Subscriber RandoEFC+ Posted March 2, 2020 Subscriber Posted March 2, 2020 Also the Premier League stated twice that it was because he was clearly in De Geas line of sight which is nothing short of a flat out lie. The word active doesn't need to come into it.
Danny Posted March 2, 2020 Posted March 2, 2020 3 minutes ago, RandoEFC said: De Gea is beaten by the deflection regardless of Sigurdsson's position. If you care about the actual sporting aspect of the game instead of what technicalities you can find in sub-section 32.1 paragraph 14b about what active or interfering play is or isn't, then it's a goal. I dont imagine it's a coincidence that almost every non-Premier League fan who's commented says it's clearly a goal while us lot are bickering over technicalities and vocabulary. I imagine it's because referees actually have some common sense at their disposal in other countries to help them make decisions. Ours are obsessed with over analysing every sneeze down to the nth degree so that when they publish their next self-promoting report about officiating in this country they can make up some more stats about how VAR is actually helping them make correct decisions 2% more often than they were before which is better than any other league in the world. It's horse shit. I honestly cant take this league seriously anymore it's gotten so absurd. And that's not all me being salty about yesterday because I saw the same thing after watching the highlights of Burnley vs Bournemouth last weekend where VAR decisions changed the score from 1-2 to 2-0 over the course of the game. How can that be the way forward? He's active in an offside position, whatever your issue with VAR calling out decisions doesn't change that
Inverted Posted March 2, 2020 Posted March 2, 2020 He isn't obscuring the ball at the time it was kicked, as all the absolutely pointless screenshots with lines drawn on show. But it doesn't go in directly from that shot - it deflects and it goes in by rolling across the floor right behind Sigurdsson, who is directly between De Gea and the path of the ball. Would De Gea have saved it regardless? Probably not, but that's not the rule. It is an objectively correct decision. It also probably should have been a penalty on him before and then we would be saved this discussion.
Subscriber RandoEFC+ Posted March 2, 2020 Subscriber Posted March 2, 2020 22 minutes ago, Danny said: He's active in an offside position, whatever your issue with VAR calling out decisions doesn't change that What does 'active' even mean though? It's made up. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Only in English football do you get this. Dave says he "didn't interfere with play", Mike says "he's active in an offside position", Gaz says "he wasn't in the goalkeeper's line of sight", Bob says "he didn't do anything that influenced the play". It's all totally made up. Look in the rule book if you want, there is no mention of the word 'active' and like I say it's irrelevant because the Premier League stated that the reason for the goal being disallowed is that Sigurdsson was in De Gea's line of sight which he clear wasn't. Not that the terminology should matter. If this was still a sport rather than a glorified TV series everyone would look at that and say if Sigurdsson wasn't there it would have gone in anyway so the goal should stand. And even if it wasn't a goal, he was only there in the first place because he's been two-footed by a totally out of control opponent so it's a penalty to us and arguably a red card for Wan Bissaka while we're at it. Apparently this was checked as well and not deemed clear and obvious so make of that what you will. I don't know how many more times we have to be left arguing about VAR after a game before people start accepting that it's just corrupt. I'm pretty much there myself to be honest.
Lucas Posted March 2, 2020 Posted March 2, 2020 For what it's worth, I see both sides of the arguement. If you score it, you want the goal. Concede it, and you are screaming for it to be disallowed. But let's be honest here, it wouldn't be up for discussion if Sigurdsson hadn't stayed on the ground. He had time to get up. If he had, we wouldn't be having this discussion I don't think.
Subscriber RandoEFC+ Posted March 2, 2020 Subscriber Posted March 2, 2020 If the cunt had buried the original chance as well then none of it would have happened either. I'm just waiting for someone to say that Sigurdsson was clearly influencing the play in that position so that I can reassure them that that's something he hasn't done in months.
LFCMadLad Posted March 2, 2020 Posted March 2, 2020 Yet another game discussion dominated by VAR. It's great isnt it Oooh I want everything perfect, oooh his armpit was offside, ooooh he was interfering with play because he was flat out laid down in the box, ooooh he broke the players leg but it wasnt clear and obvious.... Fuck sake. It's getting to the point where I dont even want to watch football anymore.
