Ancelotti: I asked for an explanation

Sunday, 1 March, 2020 90comments  |  Jump to last

Carlo Ancelotti insists that he did not disrespect referee Chris Kavanagh after today's controversial 1-1 draw with Manchester United when he was sent off by the official for dissent.

The Italian confronted Kavanagh and the assistant who was involved in the decision to first allow and then disallow a stoppage-time goal that would have won the match for Everton in dramatic fashion, although the final determination came from Jon Moss in the VAR office in Stockley Park.

According to the Premier League, the goal was ruled out because Gylfi Sigurdsson was deemed to have been in an offside position when Dominic Calvert-Lewin struck the shot that then deflected off Harry Maguire and past David de Gea and that the Icelandic midfielder had “made an obvious action that impacted de Gea's ability to make a save”.

Ancelotti was asked to leave the field but was heard to say to Kavanagh: “I am not leaving. I want an explanation.” The official eventually brandished a red card to the Blues' manager and said, ”Off you go.”

“I was sent off because I asked [for an] explanation [from] the referee and so he sent me off,” Ancelotti said in the tunnel afterwards. “I had a conversation with him in the dressing room but I want to keep the conversation private.

“I think it was a really (harsh) decision. From our side, we can say that Gylfi didn't affect the vision of the goalkeeper. From their side, they're saying that he affected the vision of the goalkeeper but, unfortunately, it is they who have to make the decision.

“I didn't disrespect [the referee]. I was, of course, a little bit disappointed because we could [have won] the game with this goal but I know how difficult their job is. So no regrets and no complaints also.

“We will see if I'm banned. If I am banned for Chelsea, it'll be disappointing but the seats at Stamford Bridge are very close to the pitch anyway, so I'll be there.

"We will see this week what decision they make but whatever happens, I can train and this is important!"

Ancelotti was satisfied overall with his team's performance, however, saying:

“So it was a draw but it was a good draw. It gives us confidence. We played against a strong team, we were competitive all the game.

“Maybe we deserved to win and this is important for our confidence as we prepare for the next games.”


Reader Comments (90)

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

Tony Hill
1 Posted 01/03/2020 at 19:05:34
Top man.
Steve Ferns
3 Posted 01/03/2020 at 19:37:03
In the past, Everton managers have just accepted it. Great to see Carlo won't.
Stephen Brown
4 Posted 01/03/2020 at 20:00:45
I agree! That's exactly the reaction I want to see from CA!
Michael Lynch
5 Posted 01/03/2020 at 20:01:29
Another VAR fail, and this one probably illustrates why it's an unreformable system. One of the main complaints about VAR is that it takes endless video scratching to reach a decision, whereas a clear and obvious error should be identifiable in seconds.

But in this case, in order to overturn the decision to give the goal, It should have taken a good few minutes to discuss whether Sigurdsson was actually interfering or whether – as was actually the case – De Gea was already beaten by the deflection and Sigurdsson had nothing to do with it.

Scrap VAR

Paul Hewitt
6 Posted 01/03/2020 at 20:07:27
You should have planted one on him, Carlo. The ref was a disgrace all game.
Jay Evans
7 Posted 01/03/2020 at 20:13:32
Chris Kavanagh sleeps with the fishes.
Dave Abrahams
8 Posted 01/03/2020 at 20:13:40
Paul (6), absolutely true along with linesman on The Bullens Road side of the field, a lot of their decisions were pathetic.
Steve Guy
9 Posted 01/03/2020 at 20:19:39
Top Man our new Manager👍
Jim Bennings
10 Posted 01/03/2020 at 20:24:09
I really want someone at this club to challenge the FA and approach them with a “anti-Everton VAR crime sheet”.

Someone should demand answers to why we were ripped off with that penalty at Brighton when one of our players accidentally stood on a Brighton forwards bootlace.

The Spurs home game was a despicable disgrace with at least two blatant and clear as day penalties not given to us, (the Alli handball, the Aurora wrestling to the ground of Richarlison)

There have been so many others that's its basically laughable how apparently biased these fruits are that work the system in this country.

Today is another example of refereeing twattery,

Does anyone think that goal would have been ruled out down the other end?

Would it have been ruled out at Anfield if St Mane or Sir Salah had been on their arse when gorgeous Bobby Firmino deflected one in of a unstylish Burnley or Southampton grock?

Like hell it would.

But because it's Everton v Manchester United and it deflected in off the odious moaning snidey “slabhead” Maguire, it's ruled out.

Maguire, ironically a player that should not even have been playing today after VAR let him off after “debollocking” the Chelsea player last week.

Football in this country is completely corrupt and all that VAR has done is highlight it even more glaringly.

