I agree he's fortunate.
Ferguson had spent the entire 2nd half berating the officials. This probably saved Valencia.
Fixed.

I agree he's fortunate.
Ferguson had spent the entire 2nd half berating the officials. This probably saved Valencia.

The Laws have a section on interpretation. They are very clear but not exactly common sense. 'Interfering with play' means playing or touching the ball - he didn't do this. 'Gaining an advantage' means playing a ball that rebounds to him - he didn't do this. 'Interfering with an opponent' means preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponents line of vision or movements or making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent. This is the interesting one for this incident, but the law says he must be doing this 'at the moment the ball is played by one of his team' so in your description above he is not offside.I'm amazed so many people think Dean got it right.
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/explaining-the-offside-law-law-11.html
Simpson was crossing for Cisse who was in an offside position when the ball was played. Cisse was in the centre of the penalty area, marked by Evans and ran to meet the ball, which ultimately Evans, under pressure from him, met first. How is Cisse not interfering with play in this scenario? Some of the interpretations of the law to justify the ref's decision are ridiculously far fetched. And what difference does it make that Evans diverted the ball into the net rather than it reaching Cisse in his offside position?
I'm amazed so many people think Dean got it right.
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/explaining-the-offside-law-law-11.html
Simpson was crossing for Cisse who was in an offside position when the ball was played. Cisse was in the centre of the penalty area, marked by Evans and ran to meet the ball, which ultimately Evans, under pressure from him, met first. How is Cisse not interfering with play in this scenario? Some of the interpretations of the law to justify the ref's decision are ridiculously far fetched. And what difference does it make that Evans diverted the ball into the net rather than it reaching Cisse in his offside position?
You're considering it as a cross by Simpson, Lidls. Most people felt that it was actually a shot.
I think that Cisse's offside, though. Not sure how he's not interfering when he's in contact with Evans and he tries to get to the ball, too.
Ferguson and Valencia should've both been dismissed, though.
How this isn't a yellow card is beyond me:
You must log in or register to see images
I'm amazed so many people think Dean got it right.
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/explaining-the-offside-law-law-11.html
Simpson was crossing for Cisse who was in an offside position when the ball was played. Cisse was in the centre of the penalty area, marked by Evans and ran to meet the ball, which ultimately Evans, under pressure from him, met first. How is Cisse not interfering with play in this scenario? Some of the interpretations of the law to justify the ref's decision are ridiculously far fetched. And what difference does it make that Evans diverted the ball into the net rather than it reaching Cisse in his offside position?

No Luke, two things, as PNP rightly says, Simpsons effort was not a pass/cross. The way he shapes to strike the ball says to me it was a mishit shot. Contact between the 2 players is 50/50, but started by Evans, read your link, it is NOT an offence to be in an OS position in itself. Had the shot flew in at De Gea's near post with Evan and Cisse in the same position, the goal would have stood, the fact it went in via Evans is neither here nor there, had it gone in via Cisse, then OS it is. Cisse did not gain advantage, nor did he intentionally and blatantly obstruct Evans, or obstruct De Gea's view.
Secondly, and far more revealing is that Rio watches the whole thing in front of him, and neither he nor any other United player in view put their hands up for OS (see end of vid) ....what does that tell us!!
[video=youtube;RSbscHjbh3U]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSbscHjbh3U[/video]
for his rather hastily raised flag. Easily analyized afterwards but in the cauldron of OT, it adds weight to officials hoping to do the right thing. Fair play to Mike Dean for his decision, not easy knowing that it'll upset OT. In all honesty I think it was the right call.This all comes full circle back to the issue of consistency among officials. Decisions like whether a player is interfering with play, or not, are clearly subjective. Therefore, the way Dean interprets the incident could be seen completely differently by another Ref. So, as much as everybody would like to have consistency amongst officiating, while the laws of the game allow for so much to be left to the referee's interpretation, it ain't going to happen.