Cicero Posted March 2, 2020 Posted March 2, 2020 The law is you cannot obstruct the GK’s view. IE Impeding the opponent. Whether or not DeGea’s was obstructed is down to your own opinion. It looks like he was already diving the other direction, but who knows what DeGea could’ve done had he saw the entire incident. I think based on that alone they had to deny the goal. Again, I think.
LFCMadLad Posted March 2, 2020 Posted March 2, 2020 9 minutes ago, DeadLinesman said: I wasnt aware you could watch football on here?
LFCMadLad Posted March 2, 2020 Posted March 2, 2020 4 minutes ago, DeadLinesman said: Calm down fella. Bit of banter. Calm down? You ok mate?
LFCMadLad Posted March 2, 2020 Posted March 2, 2020 6 minutes ago, DeadLinesman said: I’m fine. You? Lovely
DeadLinesman Posted March 2, 2020 Posted March 2, 2020 Good stuff. I’m off to the cinema to watch Invisible Man and shit myself.
LFCMadLad Posted March 2, 2020 Posted March 2, 2020 2 minutes ago, DeadLinesman said: Good stuff. I’m off to the cinema to watch Invisible Man and shit myself. Can I come? You wont know I'm there
DeadLinesman Posted March 2, 2020 Posted March 2, 2020 8 minutes ago, LFCMadLad said: Can I come? You wont know I'm there That’s what I usually say to the Mrs.
Subscriber Dan+ Posted March 3, 2020 Subscriber Posted March 3, 2020 On 02/03/2020 at 13:24, RandoEFC said: De Gea is beaten by the deflection regardless of Sigurdsson's position. If you care about the actual sporting aspect of the game instead of what technicalities you can find in sub-section 32.1 paragraph 14b about what active or interfering play is or isn't, then it's a goal. I dont imagine it's a coincidence that almost every non-Premier League fan who's commented says it's clearly a goal while us lot are bickering over technicalities and vocabulary. I imagine it's because referees actually have some common sense at their disposal in other countries to help them make decisions. Ours are obsessed with over analysing every sneeze down to the nth degree so that when they publish their next self-promoting report about officiating in this country they can make up some more stats about how VAR is actually helping them make correct decisions 2% more often than they were before which is better than any other league in the world. It's horse shit. I honestly cant take this league seriously anymore it's gotten so absurd. And that's not all me being salty about yesterday because I saw the same thing after watching the highlights of Burnley vs Bournemouth last weekend where VAR decisions changed the score from 1-2 to 2-0 over the course of the game. How can that be the way forward? Only got round to watching that earlier and what a disgrace it was, literally unbelievable. Could anyone genuinely have held it against Bournemouth if they'd just walked off? Interesting that you, someone in favour of VAR at the start of the season, is now saying all of this too. Speaks volumes of how inept the implementation has been.
Subscriber RandoEFC+ Posted March 3, 2020 Subscriber Posted March 3, 2020 9 minutes ago, Dan said: Only got round to watching that earlier and what a disgrace it was, literally unbelievable. Could anyone genuinely have held it against Bournemouth if they'd just walked off? Interesting that you, someone in favour of VAR at the start of the season, is now saying all of this too. Speaks volumes of how inept the implementation has been. I'm in favour of using technology to improve decisions, but the whole clear and obvious thing has become a farce. Both of the handballs in that Burnley game are apparently clear and obvious, and it's clear and obvious that De Gea's view was impeded by Sigurdsson, but Wan Bissaka taking a run up from Ormskirk to wipe out a player in the penalty box isn't clear and obvious. What other conclusion can you draw but the "clear and obvious" line is the excuse they hide behind when they bottle a decision? It doesn't seem to matter most of the time. Giving video technology to our referees is like giving an iPhone 10 to my blind Nana.
True Blue Posted March 4, 2020 Posted March 4, 2020 Think Var made the wrong decision, but even the experts have divided opinions on the situation. Everyone knows i am not an expert just ask the missus.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.