Paul Birmingham
11 Posted 01/03/2020 at 20:32:27
Fine margins, last week and today. Shocking officials today, whose ignorance and arrogance, should see them demoted to the Championship.

If this is the way it's gonna go, them I fear many people will stop going the game, and even watching it on the box.

Brighton, and the penalty that wasn't, Spurs – Dele Alli's blatant handball, Leicester, and the goal that was offside, today. These descisions could be the difference in May.

Europa League qualification is going to be very tough now, but if we win at Chelsea, we are back in with a good chance.

Shocking and sadly now the egos of referees and the toxic use of VAR, is ruining football.

Surely the refs, if they are not using the pitch side monitor are bringing the game into disrepute?

Good on Carlo, and I hope this arsehole referee gets his demotion to the Championship very soon.

Hopefully this installs proper true grit and a resilience to turn up and fight for every ball, in our remaining games.

Brent Stephens
12 Posted 01/03/2020 at 20:33:00
There's been a lot of discussion already as to whether Siggy was in the line of sight of the keeper.

However, the line of sight argument seems to be irrelevant because of the following from Lyndon's report:

"According to the Premier League, the goal was ruled out because Gylfi Sigurdsson was deemed to have been in an offside position when Dominic Calvert-Lewin struck the shot that then deflected off Harry Maguire and past David de Gea and that the Icelandic midfielder had “made an obvious action that impacted de Gea's ability to make a save”."

So the assertion is that Siggy "made an obvious action..". I'm not sure I see any obvious action other than to pull his legs in so the ball doesn't hit them. It hasn't impacted on the keeper's ability to make the save. A bad call in my view, not because of the line of sight argument.

Martin Berry
13 Posted 01/03/2020 at 20:53:02
Carlo endears himself to the faithful more and more each week.
Mike Powell
14 Posted 01/03/2020 at 20:56:09
Disgraceful decision, absolutely cheating of the highest order, we haven't got a snowball in hell's chance of breaking into the top 4 or 5.

This proves it the Premier League don't want us there, and there is nothing we can do about it. We may as well just pack it all in. VAR as fucked us again, sick off it, the cheating rats.

Brent Stephens
15 Posted 01/03/2020 at 20:56:33
Carlo can have my seat at Stamford Bridge – I'll take his place on the bench.

Loving this guy more every week.

Brent Stephens
16 Posted 01/03/2020 at 21:04:03
Mike, this is not VAR that's fucked us, it's the misunderstanding of the rules by the VAR official. Maybe that's what you meant. I'd rather kick an official than a VAR machine! Is there a VAR machine, anyway?! If so, I'll fecking kick that as well.
Colin Glassar
17 Posted 01/03/2020 at 21:04:38
Carlo exudes calmness, knowledge and wisdom. Despite us still lacking in so many areas, I no longer feel the need to watch the game between fingers, hide behind the couch, or kick the imaginary cat.

He's only been with us for a few weeks but he's already lifted decades of anxiety and doubt off my shoulders. I was almost ready to give up on Everton before he arrived. The end of a lifelong love affair. But Carlo is slowly but surely rekindling my passion for the team and faith in the game.

Chad Schofield
18 Posted 01/03/2020 at 21:14:42
Obviously if Gylfi touches the ball, or even moves to go for the ball, he's offside... but, being on the ground, he is not blocking De Gea's sight... he's not made for the ball and made the keeper dive. VAR showed this and the goal should have stood. It's the idiots operating VAR who are at fault.
Brent Stephens
19 Posted 01/03/2020 at 21:22:39
Chad, the Premier League are not talking about line of sight, or offside.

They say it's about making "an obvious action that impacted de Gea's ability to make a save". None of that applies as I see it.

Mike Powell
20 Posted 01/03/2020 at 21:34:41
Brent, yes that's what I ment, the people behind VAR are the problem; they're the ones that cheated us – and it was cheating, no other word for it. They not only disallowed a perfectly good goal, they never gave the penalty leading up to it. I am fucking fuming still.
Brent Stephens
21 Posted 01/03/2020 at 21:46:40
Got yer, Mike. Fuming also.
Jay Harris
22 Posted 01/03/2020 at 21:47:19
Wasnt it Kavanagh who gave a VAR decision against us last time out? Moss and Kavanagh shouldn't be allowed to referee.
Ernie Baywood
23 Posted 01/03/2020 at 21:47:27
Why is VAR even making that call?

They review the possibility of a penalty and decide it's not a clear and obvious error.

Yet they decide the referee made a clear and obvious error in deciding that Gylfi wasn't interfering with play?

