The malignant hand of Moss

By Lyndon Lloyd 01/03/2020 93comments  |  Jump to last
Everton 1 - 1 Manchester United

This was one of those where the injustice will sting for a while, particularly if Everton miss out on Europe by a couple of points this season. If stoppage time in this one was the moment where the Blues could make up somewhat for not getting anything for their efforts at the Emirates last weekend, then it was doubly painful to have it ripped away by the officials… even if the celebrations were tempered immediately by the knowledge that the Video Assistant Referee was going to have the final say and that, deep down, you knew it wouldn’t go our way.

When the offside law was changed all those years ago so that players could be in line with the last defender, it was with favouring the attacker and boosting the chances of more goals being scored in mind. You know — goals, the be-all and end-all of this beautiful game we love but which is slowly being killed by VAR, that much-reviled introduction to the Premier League that appears designed to take goals away rather than protect them.

Retired referees are split on the incident involving Gylfi Sigurdsson and the deflected winner that was taken away from Everton this afternoon; even Carlo Ancelotti admitted that it was a difficult decision. But it’s depressing that the reflex is to disallow the goal rather than let the on-field decision stand. By the letter of the FA’s law, Sigurdsson was “obstructing the opponent’s line of vision” (in this case, goalkeeper David de Gea) but any common sense appraisal of the situation or application of the spirit of the law -- hah! That’s long since gone — would have led the VAR official to deduce that De Gea could see over Sigurdsson as he was sitting on the ground in the six-yard box and that, wrong-footed, he was never getting to the ball once it had irretrievably changed direction off Maguire and skidded over the line at his near post.

But then the VAR was Jon Moss, as despised a referee among Everton fans as any in memory for his consistent incompetence and that penalty decision at Brighton (*correction below), again in the booth at Stockley Park, that the Premier League was later forced to admit had been had erroneously gone against the Toffees on the day. Not only was it nailed on that Moss would rule out the goal against Manchester United, it was no surprise that if he even gave the reason why Sigurdsson was on his arse in front of the goal in the first place more than a cursory glance (it's doubtful he did – the review period was too short) , Everton weren’t going to get a penalty out of it either.

Because that’s the other aspect of the controversy that has largely been overlooked by the pundits — Sigurdsson was taken out by Aaron Wan-Bissaka’s desperate but late lunge after he had stabbed the ball goal-wards and should, by rights, have been awarded a penalty. The official line? Moss deemed it not to have been a “clear and obvious error” from Kavanagh, which is just a cop-out.

VAR nonsense aside, had Everton been awarded the goal, they might only have marginally deserved the three points because this was not a great performance, particularly in the first half. Dominic Calvert-Lewin had given them another perfect start, this time closing De Gea down and blocking his attempted kick downfield into the net with an outstretched boot with less than three minutes gone, but after the Spaniard had denied the striker a second with a fingertip save a minute later, United came roaring back.

In stark contrast to their performance in this game last season when they were thumped 4-0 and, to a lesser degree, their largely impotent display in the reverse fixture at Old Trafford in December, Ole Gunnar Solskjaer’s men moved the ball sharply and with penetration and they almost equalised in the seventh minute then Nemnja Matic rattled Jordan Pickford’s crossbar with a speculative drive.

With Ancelotti having fielded a somewhat curious midfield that strung Sigurdsson, Tom Davies and the returning André Gomes across the middle, Everton struggled at times to contain United in that area of the field and Anthony Martial dragged an effort wide, Matic would strike another from distance that narrowly cleared the bar, and Fred out-stripped Leighton Baines down the visitors’ right before crossing for Mason Greenwood but his header also flew over.

United’s leveller in the 31st minute came, however, from Everton’s own failings at trying to play out from the back. Djibril Sidibé, a replacement for the injured Seamus Coleman just a few minutes earlier, played a loose ball aimed for Theo Walcott that was easily cut out and worked to Bruno Fernandes who advanced a couple of paces before rapping a bouncing shot past Pickford from 25 yards out. It was another moment to forget for the goalkeeper who really should have got both hands on it to push it away to safety.

Richarlison would have the only chance of note before half-time when Baines whipped an excellent ball in from the left that the Brazilian threw himself at but couldn’t get enough on it to do more than just glance it past the far post with his head.

From a footballing perspective, United had been the better side on balance. Walcott looked rusty on his return to action following a brief lay-off with a knee injury, Davies was workmanlike but short on inspiration and the same went for Sigurdsson who again looked ill-suited to a wider on the left. Gomes, meanwhile, was combative but a little subdued as the nominal holding midfielder when you felt that he could just easily provide the kind of cohesion and attacking impetus that his compatriot, Fernandes, was giving to the visitors.

Nevertheless, supported by a terrific centre-forward’s performance from Calvert-Lewin who led the line superbly and almost without fault all afternoon despite being starved of service in the box, Everton gradually began to impose themselves as the second half wore on.

Sigurdsson planted a direct free-kick off the post from 20 yards after Calvert-Lewin had prompted Victor Lindelof to trip him on the edge of the box and Richarlison couldn’t react quickly enough to turn the rebound home.

That was followed by another free-kick opportunity that the former Swansea man fired off the defensive wall and then a steady stream of corners that usually found the head of Maguire rather than presenting the hosts with any clear scoring chances.

Having soaked up that pressure from dead-ball situations, United almost won it themselves in the 90th minute and probably would have done had it not been for another redemptive moment for the mercurial Pickford. Pawing Fernandes’s side-foot effort out of the air but only as far as substitute Odeon Ighalo, the keeper somehow made an instinctive save with his foot to divert the Nigerian’s goal-bound shot into the Park End from point-blank range.

Then came the elation of an injury-time winner and the agony following refereeing shenanigans as it was disallowed. The chance that led to the “goal” came about from one of Everton’s best moments of the game. Bernard lofted a superb pass into the penalty area to find Richarlison who had the presence of mind to control it and lay it into Sigurdsson’s path in a central position in front of goal.

The Icelander really should have scored before he was flatted by Wan-Bissaka; instead, his prodded shot was too close to the keeper and De Gea kicked off the line. Calvert-Lewin picked up the rebound, engineered space for a shot, Maguire stuck a foot out and deflected it heavily towards the other side of the goal than the one to which his keeper was moving and Sigurdsson, still sitting on the turf, simply pulled his legs out the way to allow the ball to roll into the net. You know the rest…

The takeaway, as has been the case for most of the past few weeks, is that Everton under Ancelotti continue to provide plenty of optimism for the future as the Italian’s methods take hold and for when he and Marcel Brands can add a few quality names to the squad. They continue to go head-to-head with the teams around them with confidence and purpose — that despite still being weak in midfield — and while they haven’t got the results they would have liked, progress is clearly being made.

That should be the focus even if it’s frustrating having the top five or six places in the Premier League and a chance to unexpectedly qualifying for Europe this season remain tantalising out of reach. It’s still not beyond the realms of possibility but with points likely to be very hard to come by in the next two games, it’s a dream that will probably have to wait until next season.