Exactly right, NSIS
Which is why you can argue for or against Dean's decision on Boxing Day and have a plausible case either way. The rules on offside are not clear enough on this crucial issue. It shouldn't be decided by the subjective view of the ref, who, in this case was at odds with his linesman!
I agree that subjectivity sounds like a bad thing but it's really not and you need to be able to rely on the ref being able to account for the situation. Like I'm sure it's against the rules for someone to push another player yet I don't think anyone would suggest that Evans should have conceded a penalty for what he did. Then there's kicking other players, surely that's dangerous play and warrants a red? No one agreed with the ref who sent off Cole and Gibson. There has to be the wiggle room to apply commonsense at times and offside's no different. The only other options are to write a 500 page book going through thousands of offside calls so each conceivable call an official has to make will have a case study they can use to back up their decision or they could make it so that if any player is ever offside during a game then the lino flags and those ideas are ****.
Everyone's pretty clear on the offside rule, there aren't many times people differ over the interpretation and I think it stands as a success story of the FA coming out and explaining the rule to the refs, players, media and fans to clear up 99% of the time what the right decision is. Now they need to pull their fingers out and sort out handballs once and for all because there's a growing number of other problems piling up behind it to also be sorted. Diving's one and obstructing the keeper.. oh and holding players at set pieces... and referee's reports... bad language between players... what chants fans can and can't chant... terraces... ffp and so on.
This question of whether a player is interfering with play is far too subjective though, YV.
If your opposition's centre forward is in the centre of the penalty area, 8 yards from goal, anticipating a cross, then he's playing an active part in the game, whichever way you look at it. To say that he is deemerd onside because he was jostling with a centre half, who intercepted the ball before he could touch it or because the player who delivered the ball may (or may not) have shot at goal rather than crossed is wholly artificial.
The player's position on the pitch when the ball is delivered should determine whether he is on/offside, not a subjective evaluation of what his role in subsequent events may or may not have been. It's impossible to expect a consistent interpretation of that latter point.
This question of whether a player is interfering with play is far too subjective though, YV.
If your opposition's centre forward is in the centre of the penalty area, 8 yards from goal, anticipating a cross, then he's playing an active part in the game, whichever way you look at it. To say that he is deemerd onside because he was jostling with a centre half, who intercepted the ball before he could touch it or because the player who delivered the ball may (or may not) have shot at goal rather than crossed is wholly artificial.
The player's position on the pitch when the ball is delivered should determine whether he is on/offside, not a subjective evaluation of what his role in subsequent events may or may not have been. It's impossible to expect a consistent interpretation of that latter point.
Points have been about the particular incident, but as a general principle is that a player is offside if he is caught if he is nearer to the goal than the ball and the second-last opponent when the ball is played by his teammate and is involved in active play.
I remain to be convinced than a player is in the centre of goal, 8 yards out, ready to meet the ball delivered in his direction, occupying defenders and in the line of sight of the 'keeper is not "active". He is clearly part of the attacking move whether or not the ball reaches him. This is where the issue becomes very subjective.
Going back to the Evans/Cisse case, it was the presence of Cisse which pressurised Evans into an error; in simple terms, he benefited from his offside position. He didn't become less active because he failed to touch the ball. However, I do accept in the case that if Simpson shot at goal rather than crossed, then, as others have said, it's a different issue.
Points have been about the particular incident, but as a general principle is that a player is offside if he is caught if he is nearer to the goal than the ball and the second-last opponent when the ball is played by his teammate and is involved in active play.
I remain to be convinced than a player is in the centre of goal, 8 yards out, ready to meet the ball delivered in his direction, occupying defenders and in the line of sight of the 'keeper is not "active". He is clearly part of the attacking move whether or not the ball reaches him. This is where the issue becomes very subjective.
Going back to the Evans/Cisse case, it was the presence of Cisse which pressurised Evans into an error; in simple terms, he benefited from his offside position. He didn't become less active because he failed to touch the ball. However, I do accept in the case that if Simpson shot at goal rather than crossed, then, as others have said, it's a different issue.