I'm kind of okay with VAR calling offsides. I'd prefer a very small margin of error but at least it's a fairly objective decision.

But this wasn't about an objective decision. 'Interfering with play' is a subjective decision, made by the referee.

The VAR chose which decision he wanted to overrule. And I believe they did it because they have been given a mandate to call offsides, and misunderstood how far that mandate stretches.

This wasn't a question of offside. He was clearly in an offside position. The issue was whether he was interfering – it's not their job to get involved in that unless it's a clear and obvious error.

Peter Mills
24 Posted 01/03/2020 at 22:23:15
If we had scored this goal against, say, Burnley, would it have been disallowed?
Jack Convery
25 Posted 02/03/2020 at 00:09:23
That goal stands all day long if it had been Martial at Old Trafford in the last minute – that can't be right and that is what is really wrong about what happened today. It needs sorting but it won't be — not until these decisions start affecting the so-called Big 6... and hell will freeze over before that happens.
Jack Convery
26 Posted 02/03/2020 at 00:15:04
Fuck me! Clattenburg said it should have stood!!!
Jerome Shields
27 Posted 02/03/2020 at 00:24:03
I never get caught up in refereeing decisions and since VAR is a extension of that decision making process I treat it the same.

The fact that you can never beat the referee still holds and dwelling on it will never change the result.

Sigurdsson was offside, and should not have been. Naturally Ancelotti was upset at the time, but he will be turning round to Sigurdsson during the week and asking him ;

How long where you going to sit on your arse? I know we had the ball and it was in play, but the opposition could have had the ba!l in play as well , and your job is not to sit on your arse when the ball is in play, on the wages you are on.

Tony Byrne
28 Posted 02/03/2020 at 00:31:39
The game in this country has been bent for as long as I can remember, big decisions favouring the so-called "bigger" clubs 99% of the time. The introduction of VAR (in this country at least) was, for me, an extra layer of corruption for the bigger clubs to get the big decisions even more than ever!

Now, the decision goes to a guy miles away from the ground!! He does not have to face the wrath of a crowd so it's even easier to make the call in favour of a sky 4-5 club.

What's the point in even going to the match anymore? It's a fucking fix.

Derek Thomas
29 Posted 02/03/2020 at 00:34:43
From Fifa's rules:

"A player is not committing an offence simply by being in an offside position"...tick.

Active involvment plus offside position is the offence... He was sat on his arse = not active (on a personal note, it's Sigurdsson ffs, he's never active.)

"Being actively involved in the area of play is not the same as being in the area of active play"...tick – he was sat on his arse.

"While in an offside position, there are three things a
player cannot do:
 interfere with play
 interfere with an opponent
 gain an advantage by being in the offside position"
Tick, tick and tick – he was sat on his arse.

Gavin Johnson
30 Posted 02/03/2020 at 00:45:11
So if the shot is head height and Slab-head heads it out for a corner, would it then be ruled as a goal kick as Sigurdsson was interfering in play and DeGea couldn't see it?? No it wouldn't, it would be a corner all day long so the ruling has no legs whatsoever. Robbed as usual!
Ernie Baywood
31 Posted 02/03/2020 at 00:47:08
From the PGMOL

"Sigurdsson... made an obvious action that impacted de Gea's ability to make a save."

No he didn't.

By all means, argue all day about what it should have been. But facts are facts. VAR got involved and called this a clear and obvious error by the referee. Then made something up to justify it.

The referee gave a goal. Rightly or wrongly. And the standard to disallow was much higher than VAR used in this instance.

Gavin Johnson
32 Posted 02/03/2020 at 01:05:10
What's going on?! I didn't post #30 Or is there another Gavin Johnson posting on TW now?!
John P McFarlane
33 Posted 02/03/2020 at 01:09:37
Tony is right what's the point? Match going fans don't matter – it's all about cash, we probably didn't deserve to win the game but we didn't deserve to be robbed either. The game is bent and we shouldn't support it.
Bill Watson
34 Posted 02/03/2020 at 01:13:52
What Moss didn't appear to judge a clear and obvious error was the failure of the referee to award a penalty for the foul on Sigurdsson; the foul which put him on his arse in the first place.
Gavin Johnson
35 Posted 02/03/2020 at 02:00:45
Yes Gavin Johnson #32 there is another Gavin Johnson haha. I post rarely, usually only when pissed off by corrupt officials!!
Mark Andersson
36 Posted 02/03/2020 at 02:09:45
Derek Thomas, thanks for clearing that up. Why can't Everton appeal the decision based on your post?

Of course the Sky puppets Red shite Souness and fuck face Roy Keane say it was offside, yet that other Twatenburg ref says it was a goal.

