VAR | Page 6 | Vital Football

VAR

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...

Not blocking his line of sight? Come on lol that's bullshit, he has to move his legs out of the way.
 
Pope John XXIII said:
What has that got to do with line of sight?

Siggurdson is on the floor, De Gea's standing up and looking at the ball throughout.
Click to expand...

Well if a player in an offside position is in the line of sight of the GK it's offside. I'm with you by and large on VAR but on this occasion they got it right. Not seen anyone bar Everton fans suggest otherwise.
 
Come on fellas, it's not as if the Everton player is in a remote corner of the box , he is just infront of the keeper ...for him to interfere it doesn't mean that the eyes of the keeper has to be targeted on him... mentally the keeper is being distracted by another body moving infront of him...its human ... for me there is no need for VAR to rule this out ...even a normal linesman should do it...
 
There are only three considerations to make:

Was the player trying to gain an advantage?

You could be generous and say he did not have time to move out of the way - so that would be a NO

Was the player interfering with an opponent?

This is the contentious one - you could say NO he was on the floor or just as easily say YES he was in the keepers line of sight.

The deciding one for me is:

Was the player involved in active play?

The fact that he had to move his legs once the ball had been deflected means its a YES.
 
He had absolutely no effect on the game though. If he hadn't been there, de Gea would've made exactly the same move to his right and the ball would had still deflected to his left
 
mao tse tung said:
There are only three considerations to make:

Was the player trying to gain an advantage?

You could be generous and say he did not have time to move out of the way - so that would be a NO

Was the player interfering with an opponent?

This is the contentious one - you could say NO he was on the floor or just as easily say YES he was in the keepers line of sight.

The deciding one for me is:

Was the player involved in active play?

The fact that he had to move his legs once the ball had been deflected means its a YES.
Click to expand...

He sat on his arse for far too long, if that had been our player I'd have been cross at him.
 
the problem with var is its taking away from the ref

they need to use it like they do in rugby...the ref can use it if he thinks handball/offside etc

he can then discuss with the players i am looking to see if he was offside/interfering with play etc...

it can still be wrong, but its ultimately down to the ref and he has kept everyone informed of what is happening
 
Calvin Plummer said:
He sat on his arse for far too long, if that had been our player I'd have been cross at him.
Click to expand...

That’s my thinking I’d blame the player for not getting out the way rather than any ref or VAR. To say he’s not interfering or a distraction is rubbish I don’t see why it’s such an issue.
 
Woanz said:
That’s my thinking I’d blame the player for not getting out the way rather than any ref or VAR. To say he’s not interfering or a distraction is rubbish I don’t see why it’s such an issue.
Click to expand...

But how is he interfering? What would have changed if he wasn't there?
 
Have to agree with the majority on this one.

How anyone can sit directly in front of the keeper (whether it's blocking his vision or not) will interfere with the thought process off all the players surrounding him. Whether the keeper would have saved it or not becomes irrelevant after that.
 
Calvin Plummer said:
http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-11---offside

It doesn't matter if you think the keeper would have saved it or not.

I can see the argument for giving the goal but I think under the letter of the law VAR called this one correctly.
Click to expand...

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
How is he "clearly obstructing" the goalkeepers view, when he is on the floor, the goalkeeper is stood up and never once takes his eyes off the ball?
 
Technically you can argue it’s offside, which in fairness, a lot of you are illustrating - the rules mean he’s off.

but if we’re talking ‘fairness’ then the goal should stand. The reality is, him being on the floor made absolutely no difference to the outcome of that attack. There wasn’t a touch, he wasn’t a physical obstacle for the keeper to get around and he certainly isn’t blocking the keepers vision. There’s a video somewhere showing De Gea’s eyes following the ball the entire time after the deflection.

i agree VAR may have technically got it right, but think in terms of fairness, it should have been a goal.

To Popes point, we never seem to give the attacking team the benefit of the doubt in any of these decisions - I’d go as far to say it’s looking to penalize and disallow goals rather than just spot clear error. This one perhaps less so, but it’s another example of controversy where the attacking team come off without a goal.
 
Galaxy42 said:
Have to agree with the majority on this one.

How anyone can sit directly in front of the keeper (whether it's blocking his vision or not) will interfere with the thought process off all the players surrounding him. Whether the keeper would have saved it or not becomes irrelevant after that.
Click to expand...

He had to physically move his legs to prevent the ball hitting him, which meant he was in an active position whether he touched the ball or not.

The very act of getting out of the way of contact, meant he was interfering with play.

That's my take on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.