VAR | Page 5 | Vital Football

VAR

The PL game is finished. It really is.

Has anyone else seen the last minute goal disallowed for Everton?

Absolute joke
 
Pope John XXIII said:
The PL game is finished. It really is.

Has anyone else seen the last minute goal disallowed for Everton?

Absolute joke
Click to expand...

yep, glad it’s not just me that thought that was a joke of decision. “He was in the line of sight”. Have some common sense - he was never saving it and the player made NO difference to the outcome of that attack. Absolute joke.
 
Will.NFFC said:
yep, glad it’s not just me that thought that was a joke of decision. “He was in the line of sight”. Have some common sense - he was never saving it and the player made NO difference to the outcome of that attack. Absolute joke.
Click to expand...
I was watching the live VAR replay where you can see the Everton player retract his legs in time to not touch the ball. I thought at the time that there was no way they couldn't give it. Couldn't believe it when it was disallowed. No wonder Anchellotti got sent off.

Goalkeeper is nowhere near the Everton player, who has absolutely no involvement whatsoever.
 
VAR will kill football as we know & love it. I asked on another thread whether people would rather have the decisions made by the Keith Stroud's of this world or have VAR I believe the ridiculous VAR decision today goes a long way towards answering it, let's keep the good old ref at least his / her decisions are instant, and generally made in good faith. Imagine being an Everton supporter and suffering that to day Nonsense
 
Deary me, shocking decision to give a corner to City and they go and score from it...

Have to say though, I really hate villa - hope they get murdered today.
 
There is nothing wrong with VAR; the technology is fine.

It is the people who are administering the technology and interpreting the contentious incidents who are getting it wrong, however....

I did not watch the game earlier but have had a look at the controversial incident, albeit from the one angle.

Why do people think the goal should have stood?
 
mao tse tung said:
There is nothing wrong with VAR; the technology is fine.

It is the people who are administering the technology and interpreting the contentious incidents who are getting it wrong, however....

I did not watch the game earlier but have had a look at the controversial incident, albeit from the one angle.

Why do people think the goal should have stood?
Click to expand...
Siggurdson is not interfering with play. He is not anywhere near their goalkeeper, not in his way, nor blocking his line of sight.

Look at De Gea; he never once takes his eye off the ball, so can clearly see it. Yet he goes the wrong way; had the shot gone the way he went it actually would have hit Siggurdson and not needed a save. Dr Gea's mistake and a poor one, but nothing to do with Siggurdson who keeps himself inactive.
 
Pope John XXIII said:
The PL game is finished. It really is.

Has anyone else seen the last minute goal disallowed for Everton?

Absolute joke
Click to expand...

I had to yhink about it for a bit. Very clever by the Everton player but I think VAR got it right as he was obstructing the keeper's view whilst in an offside position.
 
ZedRed said:
I had to yhink about it for a bit. Very clever by the Everton player but I think VAR got it right as he was obstructing the keeper's view whilst in an offside position.
Click to expand...

I was pissed and watching it on a TV screen 20 metres away but that's what I thought.
 
Last edited:
Pope John XXIII said:
Siggurdson is not interfering with play. He is not anywhere near their goalkeeper, not in his way, nor blocking his line of sight.

Look at De Gea; he never once takes his eye off the ball, so can clearly see it. Yet he goes the wrong way; had the shot gone the way he went it actually would have hit Siggurdson and not needed a save. Dr Gea's mistake and a poor one, but nothing to do with Siggurdson who keeps himself inactive.
Click to expand...

Was it Siggurdson who was lying down in the 6 yards box?
 
I have just had another view on Sky; this is still from one angle.

As the result of an Everton attack, Siggurdson (No 10) ends up prone in the six yards box.

The ball comes back out to Calvert Lewin (No 9) who worked himself into a shooting position; at the time of his shot, Siggardson was lying down in the six yards box in what would normally be considered an off side position.

So, the questions we must ask at this point are: is Siggurdson involved in active play, is he interfering with an opponent and is he attempting to gain an advantage?

At the time Calvert Lewin takes his shot, there is at least one "yes" in there, most probably two.

Calvert Lewin shoots and hits McGuire; this plays Siggurdson back on side, unfortunately too late.

I think they got this one correct.
 
Pope John XXIII said:
Siggurdson is not interfering with play. He is not anywhere near their goalkeeper, not in his way, nor blocking his line of sight.

Look at De Gea; he never once takes his eye off the ball, so can clearly see it. Yet he goes the wrong way; had the shot gone the way he went it actually would have hit Siggurdson and not needed a save. Dr Gea's mistake and a poor one, but nothing to do with Siggurdson who keeps himself inactive.
Click to expand...
So surely he is interfering with play then. I thought it was the right decision.
 
Mappred said:
Because he would have been in the way of the shot, had it not taken a deflection in an offside position whether he’s on his arse or not. If that had been against us, and allowed, this place would have gone mental.
Click to expand...
The deflection plays him on for a start, as it's from Harry McGuire.

And it doesn't hit him does it?

So who was he interfering with?

If it had been against us I would struggle to come up with a reason why the guy lying there not involved should get us out of jail
 
Pope John XXIII said:
The deflection plays him on for a start, as it's from Harry McGuire.

And it doesn't hit him does it?

So who was he interfering with?

If it had been against us I would struggle to come up with a reason why the guy lying there not involved should get us out of jail
Click to expand...
You said yourself that it wouldn’t have needed a save had it not been deflected. I may be wrong, but I don’t think the deflection off McGuire does play him onside as the original shot was obviously forward so he must be offside. If I’m wrong, fair enough, and if you’re right, fair play, as I don’t want an argument over it. I just thought it was offside.
 
Mappred said:
You said yourself that it wouldn’t have needed a save had it not been deflected. I may be wrong, but I don’t think the deflection off McGuire does play him onside as the original shot was obviously forward so he must be offside. If I’m wrong, fair enough, and if you’re right, fair play, as I don’t want an argument over it. I just thought it was offside.
Click to expand...
It's down to opinions, and that is the problem.

Mine is no more valid than yours. I'm not convinced either is less valid than whatever guy made this fairly subjective decision.

I personally prefer to give the attacking side the benefit and have more goals in these situations.
 
Pope John XXIII said:
It's down to opinions, and that is the problem.

Mine is no more valid than yours. I'm not convinced either is less valid than whatever guy made this fairly subjective decision.

I personally prefer to give the attacking side the benefit and have more goals in these situations.
Click to expand...
I get that, but unless they change the rules(again) you’re going to be disappointed. Because if they’re giving offside by a toe or finger or whatever, then he can only be offside, as he must be six feet beyond the last defender.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.