I'm with the fans who think the game is corrupt. Carlo has a massive job on his hands to try to bring Everton Football Club back as a force to be reckoned with.

He is the man to do it and every fan must get behind him and his team. I feel confident that we are heading in the right direction; however, it's going to be tough fighting the powers that be who are keeping us where we are now.

Brent Stephens
37 Posted 02/03/2020 at 03:42:56
Derek #29 gives us some very useful quotes from the offside rules, and further shows the goal was legit. Thanks.

Sigurdsson "is never active" — cracker!

Bob Parrington
38 Posted 02/03/2020 at 05:18:47
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.

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!

John Keating
39 Posted 02/03/2020 at 07:20:04
Obviously you don't see it all and get the reruns at the match, so in the euphoria when the ball goes in it's just a "goal". However, after watching it at home, the reasoning they gave was just a cop-out.

De Gea saw enough of Calvert-Lewin's shot to move to his right to cover its direction. It hits Maguire and goes in. No way would De Gea have had time to react to save that deflection.

So the question is: does Sigurdsson's position interfere with De Gea's sight? Impossible!!!

Whether it's the officials themselves, the time taken to make decisions on "clear and obvious errors", or the VAR technology, VAR is ruining the spontaneity of the game.

It should not be tweaked or laws changed to suit. VAR should be scrapped in its entirety.

Rob Hooton
40 Posted 02/03/2020 at 07:51:19
I can't remember where I read a similar comment (might have been here) but worth repeating:
Moss was probably characteristically 40 yards from the VAR screen and out of breath whilst making this decision, such is the mans incompetence
Paul O'Neill
41 Posted 02/03/2020 at 08:10:37
Actually Carlo sought an explanation from the wrong guy. The ref and his assistant awarded the goal, it was John Moss who disallowed it. VAR is a great idea if used to assist the referee, but it's turning into a tool used to assist the "big 6" teams.
Would the goal have stood at the other end?
Derek Knox
42 Posted 02/03/2020 at 08:19:41
Not sure how this 'red card works' when applied to Managers, so how long is he banned from the touchline? Is it three matches or longer?
Mal van Schaick
43 Posted 02/03/2020 at 08:47:56
We are left questioning the decision of one man looking at a screen. It's his opinion that he applied and not the rule of offside. As others have stated De Gea was going the wrong way irrespective of Sigi lifting his feet. Sigi had no control of the ball and neither did he impede De Gea's line of sight.

That decision has cost us a good league position as we press for top six and if the VAR decision is incorrect, it should be overturned and we should be awarded the points.

Michael Lynch
44 Posted 02/03/2020 at 09:07:05
Ernie @23 makes a good point. Should VAR even have been involved in this decision? There are two reasons why it could - to judge whether or not a player is offside, or to see if there has been a clear and obvious error by the ref.

Sigurdsson was clearly in an offside position, which the ref and linesman must have seen, but the question of whether or not he is interfering in play should be up to the ref not VAR unless there was a deflection off Sigurdsson that the ref didn't see. No clear and obvious error there then.

I would suggest that the only decision VAR was in a position to make was whether the ball hit Sigurdsson.

Jim Harrison
45 Posted 02/03/2020 at 09:31:02
For those who doubt he made an obvious movement, it's pretty clear he did. Me moved out of the way quick sharp. If he hadn't, the ball would have hit him and there would be no debate, perhaps even a flag from the lino for offside as he became active.

But why is he sat on his arse looking around in the first place? Because he is wondering why he hasn't heard the whistle for a penalty! Could argue he was no longer in control of the ball but, given how close he was to the goal, he would be denied the ability to get in on De Gea and get on the rebound from his save. Why wasn't that part reviewed?

It's unpleasant, but I can understand the VAR ruling, even if the messaging is confusing. He is offside. He clearly is in front of the keeper and, whether or not he is unsighted ,it's clearly a distraction to have a 6 foot bloke lying in front of you, but in an offside position. If it was at the other end and it stood, we would be baying for blood even more ferociously than now.

Positive to note though, goal or not, the lads are keeping it going to the end of the game, still working hard and creating chances right up to the whistle. That's a positive trait.

Also, what a difference Gomes makes. I wasn't watching but listening on the radio, his name and their new signing were the most used by far, everything seemed to be going through him.

