EPL Matchday 28

Zidane98

Hall of Famer
Dec 22, 2009
39,317
16,861
South End, AAMI Park
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Socceroos, LFC, MVFC, RC Strasbourg
zero percent chance of saving it. If there had been even a 1% chance that he could pull of a worldlie then I would agree with you that it was offside. As it was he was in mid air as the shot was deflected and basically landed as the ball went past him
That's irrelevant to the offside law but in any case not true either. He's offside under the laws of the game.
 

peternorth

Moderator
May 6, 2005
94,390
49,111
AFL Club
Richmond
If the goal was scored against my team in the same manner, and VAR'd Id be in total agreement.

If the goal was scored by my team and VAR'd. Id be livid
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

jod23

TheBrownDog
Apr 2, 2000
62,973
19,203
Perth, Australia
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Liverpool, Chicago Bulls.
Quite ridiculous to say that the goalkeeper had zero percent chance of playing the ball. Siggurdson had to dummy the ball, you can see on the replay that De Gea is distracted by that so it has to be offside. You won't find too many situations where a player is positioned right in front of a keeper when a shot on goal goes in the net where a goal is given.
Must disagree here. De Gea is going the other way. He's been done by the deflection. He absolutely has 0% chance to save that.

Whether it's offside or not is another issue. But Siggy being there doesn't hinder De Gea's chance to save it.
 

Blueboys11

Club Legend
Apr 3, 2006
2,620
1,946
Melbourne
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Tottenham, New York Mets
That's irrelevant to the offside law but in any case not true either. He's offside under the laws of the game.
I’m not sure it’s irrelevant as there have been many cases a goal keeper has had a player in an offside position in his eyeline but the goal stood as they had no impact on the goal being scored.
The Rule as I understand it is denying the keeper a chance to make a play at the ball. A ball that is so far from him that he has no play on it would seem to fall outside this
 

Zidane98

Hall of Famer
Dec 22, 2009
39,317
16,861
South End, AAMI Park
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Socceroos, LFC, MVFC, RC Strasbourg
I’m not sure it’s irrelevant as there have been many cases a goal keeper has had a player in an offside position in his eyeline but the goal stood as they had no impact on the goal being scored.
The Rule as I understand it is denying the keeper a chance to make a play at the ball. A ball that is so far from him that he has no play on it would seem to fall outside this
Those goals usually involved offside players who were positioned either side of the line between the goalkeeper and the person shooting. The VAR officials rightly determined that the offside player literally right in front of the goalkeeper that dummied the ball influenced play.
 

Bradesmaen

Hall of Famer
Apr 8, 2007
39,268
12,740
Dublin
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
SJ Sharks/Everton/NY Jets
You can't lie down in front of the keeper and say that because the shot was deflected into the corner that it's not offside. If you don't think sigurdsson was distracting De Gea then you are lying to yourself.
Certainly distracted him so much that De Gea watched the ball all the way
 

Procrastinator35

Hall of Famer
Feb 24, 2013
42,161
34,575
The GoldenBrown Heart of Victoria
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Man Utd Green Bay Melb Storm
Quite ridiculous to say that the goalkeeper had zero percent chance of playing the ball. Siggurdson had to dummy the ball, you can see on the replay that De Gea is distracted by that so it has to be offside. You won't find too many situations where a player is positioned right in front of a keeper when a shot on goal goes in the net where a goal is given.
So you're saying that the 'cushion' was in motion, ergo active off-side, as opposed to passive.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Red Black and Blue

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 1, 2006
19,571
11,199
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Everton, Storm, Victory
I’m not sure it’s irrelevant as there have been many cases a goal keeper has had a player in an offside position in his eyeline but the goal stood as they had no impact on the goal being scored.
The Rule as I understand it is denying the keeper a chance to make a play at the ball. A ball that is so far from him that he has no play on it would seem to fall outside this
This. It’s an wording of the rule vs the intention of the rule argument. The correct call depends on the perspective. In a court of law I think both could be argued successfully.
 

99 Problems

Premium Gold
Aug 4, 2016
589
574
AFL Club
Sydney
As an Everton fan I’m fine with that being offside. The ball gets close enough to Gylfi that there will be a point he’s obstructing De Gea’s view. Do I think he would’ve saved it anyway? very unlikely. But the onus In that situation has to be on the attacker to not be in the direct line between the keeper and ball, and add the distraction of moving his legs at the last moment, even though his intent was to get out of the way.
 

Zidane98

Hall of Famer
Dec 22, 2009
39,317
16,861
South End, AAMI Park
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Socceroos, LFC, MVFC, RC Strasbourg
Ancelotti charged for misconduct under Rule E3 - “A Participant shall at all times act in the best interests of the game and shall not act in any manner which is improper or brings the game into disrepute or use any one, or a combination of, violent conduct, serious foul play, threatening, abusive, indecent or insulting words or behaviour.”
 

Top Bottom