Correction: Lee Mason was the VAR for the Brighton game, not Jon Moss

Reader Comments (93)

Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer

Bob Parrington
1 Posted 02/03/2020 at 07:20:37
I thought the refereeing and assistants control today was mostly okay. If you don't make a decision, you don't make a mistake. Sometimes, you make a mistake when you make a decision. The ref lost his control for a while from the 41st minute.

However, to allow Moss to make such a decision when Everton is playing is a total abdication of responsibility by the Premier League. That was a disgraceful decision on that goal. He should be shot at dawn.

VAR is not the problem. It is the fact that they have one (dysfunctional) referee making that decision and it should be more than one and probably 3. Otherwise, just use the match referee.

What a fucking disgrace by the Premier League. IMO, Moss should be banned for life as he is far too biased!

Martin Mason
2 Posted 02/03/2020 at 07:58:52
I just read Keith Hacket supporting the decision but he said a very strange thing, that refs will often give the benefit of the doubt to the defending side in a case like this. That is obviously unfair on the attacking side and unjustifiable. The second point is that VAR should only overturn a decision if there's been a clear and obvious mistake which there hadn't. So what we got was a biased decision which was wrong in accordance with the rules and based on ridiculous conventions and not following the rules of VAR. For me it was a poor and biased decision that makes a complete idiot of the VAR system.
Gareth Williams
3 Posted 02/03/2020 at 07:59:41
This VAR wants fucking off – it's spoiling the game.
Derek Knox
4 Posted 02/03/2020 at 08:10:33
Good report Lyndon on another very annoying VAR or refereeing decision, why is it always us? Without sounding like Mario Balotelli, we do not seem to get a fair rub of the green at all.

As you so succinctly said at the end of the season I fear there will be a case in retrospect of so many points 'lost' through incorrect decisions. Of course I am slightly biased, but when you hear it from 'neutrals or supporters of another team' it starts to register that something is definitely amiss.

We need the points as it is if we are to seriously think in terms of European qualification, but decisions like this plus our own inability to close games from a winning position (Newcastle/injury time) will surely come back to haunt us.

However all not doom and gloom, I can see with optimistic eyes that we are slowly improving under the leadership of Carlo. I truly believe with a few additions in the Summer (FFP permitting) we will be a different side next season.

Ajay Gopal
5 Posted 02/03/2020 at 08:22:36
Man U's midfield of: Fred, Matic, Fernandes, McTominay ran circles around Gomes, Davies, Walcott and Siggy in the 1st half. Walcott's substitution probably changed the dynamic, and then our players started imposing themselves in the 2nd half. Our midfield is nowhere near Top 6 - we have quality, but they are frustratingly inconsistent. Name 1 player in our midfield who has come out and made a statement this season - none! Unlike DCL and Holgate. Some major decisions to be made for Brands and Ancellotti in the summer.

On another note, I like the passion of Ancellotti - he really seems to have taken to this club, making those many pundits who told us that he is coming to Everton for his last big payday look a bit silly. The guy is pure class, and I believe Everton and Carlo are made for each other, in a similar way that David Moyes and Everton were during the initial years of Moyes' spell.

In the context of the race for the European places, it is too early to write off our chances. There are 10 games (30 points) to play for, and this has been a crazy season. I expect that there will be many more twists and turns in the race for Europe, but Carlo is experienced enough to know that there is no point looking too far ahead - take it 1 game at a time.

Geoff Williams
6 Posted 02/03/2020 at 08:56:23
I believe that both VAR decisions were wrong and despair at the quality of the officials making the decisions. I am also at loss to understand why Ancelloti persists in selecting Walcott and Sigurdsson. Neither player is good enough, has Sigurdsson ever won a 50-50 challenge. As a wide player how many crosses does Walcott make, how often does he lose the ball in possession or make a wrong decision?
Martin Reppion
7 Posted 02/03/2020 at 09:02:52
VAR, VAR, VAR. Sick if it yet?

In the World Cup in 2018, VAR worked. It was applied quickly and accurately. In particular, it cut out the cynical grabbing of attackers in the penalty area. In other European leagues, I am told, it works well.

In the Premier League, it’s a farce. I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that it has been implemented not to ensure correct decisions, but to give employment to more officials and pundits and to ensure that Sky's darlings get the results the TV company and other media wish for.

Can you imagine if THAT goal had been at Old Trafford and the home side had 'scored' in the final minute? Do you think for one nano-second that it would have been overturned? Of course it wouldn't. A player laying prone on the floor could hardly be impeding the vision of a 6-foot tall goalkeeper who was standing up.

Don't get me wrong. I have long been in favour of some form of VAR. I like the rugby union method of a 3rd official quickly looking at an incident and reporting if the ref has missed something. I know that in a more flowing game there are issue with this. But, if the league officials haven't got the wit even to apply this by their OWN rules, they should scrap it. Or find some people who can run it properly. Fifa had no trouble with it.

Alan J Thompson
8 Posted 02/03/2020 at 09:13:49
If VAR is only to impose itself when there is a clear and obvious error, then I can't think of any reason why there shouldn't be three referees adjudicating and if any of the three disagree then it can't be clear and obvious and the on-field official's decision should stand.

Then, at a later date, all decisions should be assessed with a view to improving those making the decisions.

Dave Abrahams
9 Posted 02/03/2020 at 09:18:04
Geoff (6), The simple answer to your last question is, there is not many to pick from, Iwobi instead of Walcott? Walcott is faster so runs into trouble quicker than Iwobi who takes longer to cock things up.

I'd prefer Delph to Sigurdsson but the latter takes better free kicks and corners, which are the only reason I think he is selected, he hasn't had a good game for a long time.

Next season I hope Walcott, Sigurdsson and Iwobi are gone, but that will take some doing.

As for VAR, the way it is applied stinks, like the poor quality and biased referees who apply it.

Tony Everan
10 Posted 02/03/2020 at 09:22:09
Jon Moss always gives any subjective decision against Everton, time and time again. He never, ever sees it in Everton's favour.

Sigurdsson was flattened by Wan Basaka, he is on the deck. De Gea can see the shot and it is deflected in off Maguire giving him no chance of saving it.

An absolute joke of a decision, what was Jon Moss thinking?? All the arguments for disallowing it – and none of the arguments for staying with the on-field decision.

The fact that it is completely debatable and dubious is in itself absolute proof that this was no CLEAR AND OBVIOUS mistake. The goal should have stood. VAR decisions such as these are bringing the game into disrepute.

It was a decision Jon Moss would not have given against Man Utd, in the last minute at Old Trafford.

100% guaranteed.

Sam Hoare
11 Posted 02/03/2020 at 09:33:24
Still angry today. So many different reason why it should have been a goal.

1) He's not obstructing De Gea's vision at the time of the shot, which by the letter of the law is what is required to be offside.

2) VAR is meant to overturn things only when clear and obvious.

