VAR - Thoughts

[Deleted member 16999]

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

More deflection, more rubbish, more trolling.

 

[PhilTheFragger]

Right, just fished out 3 infractions on this thread.
If you can’t keep yourselves under control then it’s going to get very messy

Who’s next for a Fraggering?

 

[Swango1980]

So

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.

You should have highlighted the last bullet point. But, no need. You just don't see it.

Of course, had the ball gone in against Chelsea in similar circumstances, you'd hold your hands up and call it a fair goal. After all, the fact that an opponent was a few yards directly in front of your keeper would have zero influence on your keepers actions at all.

 

[Blue in Munich]

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.

Maguire turns his foot to attempt to block the ball.

 

[Swango1980]

More deflection, more rubbish, more trolling.

How can you accuse someone of trolling when they are trying to respond to you when you bring up the Lovren incident?

Just because I say it is irrelevant in this case, and you don't like that, doesn't make it trolling.

You have confused several posters about your previous comments relating to offside, and when they've looked for clarification you've just added to the confusion.

It's best you just leave it by saying you think it was offside (or do you), and that's that.

 

[Deleted member 1740]

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

Can I answer this?

LOVREN made an attempt to play the ball but never made contact.

Not sure what this has got to do with sigurdsson not being able to score from 5yrds though ?

 

[Blue in Munich]

So


You should have highlighted the last bullet point. But, no need. You just don't see it.

Of course, had the ball gone in against Chelsea in similar circumstances, you'd hold your hands up and call it a fair goal. After all, the fact that an opponent was a few yards directly in front of your keeper would have zero influence on your keepers actions at all.

I didn't highlight the last bullet point because Sigurdsson hasn't affected De Gea's ability to play the ball. He can't because De Gea has no ability to play the ball as he is completely wrong footed.

As a former goalkeeper, I'd have no issue with the visibility available in the circumstances; neither does De Gea as he never fails to follow the path of the ball.

The only bit you've got right is that if it went in against Chelsea I would call it a fair goal. Unfortunate that having never met me you'd consider that I'd change my tune dependant on the team involved; there's more than a few football fans on here who have met me and I'm sure would be happy to confirm that I would call it fair. I might not be happy about it, but that's different from considering it fair.

Goodnight.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

How can you accuse someone of trolling when they are trying to respond to you when you bring up the Lovren incident?

Just because I say it is irrelevant in this case, and you don't like that, doesn't make it trolling.

You have confused several posters about your previous comments relating to offside, and when they've looked for clarification you've just added to the confusion.

It's best you just leave it by saying you think it was offside (or do you), and that's that.

Because those who don’t agree with you have tried to engage you in a debate and instead of answering the points raised you’ve continually told me and others they haven’t got a clue or should give up or best leave it etc.
You really need to learn as I’m sure after tonight there’ll be a least another 2 forum members who will no longer bother with you and your attitude.

None of us can change the result, but discussing different points of view is allowed, if you don’t want that I’d suggest you don’t post anymore threads.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Can I answer this?

LOVREN made an attempt to play the ball but never made contact.

Not sure what this has got to do with sigurdsson not being able to score from 5yrds though ?

Lovren did touch it, replays proved it, however, some on here believe everything a player claims is true.

 

[Deleted member 1740]

Right, just fished out 3 infractions on this thread.
If you can’t keep yourselves under control then it’s going to get very messy

Who’s next for a Fraggering?

????Grinder is that way >>>>>>>>>>>

 

[Deleted member 1740]

Lovren did touch it, replays proved it, however, some on here believe everything a player claims is true.

You're wrong. Now shut up or you'll be banned ?

 

[Deleted member 16999]

You're wrong. Now shut up or you'll be banned ?

If I get banned, I’ll make sure the first/last post is directed at you.

 

[clubchamp98]

Opinions vary on this but it’s stockleys opinion that counts.
I have read all the thread and all can be right and wrong.
That’s the problem it’s an opinion , so that might as well be the on field refs.VAR is a mess!
When the ball was struck he was offside.
Did he interfere ? That’s an opinion.

