• Welcome to The Everton Forum!

    You appear to be browsing The Everton Forum as a guest user. Did you know that if you sign up with an account, you get access to all kinds of additional priviledges, and are then able to join the discussions? You will also be able to tap into the full suite of tools and information that The Everton Forum has to offer.


    Already a member? Login Now!

Match Thread Everton V Manchester Utd Sunday 1/03/2020 ko 14:00

kev1

Mortgage Nonce/Football Dunce
I'm confident it would have been given down the other end.

Tell you what too, second time I've seen OGS on the touch line. The fella is so far out his depth it's hilarious tbh.
He said it was a goal...
 

pablo_p

TEF Member
Everyone bar a few people think it's not a goal.

I said earlier if that was scored against us, I'd be screaming offside, don't get me wrong.

But as per the current ruling, Sigurdsson is not impeding nor is he in the line of sight.

It's an absolute farce.

Again.
 

bluerinse

Moderator
Tell you what too, second time I've seen OGS on the touch line. The fella is so far out his depth it's hilarious tbh.
I thought they were set up quite well. Back 4, 3 in the middle, Fernandes in a roaming role with Martial and Greenwood coming from wide areas. It was a bit like the Liverpool set up, without the quality, especially from the full backs.

However, I thought he made a terrible sub. The double change when he bought off McTominay and Greenwood for Mata and Ighalo.

They lost the ball from then on. The pressure on their goal was virtually relentless from then on (save for one skirmish where they nearly scored).
 

jon

CDPA Panelist (like Rich)
^^ I said in the match thread that it would give us the upper hand in midfield. We were on top after those subs.
 

Mike

Formerly Just Mike & Micky
I thought they were set up quite well. Back 4, 3 in the middle, Fernandes in a roaming role with Martial and Greenwood coming from wide areas. It was a bit like the Liverpool set up, without the quality, especially from the full backs.

However, I thought he made a terrible sub. The double change when he bought off McTominay and Greenwood for Mata and Ighalo.

They lost the ball from then on. The pressure on their goal was virtually relentless from then on (save for one skirmish where they nearly scored).
It's not so much his actual decisions per se I was commenting on (but you're right) - just when he was giving his players orders or making gestures to them, he looked like an absolute divvy. I wasn't within hearing distance but watching on a lot of the time it reminded me of when Baines rolled his eyes when talking to Martinez. I don't believe the players were taking it onboard.

I firmly believe if the squad could vote on it anonymously, Pochettino would be the manager tomorrow.

Bruno Fernandes has started well but give him a few more months of being managed by this fella and his peformances will drop away.
 

Kim Jong-un

TEF Member
Never would have thought I'd see people arguing about whether or not a goalkeeper had his view impeded by the fucking invisible man like. Supporting Everton never fails to give us new experiences.
 

Woolster

CDPA Panelist & data nonce
It's not immaterial tho. That's why it's been disallowed! Like I said, his presence causes indecision.

You're not going to agree with it, so it's a pointless debate tbh
Read the rules ...

*****

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

****

Tell me which of those Sigurrdson fell foul of.
 

Hugo's left kidney

Not a corrupt CDPA panelist
Read the rules ...

*****

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

****

Tell me which of those Sigurrdson fell foul of.
The law is clear. We were cheated.
 

Mike

Formerly Just Mike & Micky
  • preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or

People are always gonna argue that is what happened.

I think it's bollocks personally but people just need to agree to disagree on this one, it's just going around in circles.
 

bluerinse

Moderator
Read the rules ...

*****

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

****

Tell me which of those Sigurrdson fell foul of.
I think there could be a case made for more than one of those, but I'm done discussing it.

It's an agree to disagree situation.

If they come out and say they made the wrong call I'll put my hands up and say I was totally wrong but I don't see it that way at this moment.
 

Mr Kirk

Forum food fraud
I think there could be a case made for more than one of those, but I'm done discussing it.

It's an agree to disagree situation.

If they come out and say they made the wrong call I'll put my hands up and say I was totally wrong but I don't see it that way at this moment.
So your opinion will change if the ref/var/fa’s opinion changes?
 

Woolster

CDPA Panelist & data nonce
I think there could be a case made for more than one of those
Seriously ?
I wasn't sure on the replay they showed at the ground, but, having seen it properly now, I'm struggling to see any reason to call that offside.

but I'm done discussing it.
That's not how the internet works though. When you're wrong, keep on arguing that you're right, them's the rules.
 

bluerinse

Moderator
So your opinion will change if the ref/var/fa’s opinion changes?
If they come out and admit the conclusion (which I agree with) is wrong, like they did with the penalty at Brighton, I will say I was wrong. Until which time I've given my opinion and I don't have anything else to say.

This is my last post on this matter.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top