3) De Gea is never saving that once it takes a deflection that puts it into the corner!

4) If not a goal then undoubtedly a penalty for AWB's tackle of Sigurdsson!!

However, I don't think it is VAR that is the problem so much as the officials that are using it. There seems to be no consistency in terms of applying it. Do they know their own rules?! I have seen video replays used in other countries and indeed in other sports to good effect; it just requires better officiating.

Mike Benjamin
12 Posted 02/03/2020 at 09:35:24
The decision should have been very obvious either a GOAL or a PENALTY.
Brian Harrison
13 Posted 02/03/2020 at 09:37:34
There is no doubt that VAR is definitely ruining the spontaneous reaction we have when a goal is scored, unless it’s a screamer from outside the box we know most other goals will be reviewed. The other day, Infantino, the head of Fifa, said VAR only sems to have a problem in the UK. The problem is that Mike Riley, a god awful referee himself, has decided that the refs at Stockley Park will have the final say, and he alone told refs not to use the monitor.

I would only use Stockley Park as an advisary tool, if they see a goal which may be lets say is dubious then they contact the match official and say he might want to check this on the monitor. Then the on field ref checks the monitor and makes the decision, not somebody miles away in Stockley Park.
Obviously the reason Riley didn’t want the on field ref to take the decisions was to take any pressure off the on-field ref, as it’s the official at Stockley Park and not the on-field ref.

Going back to yesterday’s decision, from where I sit in the Upper Bullens, my first reaction was “This will be disallowed” as Sigurdsson was clearly offside. What I can’t understand was why Sigurdsson just decided to sit there and not move and, by his reaction when the goal went in, he sprinted off so he wasn't injured. Had he got up and tried to get back onside, the goal would have been given. So I put more blame on Sigurdsson for our goal being disallowed than the VAR decision.

Rob Halligan
14 Posted 02/03/2020 at 09:55:54
As some have said, unless De Gea had a "worms eye view" of the shot by DCL, which it would have been had his view been obstructed by Sigurdsson, then the goal should have stood. How the view of a six foot something goalkeeper can be obstructed by a player sitting on the floor is beyond me. Apparently Sigurdsson is in the eye line of De Gea. Well excuse me, but isn't every player? De Gea must have been looking down at the floor when the shot came in. He'd already moved to his right, following the line of the ball before it was deflected in. Sigurdsson made no attempt to play the ball, moving his legs out the way.

It reminded me of the goal Lucas Digne scored against United last season, when his shot fizzed in past De Gea when it looked like three of our players were stood in an "offside position" and clearly in the eye line of De Gea, yet the goal stood. Though, of course there was no VAR then, otherwise that goal might have been disallowed as well.

Eamonn McEvoy
15 Posted 02/03/2020 at 10:05:39
How many points has VAR cost is this season? Seriously, under Silva also I would say 7 points minimum and now this? They should be miked up like in the rugby and then at least we know what is said, these decisions could cost millions by teams missing out on a champions league place. EPL could end up in court soon on this as some of the decisions are blatantly wrong. De Ghea went for the shot and it deflected off a Man U player into the net. If it went over the goal line it was a corner. His reaction was not quick enough to dive and cover back the shot.

In saying that Gylfi should have fucking moved instead of sitting there feeling sorry for himself. Robbed of three points there and gave away three against the Gunners. Jesus it’s frustrating.

All in all after a poor first half we were great to fight back and control the game. I loved Carlo walking out to the ref and the big brave lad he is hands Carlo Ancelotti a red card, claim to fame for the ref wonder.

I also loved Carlo saying it does not matter if he is in the stands against Chelsea and the team will be well prepared as if to say I have complete faith in my number 2. Great manager we have here ladies and gents.

Jim Harrison
16 Posted 02/03/2020 at 10:09:59
Brian 13

I would go further, and give nanagers/ captain should get a set number of reviews for each match, like tennis or cricket. Bring an element of entertainment in to it.

Bill Fairfield
17 Posted 02/03/2020 at 10:11:07
It's no good complaining about VAR anymore this seasons model will not change because of the so called integrity of the game according to Mr Elleray.Only direct action by football fans world wide would stop it now because the people in charge just don't give a damn about the bleatings of the faithful
Jimmy Hogan
18 Posted 02/03/2020 at 10:36:49
It's ruined at least one game every weekend since it's been introduced. As Yoda might say, "VAR, you must fuck"
Franny Porter
19 Posted 02/03/2020 at 10:43:30
As ridiculous as this clearly corrupt VAR decision was, one thing that’s being overlooked is yet another howler from Pickford.

People will point to the superb save he made right at the end but to me, this does not exonerate his earlier mistake.

He should be making these great saves IN ADDITION to the easy ones.

As it is, he’s costing us almost a goal a game.

Get rid.

Steve Carse
20 Posted 02/03/2020 at 11:00:48
Agreed, Bob (1) and Alan (8), having 3 VAR officials is the logical way of reducing the 'clear and obvious' issue. I'd take it a stage further. I'd have the officials in separate locations and unless all 3 vote in agreement then a decision rests with what the referee had determined.
But of course there are other problems with how VAR is being used and the only way the criticism can be reduced is to limit its intervention. In this context I would like to see deciding on offsides limited to the last pass. It's amazing that the system has been introduced in the absence of any clear definition of what constitutes a phase of play, with the resultant inconsistency in how far back in a move ending in the goal a review should go.
Paul Tran
21 Posted 02/03/2020 at 11:02:13
Supposing Siguurdson had got up and run out of the box. Wouldn't that have been a stronger argument for him 'interfering with play'?
Jim Harrison
22 Posted 02/03/2020 at 11:03:51
Franny 19

Corrupt? Come on.

Deeply frustrating but as Lyndon says, following the letter of the law there are grounds to disallow the goal. There are of course those of us who have a counter argument and interpret the event differently, but it isn't bent.
Plenty of other teams are aggrieved this season, we seem to be on the harsh end of it, but had the goal stood Utd fans and pundits would be arguing the opposite.
Now, now even looking at the penalty? Thats shocking. When they looked again for red card conduct in the Shaw and DCL bookings, when nothing seemed on, then to not even address a blatant foul with anything more than saying it wasnt an obvious error by the on pitch ref?

Robert Tressell
23 Posted 02/03/2020 at 11:05:24
Franny. I have mixed feelings about Pickford. Certainly he can be improved on - but there aren't many obvious candidates. I'd rather give him another season and invest in the midfield. Henderson and Pope are both good for example but I don't see them as a big upgrade but would make significant dent in our overall transfer budget
Franny Porter
24 Posted 02/03/2020 at 11:26:59
Jim, I do think it’s corrupt.

Did you know you can bet on VAR decisions now?

I wouldn’t be in the slightest bit suprised to hear about gambling syndicates being involved.

Admittedly I do enjoy a good conspiracy theory.

Could also be Jon Moss is an incompetent buffoon of the highest order.