Good on Carlo. Get stuck in. Passion. And quality after, laughing it off. Top stuff

Mark Dunford
46 Posted 02/03/2020 at 10:13:52
Paul (11) is right to highlight the number of decisions that have gone against us this season because of VAR. We'd be 6/7 points better off without them and - on the downside - could still have Silva as our manager - every cloud? My guess is that a lot of clubs outside the "Big Six" have similar stories and at the end of the season someone with time on their hands will produce a revised league table to illustrate the difference points make to all concerned.
Jim Burns
47 Posted 02/03/2020 at 10:33:09
I was at the game and find Carlo's red card laughable - Kavanagh spent a good deal of the 90 mins being surrounded by red shirts after pretty much every decision he called - unless it was in their favour.

Maguire in particular never stopped moaning and challenging his decisions - even staying on the field to argue with him face to face and throwing the ball down as he stalked away towards the tunnel. He continued his whinging into the after match interview on MOTD.

Circle the wagons folks - we need to channel this into a siege mentality now and Carlo is just the boy to lead it - a proper leader at last.

Alan Rooney
48 Posted 02/03/2020 at 12:46:33
Gylfi ( and others) are often just too slow to get up after they feel aggrieved. If they were 'taught' to just pick themselves up immediately and get on with the game, they would be making a far better contribution to the team effort
Dave Abrahams
49 Posted 02/03/2020 at 12:46:42
Jim (47), I think the fact that a Manchester born referee was in charge of this game should be questioned, has he taken charge of other Man. City/ United games before this one.

I'm going back many years now a referee Mr. Evans ( can't remember his first name) a top class referee never took charge of any Everton or Liverpool games, don't know if this was by choice or that he wasn't allowed to.

He later became a scout for Sheffield We'd.

Dave Abrahams
50 Posted 02/03/2020 at 12:49:17
Re above,(49), I should have mentioned Mr. Evans was born in Liverpool. I've just given myself a yellow card.
Tim Drake
51 Posted 02/03/2020 at 12:59:10
Alan (48), whilst I agree with you - I can understand why players are staying down. Since the introduction of VAR - I think you are much more likely to have an incident reviewed if you stay down.

I don't believe for a second that the Brighton penalty against Keane would have been given if their striker had just “picked himself up and immediately got on with the game”. Instead he screamed, rolled and pleaded whilst on the floor and won his team a penalty.

It's a sad reflection of the game at the moment, I know.

And it's typical of Everton that - whilst this tactic is working for other teams - it's just cost us a winner.

Martin Mason
52 Posted 02/03/2020 at 13:26:24
The equivalent rugby system works well because the function of the Video ref is to look at a particular aspect when requested by the referee. VAR is just another opinionated remote ref who can overrule the ref on the pitch with no approver at his end; this adds no quality to the decision making just adds another layer of opinion.
John McFarlane Snr
53 Posted 02/03/2020 at 13:33:54
Hi Dave, [49/50] the only 'Derby Games,' Arthur Evans refereed were to my knowledge, Liverpool Senior Cup Finals. I know you will have seen your fair share of those. Please tell me that you are not a fan of VAR.
Tom Bowers
54 Posted 02/03/2020 at 13:46:04
Good for Carlo ! You just know had that been at Analfield or Old Trafford they would have given the goal.

Damn good job it didn't lose us the point.

If the ref. and linesman deemed Siggy wasn't at fault then why did the moron at VAR say he was.

Maybe if it hadn't been so late in the game they may have allowed it, who knows. Either way it sucks.

Tony Abrahams
55 Posted 02/03/2020 at 14:22:03
I hope they try and ban Ancelotti, because as somebody said on the other thread, Fred, got a yellow card for barging in towards the ref, whilst our manager was very calm, never raised his hands, and why shouldn't he be allowed to ask for a description of why the goal was over-rules?

I've read opinions of ex-refs, ex-pro's, but I've heard nothing coming from the horses mouth... I love Everton, but I think I'm coming to the end with the circus, I honestly don't see the point.

James Hughes
56 Posted 02/03/2020 at 14:31:04
Dave# 49. That's not a yellow, just a quiet word. How you remember these facts is amazing, cheers
Dave Abrahams
57 Posted 02/03/2020 at 14:52:03
James (56), my head is full of thousands of bits of useless information, as my wife says “ It's a pity you didn't learn how to use a paintbrush”. You can't do everything though, can you?
Dave Abrahams
58 Posted 02/03/2020 at 15:01:01
John (53), Arthur, yes that's the fella, and you are correct he did referee the Liverpool Senior Cup finals. John, can you see if he refereed that second leg of the first Floodlit cup, because Liverpool got a penalty for absolutely nothing, even Liverpudlians were amazed by that decision, if he did I'll have to revise my opinion that he was an excellent referee.

No John I'm not a fan of VAR, the it is being used by the refs in the studio, I don't know many fans who do like it, even plenty of Red fans don't like it and they seem to benefit from it more than most.