 

[Kellfire]

I didn't highlight the last bullet point because Sigurdsson hasn't affected De Gea's ability to play the ball. He can't because De Gea has no ability to play the ball as he is completely wrong footed.

As a former goalkeeper, I'd have no issue with the visibility available in the circumstances; neither does De Gea as he never fails to follow the path of the ball.

The only bit you've got right is that if it went in against Chelsea I would call it a fair goal. Unfortunate that having never met me you'd consider that I'd change my tune dependant on the team involved; there's more than a few football fans on here who have met me and I'm sure would be happy to confirm that I would call it fair. I might not be happy about it, but that's different from considering it fair.

Goodnight.

But you aren’t calling it fair. You’re wrong. You say one thing but the evidence is the opposite.

 

[Blue in Munich]

Opinions vary on this but it’s stockleys opinion that counts.
I have read all the thread and all can be right and wrong.
That’s the problem it’s an opinion , so that might as well be the on field refs.VAR is a mess!
When the ball was struck he was offside.
Did he interfere ? That’s an opinion.

Was he offside; or was he in an offside position, which is no longer the same thing as being offside. The problem is the first bit is now as much of an opinion as whether or not he is interfering.

We could agree that it's a fact that VAR is a mess.

 

[clubchamp98]

Was he offside; or was he in an offside position, which is no longer the same thing as being offside. The problem is the first bit is now as much of an opinion as whether or not he is interfering.

We could agree that it's a fact that VAR is a mess.

.
there is a difference but I think if your in the six yard box you are going to be given offside.
Given one week not the next is just not good enough.[/QUOTE]

 

[Blue in Munich]

.
there is a difference but I think if your in the six yard box you are going to be given offside.
Given one week not the next is just not good enough.

[/QUOTE]

I take it you mean like the fouls that are given anywhere else on the pitch but not in the penalty area. It shouldn’t be the case for me, you’re offside or you’re not, but I see your point.

Fully agree with your second point, especially now they have VAR. Could understand the discrepancies when different refs get one view but not now, and the Son and Maguire kick outs are the best, or worst example of the double standards that VAR has introduced.

 

[clubchamp98]

I take it you mean like the fouls that are given anywhere else on the pitch but not in the penalty area. It shouldn’t be the case for me, you’re offside or you’re not, but I see your point.

Fully agree with your second point, especially now they have VAR. Could understand the discrepancies when different refs get one view but not now, and the Son and Maguire kick outs are the best, or worst example of the double standards that VAR has introduced.[/QUOTE]

Yes they should go back to the old rule if your off your off and it’s up to lazy players to stay onside even if not interfering with play.

 

[Tashyboy]

Right, just fished out 3 infractions on this thread.
If you can’t keep yourselves under control then it’s going to get very messy

Who’s next for a Fraggering?

Can we nominate ?

 

[Tashyboy]

I didn't highlight the last bullet point because Sigurdsson hasn't affected De Gea's ability to play the ball. He can't because De Gea has no ability to play the ball as he is completely wrong footed.

As a former goalkeeper, I'd have no issue with the visibility available in the circumstances; neither does De Gea as he never fails to follow the path of the ball.

The only bit you've got right is that if it went in against Chelsea I would call it a fair goal. Unfortunate that having never met me you'd consider that I'd change my tune dependant on the team involved; there's more than a few football fans on here who have met me and I'm sure would be happy to confirm that I would call it fair. I might not be happy about it, but that's different from considering it fair.

Goodnight.

BIM, as an ex goalie, thoughts on this one. My lad had trials Forsest and Notts County back in the day as a kid. He was told that if you have time to watch it you have time to move for it. De Gea watched it all the way, he moved in the initial direction of the shot. But never Moved his body, arms and legs after the deflection. Would you agree he had no chance of saving the deflection.