Ray Roche
25 Posted 02/03/2020 at 12:44:54

Jim, being “corrupt “ doesn’t necessarily mean Moss or whoever are taking money. You say yourself that the fact that the obvious penalty when Siggy was wiped out seconds before the disallowed goal wasn’t even considered. Moss. Moss himself decided that it wasn’t a clear and obvious error when all the world can see that the incompetent referee had missed it. By not calling it a penalty or not going back a few seconds Moss has shown a clear bias just like he did at Brighton over the Keane incident. That bias is also a form of corruption.
The reason given for not allowing the goal was Siggy was in De Gea’s “ line of sight” and preventing him from seeing the ball. De Gea COULD see the ball but was going the wrong way. Moss must have been able to see it because I could see it, so could you.
Moss should never be allowed anywhere near an Everton match again and I would like the club to make the authorities aware of that.
Remember Moyes threatening to take a QC to his hearing over the Clattenburg affair? The FA quietly allowed the case to disappear and Clattenburg didn’t referee us again for years. If clubs stood up to the FA they’d crap themselves.

Steve Carse
26 Posted 02/03/2020 at 12:56:55
Maybe I've yet to read the full release, but isn't the official explanation offered for the VAR decision incomplete in that it doesn't actually tell us in what part of the action Sigurddson was said to be affecting De Gea and hence was offside as opposed to just being in an offside position (not an offence in itself). The official explanation doesn't say whether it was deemed to be his position as soon as DCL hits the shot or whether it was the consequence of the deflection that made him offside. Classic obfuscation when arbiters don't really know the answer. Either way of course the rules unambiguously say the goal should have stood.
Steve Shave
27 Posted 02/03/2020 at 13:06:17
Agree with comments on here by Brian about VAR ruining the spontinaity of goal celebration. Against Newcastle the other week I didn't leap out of my chair for either goal because I expected both of them to be ruled out by VAR, which they weren't. its changing the game so much, fans are supressing their passion consequently.
Peter Warren
28 Posted 02/03/2020 at 13:18:13
It is corrupt. Just like Utd (David Gill) and someone from L’pool (forget who) having say about UEFA Fair play requirements. The clubs with biggest worldwide followings get the decisions/favours as they make UEFA/EPL most money.

If that was Liverpool again Utd at home yesterday the goal would have stood I have no doubt. To not even get the penalty is more evidence that corrupt.

Jim Bennings
29 Posted 02/03/2020 at 13:18:49
I’ve said before that the only way forward is for fans of clubs (outside of the top six media darlings that get every decision) to turn their backs on football and boycott it.

The fun, the drama and euphoria of football has gone from the game, how dare they be so picky to rule that injury time goal, a perfectly deflected goal out, yesterday stating that a player that never even touched the ball was the reason.

Decisions like that have completely spoiled the game for the match going paying supporter now.

It’s no use saying they need to use VAR correctly, they will NOT!

They are corrupt and will only use VAR to protect and enhance the media darlings league positions.

Prime example yesterday, Kavanagh books Sidibe for having the gall to come back on the pitch rather than go over to him and explain the misunderstanding, he books him yet allows the odious little moaning bitching rats Fred and Maguire to basically do anything apart from throw stones at him.

Every referee we have in the British game is a prize pencil.

Jamie Tul
30 Posted 02/03/2020 at 13:32:41
Steve (20) a good suggestion- but far too commonsense for them to actually adopt it...
Mike Price
31 Posted 02/03/2020 at 13:35:24
I thought VAR would alleviate biases but it enhances them. Someone can implement a decision at a distance with no recourse.
The fact that Moss chose to interpret the clear penalty as not ‘clear and obvious’ but then not see the goal incident as the same, highlights the subjective abuse.
Is it any surprise that Liverpool have benefited massively from its introduction?
The on field referee should be advised of a potential clear and obvious event by the VAR ref but must then check the screen and make his own decision. He’s refereeing the match and has the temperature of what’s going on, he shouldn’t be allowed to hide behind decisions taken at a distance.
James Lauwervine
32 Posted 02/03/2020 at 13:42:12
I'm still fuming about that incident. I was watching at home with my Dad and jumped off the sofa when we scored. Then, almost immediately, I remembered that Jon Moss was the VAR ref and turned to my Dad and said 'It will be disallowed'. The fact that the review was 10 seconds and the Wan-Bassaka tackle wasn't even looked at just confirms what others have said and what I am certain of - there is clear bias in the decision-making.
No one on the planet could reasonably argue that De Gea was going to save the deflected shot. He was already wrong-footed and the ball spun into the very corner of the goal away from him. Sigurdsson had no influence on that outcome whatsoever.
You have it right Jim, how dare they be so picky to disallow the goal. The ref and linesman had given it - what gives that bastard Moss the right to decide it's not a goal, based solely on his
opinion? The fact he was so quick to decide says it all - he wanted to disallow the goal. A fucking disgrace and ruining the game.
It was particularly galling to have the bellends on MOTD2 shit out of saying how it really was by blaming Sigurdsson for not leaping to his feet and sprinting off within 2 seconds of being flattened by the tackle. I'm so sick of this shit.
Sam Bull
33 Posted 02/03/2020 at 13:47:30
fouls after a shot are a strange one, defenders seem to have a free "go" at a player shooting, and always have done. cant complain after the shot is missed.. had the goal gone in, would we all be moaning the play was taken back for a foul/ penalty given?
Frank Wade
35 Posted 02/03/2020 at 15:04:43
Brilliant heading on this piece Lyndon "The Malignant hand of Moss".

Sam #11, agree fully. If you boil it down a little further. If De Gea was obstructed by Siggy on the ground, he wouldn't have moved to his right and would have been far better positioned to save the defection.

I watch someone like Nigel Owens in the Rugby. He is informed of an issue by or requests information from a non-malignant Moss type TMO official. He looks at the big screen. Everyone sees what the ref sees or as is often the case in rugby, can see that the ref cannot see. Nigel will consult with an assistant and IMHO, has as near as 100% perfection as anyone could have. The refusal of the FA to show any contentious footage on the big screen for fear of mass civil disobedience is at the root of the problem. Best to apply the mushroom theory, rather than deal with any fallout that might occur. If the incident yesterday was replayed in full, the ref could give the offside, but rule that foul play had occurred previously and award the penalty. Happens all the time in Rugby.

We've had a high share of legitimate VAR grievances, but so have other clubs this season. It's like my long lost grandmother is looking at the footage and making the decisions. The Dele Alli handball against us is rarely quoted but until De Bruyne last week, was the most blatant application of 'accidental' hand ball, which went out with the ark. Compare with the Bournemouth player Billing's shoulder ball which was decreed deliberate hand ball. The Lo Celso tackle. The Maguire attempt to prevent Batshuayi falling on him. The list is endless for 'some' clubs.

Carlo seems to be giving everyone in his squad plenty of playing time to properly assess his best formation and players. Lots of changes each game to help him. I would assume he knows at this stage that Sigurdsson is not an option as a left sided midfielder in a 4-4-2.