John Pierce
59 Posted 02/03/2020 at 15:09:35
Martin. That point has merit, VAR is interventionist often getting involved in situations no player has asked for. If players on the field don't believe it's a problem why would you intervene?

Other sports request Information through a referral either via an official or player who ask a much tighter question. Rather than an open has there been a foul in the build to the incident etc.

It's a far more reasonable less intrusive model which players can use or not as they prefer. A system which encourages intervention on marginal calls is a disaster.

Players are the ones who know when something big has been missed.

Jamie Crowley
60 Posted 02/03/2020 at 15:13:24
I think I understand the ruling now. The call is made as such, and know I vehemently disagree with it, but this is their thinking:

Gylfi is in an offside position when DCL strikes the ball. Because the ball is deflected, Gylfi has to raise his legs in order for the ball to continue on it's path. If he doesn't raise his legs, the ball stops because it hits him. Because the continuance of the ball in motion is dependent upon a player moving while in an offside position, he's deemed to be involved in the play. Ergo, offside.

Someone like Mike Gaynes or Sir John Pierce needs to weigh in on this. But I'd bet that's their interpretation.

I don't agree with it and think it's the wrong call completely. If you don't affect the path of the ball and don't block the line of sight, you can move all you want and NOT be involved in the play. The goal should have stood.

Jon Moss is a seriously “wanker” and I'd about guarantee they were looking / thinking of explanations to disallow the goal, and not the other way around.

John Pierce
61 Posted 02/03/2020 at 15:44:45
JaC, pretty eloquent stuff that post. Here's were I believe the rule has been mis-applied. How I would deal with it still might be wrong!

When the ball was struck Sigurdsson is judged to be passive, otherwise the flag should go up immediately. If the shot goes in or is saved back out into play, the goal is given or we play on. Therefore the deflection makes no difference to the outcome.

With De Gea's field of vision unimpeded in any way, Sigurdsson's movement's comes after he is committed. His steps to the right is (tacit) information he can see the ball clearly and and he's done so without hesitation. It rules out interfering with the goalkeepers line of sight.

If he (the Lino) flagged immediately then I'd have no issue, he's offside by definition. It would still feel harsh but I personally could live with it. They didn't so clearly they've a-judged him to be passive, therefore if whatever the outcome should stand.

Passive offside is a subjective call, the goal was given on the field so it would take a clear error to over rule it. Based on the bar set so far this season the VAR has over reached his remit. I'd have to re-read the final paragraph in law to be sure, but that's how I'd understand it.

JaC, maybe surprisingly, I'd give it!

Jamie Crowley
62 Posted 02/03/2020 at 16:00:33
That's the whole other bit of it, John.

There's zero argument about the line of sight, according to the League itself I believe? It's the offside bit and interfering in play.

You can't interfere with play if you've not touched the ball, didn't block sight, and are (as others eloquently pointed out) "sat on your arse"!

It's really a terrible, terrible call that was made far too quickly and is not what VAR is there for - it overreached in its remit as the call on the field was made, and there is a better and more compelling argument to let the goal stand.

I know fans of every club cry foul, but in a year where Everton have, time and again, been the victim to terrible calls.

No one is talking about this -

If Man U win the Europa League, and Man City are banned from Champions League next year, the CL spots go down to 6th place!

I'm pretty sure that's accurate???

Every single point in precious, and they are stealing them from right under our noses.

This Club must stop being so damn nice and fight back, dammit!

Tony Abrahams
63 Posted 02/03/2020 at 16:01:05
Great explanation of everything imo that JP, it's how I saw it, and we keep hearing every week, that unless it's a serious error being made by the ref/or linesman in this case, then they are not going to over-rule the original decision, and anyone who has played football, knows that McGuire and De Gae, were just chancing their luck, but surely weren't expecting to get the decision so easily?
Martin Mason
64 Posted 02/03/2020 at 16:08:46
JP@61, Sigurdsson's movement? :-)
John Pierce
65 Posted 02/03/2020 at 16:59:09
Martin, Sigurdsson appeared to withdraw his feet to ensure he didn't touch the ball as it approached him, post the deflection. It wasn't a movement towards the ball, he remained passive, the same way players often walk away with their hands in the air, despite the ball whizzing close by them.

