. The ball nicked/deflected/sliced etc off Lovren, Kane was then onside, CLEARLY he wasn’t any longer offside, which happened 100% in a PL Match making your statement above incorrect. So if you are 100% behind yesterday’s decision, why the doubt on the Lovren incident? Has the result changed in either match on your opinion.

And please don’t try engage me in small talk and winking emoji’s.

I think the difference between the two incidents is that Lovren was deemed to have deliberately played the ball which put Kane onside. Maguire didn't try to play the ball, it deflected off him, which means Sigurrdson would still be offside.

 

[Kellfire]

I think the difference between the two incidents is that Lovren was deemed to have deliberately played the ball which put Kane onside. Maguire didn't try to play the ball, it deflected off him, which means Sigurrdson would still be offside.

That’s been pointed out before. No point saying it again. He doesn’t understand that aspect of the rule.

 

[Swango1980]

You stated I’d embarrassed myself then posted the following:

“What if a team mate played a ball through to a player who was offside, but the ball got a nick off a defender on the way through? You saying it should not be offside because it last came off the defender. CLEARLY, he would still be offside.”

Kane was in an offside position. The ball nicked/deflected/sliced etc off Lovren, Kane was then onside, CLEARLY he wasn’t any longer offside, which happened 100% in a PL Match making your statement above incorrect. So if you are 100% behind yesterday’s decision, why the doubt on the Lovren incident? Has the result changed in either match on your opinion.

And please don’t try engage me in small talk and winking emoji’s.

Thought you had gone? But coming back for more punishment? I already said I do not remember the Lovren incident vividly. But, if memory serves me correctly, he took a swing at the ball and kicked it. Deliberately. So, if that is the case you cannot say it took a Nick of him, or a deflection.

Unless you are talking about a different incident of course. Otherwise, stop, just stop

 

[Deleted member 16999]

I think the difference between the two incidents is that Lovren was deemed to have deliberately played the ball which put Kane onside. Maguire didn't try to play the ball, it deflected off him, which means Sigurrdson would still be offside.

No, Maguire moved to block the ball and it spun off his leg, remember, the on field decision was goal, so the 2 officials must of thought it was a deliberate movement by Maguire.