Rennie Smith
36 Posted 02/03/2020 at 15:05:47
Don't have a problem with VAR at all, it's the stupid rules and implementation that's the problem. Using VAR for offsides is pretty clear-cut, you're either off or you're not, regardless of what part of the body it is, that's a simple rule. But in cases like this, it's an opinion rather than a straight logical decision. The on-field refs are being let-off making the big calls, because some hidden prick is doing it for him and he can just claim innocence. All it needs is for him to jog over to the monitor, watch the footage and make the call himself. At least then he can then explain the reasons to the managers, rather than "don't ask me mate". I think because it was last-minute with so much emotion, they didn't even dare check for the pen.

Let's be honest, if it was at the other end we'd be all be crying out for offside. That's just the way it goes with us fans.

And why didn't Siggy get the fuck up? From where I was I thought it must have been Richarlison as he's always on his arse. Don't give me he was injured in the tackle because he sprung up like Lazarus when the ball went in.

Jamie Crowley
37 Posted 02/03/2020 at 16:14:32
The one thing I take from this article, is something I do find quite maddening.

Let's go down a dark road and say we lost to Chelsea and those other fellas. We will most likely be 8 to 10 points back of 5th place.

Our run in is not terrible. The last 8 games, especially under Ancelotti for me, we can go on a literal tear and climb the table rapidly if we remain focused and see out the entire season.

Comments like, "it’s a dream that will probably have to wait until next season." just drive me nuts. I'm not prepared to give up until the bitter end. I'd argue we can't let that mindset creep into our Club until we're mathematically eliminated.

This isn't having a pop at Lyndon. On the contrary, it's (again, of course) a superb article, and his guess that we may have to wait until next season to qualify for Europe might be correct. The odds certainly tilt in that direction the further we go along.

I just see it a lot on TW - this assumption it's all over before it actually is. And I simply don't like it. It's not over until it's over.

Fight 'till you're dead.

Charles Brewer
38 Posted 02/03/2020 at 16:14:48
Two points.

First. In today's Mirror, there is a photograph of De Gea and Sigurdsson from the side. There is something like 3-5 metres between them and Siggy is sitting down. How this can in any sense be "interference" is beyond me.

Second. There is some suggestion that the dialogue between Stockley Park and the match officials would be broadcast. I suspect something like the following:

Ref: "Goal scored at Old Trafford / Anfield. "
Stockley Park: "Who for?"
R: "Everton, City, Leicester, Wolves, Bournemouth. "
SP: " How was it scored"
R "Player got it rolled to him by his goalkeeper, ran the length of the pitch, ran round the goalkeeper and walked it in"
SP: "Difficult... Let me look... Wait, is that Duncan Ferguson [fill in for other clubs] in the technical area in the Manu / Liverpool half?"
R "Yeeeesssss!"
SP:"No goal. Offside. He was interfering with play."
R: "But he wasn't on the pitch and he isn't a player"
SP: "Doesn't matter. There is no rule which says that a former player off the pitch cannot be interfering with play, so we'll say he was. We can use the usual (double secret probation) Rule S6 which prevents any goals against Sky6 teams if we can ever find any justification, however stupid."

Kevin Molloy
39 Posted 02/03/2020 at 16:16:43
The absolutely deadly thing about VAR isn't the wrong decisions even, it's the impact on your enjoyment of the game. I literally do not celebrate goals anymore, why would you when you know there's a 20% chance it's going to be ruled out. It has absolutely ruined the matchday experience.
Dave Abrahams
40 Posted 02/03/2020 at 16:36:16
Kevin (39), it is spoiling it for a large proportion of match going fans, me and the fella who sits next to me looked at each and said VAR.

I usually go berserk when Everton score at any stage of the game, but for both goals yesterday I waited for confirmation of both goals and the delay doesn't give you that joyous outpouring of emotion you let go with and have been doing since I was a very young boy when Everton get the nod that the goals okay.

I've even started leaving my rattle in the house.

Glenn Williams
41 Posted 02/03/2020 at 16:50:36
Wasn't a goal allowed to stand against us earlier this year when an opposition player was standing in an offside position directly in Pickford's sightline? I can't recall the match but it was very early in the year.

No doubt this was a completely bullshit call against Everton today but, despite being wiped out, I would have expected Sigurdsson to at least jump up in protest and possibly not end up in that ridiculous position.

Yeah I know I'm being unfairly harsh on him as it happened extremely quickly. But I was annoyed because he again was off-pace all day today and everything he did seem to be done either too late or too imprecise in the final third. A couple of his corners were very good but not the majority of them.

David Hallwood
42 Posted 02/03/2020 at 16:52:55
To quote that famous Shakespearean Bard Edwin Starr: VAR, huh! yeah! What is it good for? Absolutely nothing. Couldn't agree more, Eddie, my son.

Great article with an even better title; the only debate being malignant or just incompetent. Because in a sea of refereeing horse manure, and this is the worst group of refs ever in the history of the game. Moss's incompetence is almost awe-inspiring. After watching a match reffed by that fat fraud, you look at Lee Mason & Rowan Atkinson (oh sorry he's a different comedian), and say, "They're not too bad really".

All that aside, lot's of positives to take away. I thought Davies had a great 2nd half, and perhaps, just like Calvert-Lewin, who TWebbers used to refer to as a championship player, if he's given an extended run in his preferred position, just may surprise us.

Secondly, even with glaring deficiencies, we've been a match, and I would argue more than a match for the chasing pack. Okay, we're nowhere near Liverpool or Man City, but we're now playing with an identity, and hopefully with some smart additions in the summer, who knows?

Jack Convery
44 Posted 02/03/2020 at 17:12:03
Whan VAR cocks up on the last day of the season and some team is relegated because of it, I hope the chairman of that club takes the EPL to CAS, wins and sues the arses off them. Then and only then will VAR be dumped in the bin of historical calamities.
Kevin Molloy
45 Posted 02/03/2020 at 17:14:52

I wonder what will happen. Fans everywhere are very unhappy with it, but big business and the dreadful referees all are fine with it. Something has to give, I think in the medium term the disapproval of it is just going to grow and they will eventually go back to the man in black.

Jamie Crowley
46 Posted 02/03/2020 at 17:20:26
I think everyone East of Florida should watch the American coverage of the post game. No one over here thinks that shouldn't be a goal.


Kieran Kinsella
47 Posted 02/03/2020 at 17:39:36
How can you have a “clear and obvious error” pertaining to interference which is subjective? Your opinion is clearly and obviously wrong ref?

Similar issue with handball versus ball to hand or diving versus being clever. There are things that are clear cut like the ball crossing the line. But VAR is asking video refs to make absolute decisions on things that are written in law as interpretive.

At best, it's an oxymoron; at worst, it's open to corruption.