But the key is the flag, if it goes up immediately then I can tell the Lino things ah he's interfering there, he did not, so to over turn that interpretation you need clear evidence I'm still waiting. 😑

John Pierce
66 Posted 02/03/2020 at 16:59:47
Oh God Martin, I just re-read the emoji. fook I'm an idiot. 🙄🙄🙄
Frank Kearns
68 Posted 02/03/2020 at 17:08:43
In Rugby - both codes - the on field referee asks the VAR to re-run the incident and then both agree on the outcome. The Premier League's version is so open to questions of bias, corruption and ridicule to be unbelievable.
Mike Gaynes
69 Posted 02/03/2020 at 17:18:11
Bill #34 and Mike #20,

Sigurdsson got the shot off and should have scored. No ref on earth will give a penalty in that situation. If he goes over before getting the shot away, yes. Otherwise, no.

Brian Wilkinson
70 Posted 02/03/2020 at 18:21:28
Spot on Frank, in Rugby league the ref will go to the big screen and ask if the ball was grounded or was there any obstruction, the ref calls on those to be checked, if there is no clear view after replays, the video ref has to accept what the ref called at the time.

Anyone who has not watched rugby league, to put in simple terms, the ref will signal a square motion to indicate the big screen, then another hand signal saying try or no try.

The video ref will only get involved when the ref requests it.

Not only that, they show the incident on the big screen for fans to see.

That is the problem with var, refs decisions are getting over ruled, and no replays shown on the screens to supporters.

Brian Wilkinson
71 Posted 02/03/2020 at 18:45:02
Carlo Ancelotti has been charged by the FA and has until Thursday to appeal. If he accepts it, he will not face a touchline ban but will have to pay a fine.

So the game was over and he asked the ref for an explanation. However it is ok for Klopp to run onto the pitch, before the game has finished and hey ho, no problem at all. Same explanation as Carlo, it was a heat of the moment thing.

Joe Corgan
72 Posted 02/03/2020 at 19:05:21
Pre-VAR it was accepted that human beings make mistakes. We don't always see things we should and other times we think we've seen things we haven't. Since time immemorial, referees have had the benefit of the doubt when they've gotten a call wrong.

Nowadays, a VAR official has slow motion replays which they can watch over and over again from almost every angle imaginable. There is no excuse for getting something so, so wrong.

I would love to see Everton, or another club for that matter, really refuse to let a matter drop. Don't just accept the PGMOL's explanation or send a strongly worded letter. Actually publicly criticise the system and officials involved. Walk off the pitch or refuse to play under certain referees. Really make life difficult for the PGMOL and FA.

VAR was supposed to stop obviously bad decisions being made. Instead it's only highlighting that they'll be made regardless.

John McFarlane Snr
73 Posted 02/03/2020 at 19:14:56
Hi Dave [58], I'm afraid I can't help you, as you know, I was serving with the Army in Cyprus at that time. I do however have a book which describes the occasion of the first leg, mainly featuring the magnificence of the lights, but there is also a brief summary of the game. Being an Everton publication it only lists Everton's team, and the attendance figure of 58,771.
John McFarlane Snr
74 Posted 02/03/2020 at 19:30:12
Hi Mike [69] I respect your interpretation but I have to disagree with it. I believe that you have experience in refereeing, and surely you must agree, that in umpteen games, a player releases the ball and is taken out, and a free kick is awarded, where's the difference?
Eugene Kearney
75 Posted 02/03/2020 at 19:35:45
How many times has VAR gone against Everton this season? Five? Six?
Hugh Jenkins
76 Posted 02/03/2020 at 19:44:59
I am now totally confused by VAR and what it is intended for.

I believed it was an "overview" system, that allowed a qualified referee ( or referees) to watch aspects of the game live that the referee on the ground might miss due to the speed of the modern game.

If said VAR referee or referees saw something that they thought was a "clear and obvious error" by the man on the ground, they would bring it too his attention and he would then take a quick look at the reply on the pitch side monitor and decide whether his original decision was upheld or should be overturned.

I never thought that the VAR watching referee(s) would have the right to overrule the man on the ground at all, but merely bring his attention to glaring and obvious errors.

If VAR continues in this way then the purpose of the "man in the middle" becomes superfluous and the game can be refereed robotically from anywhere, by a panel of referees watching video screens of the action all over the pitch.

I honestly believe that VAR is being deliberately made to look controversial and useless by the powers that be because they want it scrapped and this is the quickest way to that end.

Used, as I believe it was going to be used, it would be a useful management tool for the referee in charge of the game.

Used as it is, it emasculates the referee who no longer has to worry about getting decisions right or wrong, because big brother can override him.