Jay Harris
48 Posted 02/03/2020 at 17:46:46

Given your literary ability, couldn't you draw up a petition to send to the FA endorsed by ToffeeWebbers and fellow Blues?

We can all write individually but you then get the standard response: "All decisions are reviewed by Mike Riley and discussed with the referees".

I am sure a petition with a few thousand endorsements would rattle their cages a little.

John Pierce
49 Posted 02/03/2020 at 17:54:56
Remember Arteta belting one in Park End in the derby? Reina, had Bent (I think) practically pulling his pants down and that was given.
Graham Holliday
50 Posted 02/03/2020 at 18:43:00
Not sure if this has been referred to in the above comments, but you've sliced off half of the relevant law of the game, Lyndon - which when added back in suggests to me that even by the technical wording, the goal should have been ruled onside.

A player can be offside if they are "preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision"

You could argue Sigurdsson blocked De Gea's line of vision but that didn't prevent him from playing or being able to play the ball. The fact he was half way across his goal saw to that. If Sigurdsson isn't there then De Gea is still going to be a couple of feet away with his weight on his other foot and he would therefore still not be able to play the ball.

If those reviewing the game know the laws of the game as well as they ought to, this goal should have stood IMO.

Rob Halligan
51 Posted 02/03/2020 at 18:59:33
There is an interesting piece in the red echo, were they show individual frames of the incidents, the penalty shout and the "goal". One particular frame, the one which shows the second Calvert-Lewin shoots, De Gea's line of vision is not obstructed by Sigurdsson, because De Gea is looking over Sigurdsson's legs, so how his vision is blocked is beyond me.

This debate could go on for weeks until the Premier League come out and say "Yeah, Jon Moss got it wrong and the goal should have stood". Imagine the uproar from us all then. Basically, VAR and Jon Moss should be fucked right off! Can't wait for VAR to totally piss us all off in our next home game.

Jamie Crowley
52 Posted 02/03/2020 at 19:24:53
Rob @ 51 -

I have to say, I'm very sorry VAR is ruining your experience and the atmosphere at the games. You're certainly not the only one to say so on these pages.

It's maddening to me. Myself and a few other Seppos and Ex-Pats over here have seen VAR (or Video Review if you like) used to great affect over here in just about every single sport. And I'd include in that our own MLS, as well as the NHL, NFL, MLB, NBA, NCAA Football, NCAA Basketball, etc.

I keep saying over and over that the English have completely screwed up VAR. And that, in an honest moment, is just a nasty, snide thing to say. The powers that be in the English Premier League have screwed it up, certainly not the English.

The saddest thing for me is seeing people like your good self, down on the game and the experience of the game. It truly is the sole reason I "got into" soccer in the first place. The passion. It's infectious, it's genuine, and frankly it's absolutely beautiful. The human soul roars with a goal unlike anything I've ever seen before in my time on earth. A thing of human beauty unquestionably for me.

The English Premier League must, absolutely must, strictly define the use of VAR, make it standard operating procedure (and follow the excellent NFL example) that only "clear and obvious" calls should be overturned, and have the on-field ref do the reviews or a panel of three in a booth.

The current system is terrible. VAR should be a tool to make your game better, and what's heartbreaking isn't the shit-the-bed application of VAR, it's people like you who see it as ruining the game they love.

it may not be popular here, but I'd still back the implementation of VAR. It's just been horrifically used, and needs to be massively overhauled. But what I hope would be met with resounding approval, is my sentiment that I'm genuinely sorry you feel it's ruining your match day experience.

Jerome Shields
53 Posted 02/03/2020 at 19:33:28
Regarding Pickford and the equalizing goal Ancelotti said;

'I will speak with him about what he has to do when he has the ball. The build up from the back, in my opinion that has to be better. After that the goalkeeper has to save'

What Ancelotti is saying that when Pickford received the ball in the penalty area prior to the goal, he wrongly made the decision. to pass the ball across the back, which subsequently put three different defenders under pressure and resulted in the loss of possession. Once possession was lost he then failed to save the shot on goal, which was savable.

In the case of the offside he did not say anything about Sigurdsson , but I guess it would go something like this, when he does;

' It is not good to sit on your ass in the penalty area, don't F. . . ing do it again'.

( eyebrow arched)

Tony Abrahams
54 Posted 02/03/2020 at 19:33:32
Reading this thread makes me feel ten times worse.

I saw a very spirited Everton team fight for everything in the second half yesterday, but I haven’t really thought about the game, except for the realisation that this very important aspect, is one of the main things that really makes the crowd respond.

Most football supporters feel that Everton were cheated, but the professionals in the media, give a different slant on proceedings, which really makes me feel sick about the sport I love, but which I’m going off quite rapidly.

Roger Helm
55 Posted 02/03/2020 at 19:52:27
"You cannot hope to bribe or twist
-thank God - the English journalist;
But seeing what the man will do
Unbribed, there's no occasion to"

I doubt there is any corruption as such, just an ingrained tendency for referees to favour the big clubs, because they are politically more important at the FA and the EPL. How many points has VAR cost us this season? I think it was about seven before yesterday.

As well as biased, they are also not very competent; Jon Moss doesn't even know that VAR is to overturn "clear and obvious errors". We import the best players from abroad - why can't we import the best referees?

BTW, good article but I thought Tom Davies might have got a shout for his second half performance - I thought he did really well.

Peter Mills
56 Posted 02/03/2020 at 19:55:47
It’s not only “the malignant hand of Moss”. It is the fearful mind of the referee on the pitch. It is the incompetent (to be generous) leadership of Mike Riley. And most of all it is the shady actions of those selling “the product” to hundreds of millions of viewers.

So many people are feeding voraciously from the trough, and those of us paying to attend matches are of no consequence.

The beauty of Association Football lies largely in the seconds when a goal is scored. Those moments are rare, such scarcity of critical moments is what defines the sport. We have been used to seeing the goal go in, take a quick glance at the ref and linesman, and then be consumed by elation or despair. It is high drama. To have interfered with that drama is utter folly.

Tony Abrahams
57 Posted 02/03/2020 at 20:01:05
Great post Peter, I think your second paragraph is why I’ve got such contempt for my favourite sport right now, especially when I read your last sentence mate.
Simon Dalzell
58 Posted 02/03/2020 at 20:15:47
There should be no debate really. Ironically, the only chance of the keeper saving it, was if his view HAD been blocked and he hadn't moved to his right,where it was going before the deflection. Sickening. I thought the on field referee was now being encouraged to look at the pitch side monitor. Why a prick such as the risible buffoon Moss should decide from a distance is wrong.
Peter Mills
59 Posted 02/03/2020 at 20:16:13
Tony, get yourself down to Marine on Saturday, I’ll buy you a pint and you’ll see an honest match.
Tony Abrahams
60 Posted 02/03/2020 at 20:35:11
I hate that pitch Peter, had one of my worst ever games in a premier cup final, against our biggest rivals, and although I scored, I had a complete shocker, and it’s something I’ve never forgotten or forgiven myself ever since!
Frank Wade
61 Posted 02/03/2020 at 20:48:24
This photo from the Guardian is fairly conclusive proof of the view that De Gea had at the exact moment the ball was kicked. He had a perfectly clear view of the ball apart from the second it passed Sigurdsson's body. Link
Tony Abrahams
62 Posted 02/03/2020 at 20:54:00
The great thing about that picture Frank, is that the camera captures perfectly how every single players eyes are on the ball!
Frank Wade
64 Posted 02/03/2020 at 21:26:53
Frank Wade
65 Posted 02/03/2020 at 21:26:53
Yes Tony and everyone in the Bullens, including yourself and Dave, without his rattle, on their feet in the excitement and anticipation of the moment.
Jerome Shields
66 Posted 02/03/2020 at 22:43:28
You can't beat the referee and his assistants.
Alastair Donaldson
67 Posted 02/03/2020 at 22:58:45
The first time I recall seeing Moss "in action" was away at Citteh 2013. He reffed abysmally the highlight being a denied clear penalty when Lukaku was just shoved in the back.

Whether he genuinely is biased against us I'm not sure, think it's more likely that he is just crap; he seems to have upset pretty much every other team at one point or other.

As mentioned above, the introduction of VAR has been a disaster; I was all for it, but on the basis there was enough lessons/experience to be gained from other countries and other sports. Oh well. No doubt the Premier League will congratulate themselves on a job well done.

Darren Hind
68 Posted 03/03/2020 at 01:36:31
Jamie C,

Different sport, different culture mate.

We want our game back!

Jim Hardin
69 Posted 03/03/2020 at 02:21:02
This incident highlights the fault with VAR the way that it is implemented over there, crap refs on a rotating basis making the same bad decisions they would have made as the ref on the pitch. That and the on-pitch ref not using the viewer to make the final call. If the English FA decides that it wants to keep the system of allowing the off-field VAR ref to make the decision, then it needs to be a permanent panel of three for consistency and any decision to overrule or change a decision made on the pitch has to be unanimous.

Oh, and Roy Keane can just go do one!

Lloyd Brodrick
70 Posted 03/03/2020 at 03:52:13
Carlo should have chucked the monitor on the pitch, in fact could we not respond, on mass, with a "use the monitor" chant?
You never know, it might catch on across the country.
Tony Everan
71 Posted 03/03/2020 at 07:15:36
De Gea could see the shot, he moved to the right. Retired refs are saying it was a 50/50 situation. How is it clear and obvious then to Moss?

On top of that wasn't Wan Bissaka interfering with play when he flew into Sigurdsson as he was taking his shot. He nearly took the Sigurdsson's legs off from the knee downwards. At any other time, in any other area of the pitch this desperate ,late and aggressive lunge by Wan Bissaka would have been a yellow card, at least. Why wasn't this investigated by Moss for a penalty ? Wan Bissaka made no contact with the ball whatsoever.

With these subjective decisions, it's just passing the buck. The ref needs advice , that's all, to look at the monitor and make the decision. It's got to be better than what we've got at the moment, which is worse than before.

What I would like to know is why Moss's appraisal was totally about reasons to be able to disallow the goal . No thought whatsoever was given for the reasons to allow it .It didn't reach the threshold of Clear and Obvious it was a subjective 50/50 situation at best.

Why wasn't the build up appraised and a penalty given for the clear and obvious foul on Siggurdson as he was shooting?

Kim Vivian
72 Posted 03/03/2020 at 09:49:55
Good shout, Lloyd.
Jon Harding
73 Posted 03/03/2020 at 10:34:34
#38 Charles Brewer
Thanks for the "double secret probation" reference.
National Lampoon's Animal House if I'm not mistaken?

#32 James Lauwerine
I also jumped from my sofa and said exactly the same thing (to my mrs rather than father) - that'll be disallowed

I'm still amazed our equalizer earlier this season at OT was allowed (another OG) after Dom barged into De Gea. Clearly not malignant Moss on VAR that day - class headline that.

Nothing wrong with VAR in itself - just the numpties in this country using it.

Bill Fairfield
74 Posted 03/03/2020 at 11:37:58
The biggest clubs in world football have the biggest support,VAR is tool being used to make sure they stay at the top to keep the gravey flowing for the tv subscription networks Absolute corruption all round
John Cook
75 Posted 03/03/2020 at 12:08:14
Just off topic., sad to see Gerry picked up a bad ACL injury on Saturday against the rs.Im sure most blues wish him a speedy recovery,my heart goes out to the lad.Get well soon Gerry lad.
Ray Roche
76 Posted 03/03/2020 at 12:21:24
John, it followed a shove from VD and Gerry fell awkwardly. Looked nasty. I hope he comes back as good as ever, he was playing really well.
Paul Tran
77 Posted 03/03/2020 at 12:48:49
I've said it before and I'll doubtless say it again. I can accept human error, especially when the dust has settled.

What I don't accept is refereeing decisions being sub-contracted to a long-winded process that manages to slowly get decisions wrong and spoils the experience of the matchgoers. My other suspicion still stands; that this has been introduced to create some artificial 'excitement' for those with little attention span and feel for the game.

Give us our game back!

Nicholas Ryan
78 Posted 03/03/2020 at 12:49:28
VAR is being misused, as I predicted it would be, based on the experience of Cricket. VAR/Hawkeye was brought into cricket, after South Africa batsman Jonty Rhodes was given out caught by the wicketkeeper, when he had missed the ball by 5 inches! It was meant to deal with such absolute howlers.

But now, VAR gives batsmen out LBW, by giving a computerised prediction of what the ball "would have done" if it hadn't hit the batsman's pad [which for non-cricketers, can be 7 or 8 feet in front of the stumps].

Hawkeye was not invented to give correct decisions, but to eliminate howlers. No cricket fan on the planet, thought Rhodes was out.

Was the referee's decision to award a goal on Sunday correct - possibly not. Was that decision a 'howler' - absolutely not!!

Roger Helm
79 Posted 03/03/2020 at 13:01:55
VAR is no good for football because all the decisions are subjective - was the tackler in control of his body, was the offside player interfering with play, was the handball deliberate etc etc.

In other sports it works because the decisions are binary - did the tennis ball hit the line, was the rugby ball grounded properly, would the ball have hit the stumps and was it a no-ball, and so on.

Scrap it.

Ernie Baywood
80 Posted 03/03/2020 at 13:10:10
Roger, if I thought they could keep their decisions to the binary ones then I'd be fine with it. In fact I'd encourage it.

No-one is complaining about technology to check if the ball has crossed the line. That's been a great improvement.

Offside is a binary call in the sense that the attacker is either beyond the defender or not. I think there should be a margin of error to factor in the margin of error for when the ball is struck but I can live with VAR calling those too.

Where they have come unstuck is looking for clear and obvious errors. Even the nature of what is clear and obvious is subjective. Ditch that bit.