John Keating
77 Posted 02/03/2020 at 20:10:25
Mike 69
Mike have to agree with John Mc
Seen hundreds of similar situations where a foul has been given after the ball has been released
Regardless of Sigi getting a shot away the ball was still in play, then he was fouled
How many times have we seen a penalty awarded for a foul on a player nowhere near the ball
Lynn Maher
78 Posted 02/03/2020 at 21:39:04
Hugh 76
Be confused no more.
VAR (Very Awful Refereeing), is used when AR (Awful Referee), match official, is brought into question by VAF (Very Angry Fans).
VAR and AR then toss a coin and give a decision.
Hope this has helped!
Lynn Maher
79 Posted 03/03/2020 at 06:58:55
The above two mentioned answer to the FA, who as their initials suggest, no very little about anything !
Michael O'Malley
80 Posted 03/03/2020 at 13:26:31
I'd sooner have the human mistakes and do away with VAR, someone was on the radio yesterday saying that when you scored you looked up at linesman and if the flag was down you could celebrate but now your waiting on umpteen reviews and reruns before the goal is given and he also said a game in Germany was stopped for 6 minutes to check a goal! We don't need VAR because it is causing more controversy than human mistakes, I hate technology ruining our game and becoming more of a talking point than the football
Dave Abrahams
81 Posted 03/03/2020 at 14:51:30
Ancelotti might have to ask for another explanation next Sunday: according to another Everton website, Friend is the referee and Atkinson the VAR referee. Whoever selects these referees they really love us don't they.
Chris Williams
82 Posted 03/03/2020 at 14:54:57

I bet Moss or Mason is 4th official.

Brian Wilkinson
83 Posted 03/03/2020 at 19:21:14
Dread to think who they will have for the Mersey Derby.
Tony J Williams
84 Posted 04/03/2020 at 12:33:35
Appeal it and ask for the recording of what was said to be listened to, as the ref is miked up simples.
John McFarlane Snr
85 Posted 04/03/2020 at 14:45:17
Hi John [77], It gives me great pleasure to find someone who agrees with my understanding of the game. There has been so much fiddling around with the 'Laws' of football, very little [in my opinion] to the betterment, and, to be honest, I find it hard to believe that Mike doesn't see the situation as you and I do.

Hi Michael [80], I have opposed the use of VAR long before its introduction and, like yourself, I believe that it's causing more controversy than human error. I would be quite happy to revert to the system that was in place in my younger days. As a non-practising Roman Catholic, I always believed that the only men who were infallible were the Pope and referees, and if the ref didn't see it, it didn't happen.

Rob Halligan
86 Posted 04/03/2020 at 15:22:52
I agree with Michael # 80. I too would rather do away with VAR and have the human mistakes. Last season, although there were still plenty of mistakes, at least the referee and assistant referees could point to the fact that they only had one look at whatever they "missed".

Although there were still plenty of replays of such incidents on TV, these were not fed back to the on field officials. Now though, some knobheads sitting in a box miles away from the stadium have numerous looks at controversial incidents and still get them wrong.

Tony Abrahams
87 Posted 04/03/2020 at 15:51:14
Human mistakes like Sterling running the ball out of play in a semi-final, before crossing for city to score Rob, something I could see from the very back row of the stand at the other end of the pitch?

The ref was Atkinson, and you watch Everton live more than me Rob, but can you ever remember Martin ever giving us a proper decision in all the years you've seen him officiate Everton?

Some refs have an agenda against certain teams, and although I think it's been done to death after the latest injustice, I also think it's an irrefutable fact.

John McFarlane Snr
88 Posted 04/03/2020 at 16:17:35
Hi Tony [87] prior to recent seasons I paid no pre-match attention to referees, because I trusted them to be impartial. I don't pay pre-match attention now, because I don't trust them at all.
Rob Halligan
89 Posted 04/03/2020 at 16:27:55
Agree with you on that one Tony. Obviously some "mistakes" are just too ridiculous to be true. God knows how many times I've seen Atkinson, but I can't remember too many decisions going in our favour off him, but there have been plenty go against us. He's not called Twatkinson for nothing!!
Jay Harris
90 Posted 04/03/2020 at 16:58:03
I truly believe that most referees grow up supporting Liverpool or Man Utd and you only have to look at the 2 teams that have suffered most under VAR, it's Everton and Man City with the 2 teams gaining the most being Man Utd and Liverpool.

I used to refuse to believe the game was corrupt but after Clattenburg, Mike Riley, Collina, Atkinson and Moss you would have to believe there is some sort of conspiracy because some of those decisions are so ridiculous they couldn't even be called a mistake.

David Currie
91 Posted 04/03/2020 at 17:54:31
Jay 90,
You are correct and also add Clive cheating Thomas to that list. Horrible, Horrible man.
Antony Kelly
92 Posted 04/03/2020 at 23:53:52
I loved Carlo's passion on Saturday, even Ferguson was trying to hold him back!!!

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