And if they can't face that, then ditch the lot. It's baby out with the bathwater but so be it - they're ruining the game.

John Pierce
81 Posted 03/03/2020 at 13:27:23
Nicholas. I think you have the guts of a point there. I’ve oft repeated the same sentiment. We don’t want Henry’s handball v Ireland. That’s what VAR should be for.
If it remains for subjective incidents, the weight must be with the call on the field, unless you can definitively say otherwise. Any overturning of a decision must be 100% clear.

Using Sunday as the example, having given the goal on the field, Sigurdsson would have touched the ball to overturn the call. If the goal hadn’t been given on the field, there would be no concrete evidence to give it so we’d have to suck it up.

How to process that? A challenge system to limit the amount of time taken out of the game. Players would eventually learn to use it sparingly. (understanding that the call on the field has to be absolutely clear and contrary to what they’ve seen)
Sure, occasionally it will be used as a fishing trip like in cricket (I’d actually take the referral down to one in cricket too) but that, to me, is an acceptable cost of progress. It’s not fundamentally changing the game, it keeps the authority of the official but we have a mechanism which would stop a clear miscarriage within a game.

We cannot persist with checking almost every marginal call on the field. It’s intrusive, time consuming, and ultimately not within the spirit of the game.

James Flynn
82 Posted 03/03/2020 at 13:36:55
Jamie (46) - Yup.

Was surprised when I came in here and found out the English media lined up in favor of the decision. Martino and Mustoe had it a bad call all the way.

Ray Roche
83 Posted 03/03/2020 at 13:47:39
Nicholas, @78

''Was the referee's decision to award a goal on Sunday correct - possibly not. Was that decision a 'howler' - absolutely not!!''

So, the obvious penalty, missed by the on field referee and then perused over by the idiot Moss,who said it was not a 'clear and obvious error' was not a 'howler'?
The fact that De Gea COULD see the ball but was wrong footed, yet Moss, again, called it wrong by claiming that Siggy was in De Gea's 'line of sight' was not a 'howler'? (he quite clearly was not preventing De Gea from seeing the ball)
That Siggy was not 'interfering with play' yet Moss states that he was. Siggy was sat on the floor and made no attempt to play the ball.Is that not another 'howler'

I would lie to hear your interpretation of a 'howler'.

Please don't say a 'monkey native to South and Central American forests.' The only monkey I saw on Sunday was the referee, and yes, he had a howler.

David Doran
84 Posted 03/03/2020 at 14:40:40
If you Google 'Kavanagh', you will find out he was born in Manchester and all his family are Man Utd fans. Just saying like...
Jamie Crowley
85 Posted 03/03/2020 at 14:56:21
James @82 -

How are ya? It's astounding the way one set of people see the event on the other side of the Atlantic, and how our pundits here see it. How two sets of people interpret two completely different interpretations of the rules shows how shitty the Laws of the Game are written. Far too obscure and vague!

Sir John has the way forward with VAR for me, coupled with a great definition of what should be reviewed and what shouldn't by Roger @79.

I wish the powers-that-be read TW.

Jamie Crowley
86 Posted 03/03/2020 at 14:57:57
The third paragraph is the most awful sentence ever written on TW, James. But you get the drift.

Edit button? It's gone away. I miss it dearly.

Eddie Dunn
87 Posted 03/03/2020 at 15:18:26
I don't like Jon Moss and nor do I think he was right, but I can understand the theory of Sigurdsson distracting the keeper. He would have annoyed me, had I been in goal. Trying to follow play it would definitely have been at least an annoyance to De Gea.

In defence of Sigurdsson, I wonder if he stayed down hoping for a VAR check on Wan-Bissaka's challenge? He might have thought our chance was gone, so stay down to draw attention to the challenge.

He would have done better to stay prone and still, as if badly injured and get the medic on to emphasise the foul play. Instead, he came to life and tucked-in his feet, showing he was fine and active.

If he hadn't had to withdraw his tootsies, he would have had a better claim to being inactive. Also sitting up was a mistake, he should have stayed flat. Any way one looks at it, he made the wrong decision. Just like Moss, who should wake-up to a horse's head in his bed.

Rob Halligan
88 Posted 03/03/2020 at 16:18:08
Eddie, a horse should wake up in its stable with the head of Jon Moss next to him. The man is a completely useless referee and should be struck off the referees list.
Brent Stephens
89 Posted 03/03/2020 at 16:31:14
Rob #88 "a horse should wake up in its stable with the head of Jon Moss next to him".

Cracker (but the RSPCA have been informed).

Gordon Adie
90 Posted 03/03/2020 at 17:39:22
VAR is only an extension of worldwide corruption, banks, multinationals etc. The world is truly fucked.
Peter Warren
91 Posted 03/03/2020 at 17:57:32
Corrupt VAR. Does anybody truly believe they checked whether a penalty or not when referred? I do not believe they did and just made up an answer to protect themselves after.
Kim Vivian
92 Posted 03/03/2020 at 18:25:48
Getting a bit tiring now, but another scenario – if that deflection had gone the other side of the post and then Everton scored from the resulting corner (which would have been given), would John Moss have looked at the run-up of play before the corner and disallowed the goal citing a free kick for offside against Sigurdsson instead? Doubtful I would say but these days anything is possible.

The whole VAR system has become a pantomime and the ugly sisters are now in charge.

Eddie Dunn
93 Posted 03/03/2020 at 19:10:54
Kim it does appear that VAR has become yet another hurdle to prevent the elite from losing their places at the top table. The refs are under discreet pressure from the patmasters of the PL to protect the product. At the moment we are merely a supporting cast for the stars of the show. It stinks.
Nicholas Ryan
94 Posted 03/03/2020 at 19:13:37
Ray [83], I think you slightly misunderstand me. My point is, that the various electronic gizmos are being used to address the wrong question. The question should not be, and was never intended to be: 'Is the on-field umpire/referee's decision correct?'; the question should be, and was intended to be: 'is the on-field umpire/referee's decision, so shockingly awful, that it cannot stand'.

Therefore, on Sunday, I would have expected VAR to say: 'that [awarding the goal] decision might not be correct, but it's not so shockingly awful, that it needs to be overturned.'

Kevin Molloy
95 Posted 03/03/2020 at 19:37:06
I heard some referee the other night, saying whatever happens it's here to stay. And I thought to my self, 'why do the refs love it so much, given that it undermines their on pitch authority so much', And then I realised, they need never fear again that they will be blamed for a wrong decision, now that they can slow everything down and pore over it, What a relief for them, and what a disaster for the watching public
Mark Andersson
96 Posted 05/03/2020 at 04:45:36
The game is corrupt and the only way Everton and teams like us can do is to assemble a team that wins fair and square on a regular basis... not sell your best players to the so-called big clubs and watch the corruption go mad trying to move the goal posts.

Add Your Comments

In order to post a comment, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.

» Log in now

Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and Talking Points submissions across the site.

About these ads

© ToffeeWeb