Its like SKY and BT have had an argument over who gets to avoid showing it... Amazon have come along and gone... Eh Eh Eh, calm down, calm down - Just give it to that lot over at t'BBC
For tenth choice on a weekend, that isn’t a bad game, relegation 6 pointer
By the letter of the law that wasn't offside, unless you genuinely believe that Ming's deliberately played the ball to the Man City player. Rodri is offside as soon as he challenges for the ball, he can only be offside if Mings plays the ball (rather than deflecting the ball, or saving it) to him, which clearly he didn't.
By the letter of the law that was offside, unless you genuinely believe that Ming's deliberately played the ball to the Man City player. Rodri is offside as soon as he challenges for the ball, he can only be offside if Mings plays the ball (rather than deflecting the mall, or saving it) to him, which clearly he didn't.
Which I what I don't understand because we see it virtually every game when a player comes back from an offside position to challenge for a ball (usually just inside the opponents half) & as soon as he goes near the ball he is flagged. Now lots of times the defender has gone for the ball & most times plays it........so what's the difference ??
Strikers should start doing that more often if its going be classed as onside
Shame fans aren't allowed into grounds as there would be an uproar on Saturday when it happens (as it will). I just hope a manager or two stand up to these idiots & take the players off the pitch if an offside is now given in similar circumstances. The officials don't know their arse from their elbow.
By the letter of the law that was offside, unless you genuinely believe that Ming's deliberately played the ball to the Man City player. Rodri is offside as soon as he challenges for the ball, he can only be offside if Mings plays the ball (rather than deflecting the mall, or saving it) to him, which clearly he didn't.
Which I what I don't understand because we see it virtually every game when a player comes back from an offside position to challenge for a ball (usually just inside the opponents half) & as soon as he goes near the ball he is flagged. Now lots of times the defender has gone for the ball & most times plays it........so what's the difference ??
The goal was allowed because the attacking player didn't challenge the defender Mings, but only went for the ball after Mings had touched it on.
I don't agree with the law, but according to the law, the goal should stand
Strikers should start doing that more often if its going be classed as onside
Shame fans aren't allowed into grounds as there would be an uproar on Saturday when it happens (as it will). I just hope a manager or two stand up to these idiots & take the players off the pitch if an offside is now given in similar circumstances. The officials don't know their arse from their elbow.
Im confused as to why you are still blaming the officials, The Premier League have said it was the correct decision, they have shown its in the rulebook and the officials went by the official rule book.
The goal tonight was legal and there is nothing they did wrong in that case
By the letter of the law that was offside, unless you genuinely believe that Ming's deliberately played the ball to the Man City player. Rodri is offside as soon as he challenges for the ball, he can only be offside if Mings plays the ball (rather than deflecting the mall, or saving it) to him, which clearly he didn't.
Which I what I don't understand because we see it virtually every game when a player comes back from an offside position to challenge for a ball (usually just inside the opponents half) & as soon as he goes near the ball he is flagged. Now lots of times the defender has gone for the ball & most times plays it........so what's the difference ??
The goal was allowed because the attacking player didn't challenge the defender Mings, but only went for the ball after Mings had touched it on.
I don't agree with the law, but according to the law, the goal should stand
Sorry, but that's bollox. As I said in the post you quoted it happens every week where an attacker comes back from being offside (usually from a goal kick) and the defender plays the ball. Usually the defender doesn't get the chance to play the ball as the lino raises his flag. Not sure why the lino didn't in this case (don't tell me its because he new this obscure "law" that we are now all debating) - I expect its because in the Prem lino's are told not to raise their flags too much & leave it to VAR.
I'll be watching out over the next few weeks & will happily point out how many times the same incident occurs - with the attacker being given offside every time.
Strikers should start doing that more often if its going be classed as onside
Shame fans aren't allowed into grounds as there would be an uproar on Saturday when it happens (as it will). I just hope a manager or two stand up to these idiots & take the players off the pitch if an offside is now given in similar circumstances. The officials don't know their arse from their elbow.
Im confused as to why you are still blaming the officials, The Premier League have said it was the correct decision, they have shown its in the rulebook and the officials went by the official rule book.
The goal tonight was legal and there is nothing they did wrong in that case
As just said above, the lino probably didn't do anything as he assumed VAR would step in. And it's always a VAR or referee representative that pops up with some "clarity" afterwards. Never the ref himself. You see them in the VAR hut mulling over what obscure reason they can come up this time to defend the officials.
Strikers should start doing that more often if its going be classed as onside
Shame fans aren't allowed into grounds as there would be an uproar on Saturday when it happens (as it will). I just hope a manager or two stand up to these idiots & take the players off the pitch if an offside is now given in similar circumstances. The officials don't know their arse from their elbow.
Im confused as to why you are still blaming the officials, The Premier League have said it was the correct decision, they have shown its in the rulebook and the officials went by the official rule book.
The goal tonight was legal and there is nothing they did wrong in that case
As just said above, the lino probably didn't do anything as he assumed VAR would step in. And it's always a VAR or referee representative that pops up with some "clarity" afterwards. Never the ref himself. You see them in the VAR hut mulling over what obscure reason they can come up this time to defend the officials.
But its a law thats written in the rules of the game not some random thing they have come up with.
You can blame Mings and say he should've cleared it but he probably thinks he has all the time in the world because Rodri was 10 yards offside. It's crazy that the guy can gain an advantage by coming back from yards offside to tackle a defender as soon as he's touched the ball and assist a goal.
I can see why by the letter of the law it was given but that's a mental decision.
The above says to me that the city player wouldn’t have been offside if say Mings had played a short back pass to his keeper and the attacking player ran on and scored. However he tackled him, he didn’t ‘receive the ball’.
Then we have the following which I read as Rodri tackling Mings from an offside position and therefore being offside;
By the letter of the law that was offside, unless you genuinely believe that Ming's deliberately played the ball to the Man City player. Rodri is offside as soon as he challenges for the ball, he can only be offside if Mings plays the ball (rather than deflecting the mall, or saving it) to him, which clearly he didn't.
Which I what I don't understand because we see it virtually every game when a player comes back from an offside position to challenge for a ball (usually just inside the opponents half) & as soon as he goes near the ball he is flagged. Now lots of times the defender has gone for the ball & most times plays it........so what's the difference ??
The goal was allowed because the attacking player didn't challenge the defender Mings, but only went for the ball after Mings had touched it on.
I don't agree with the law, but according to the law, the goal should stand
I'll be watching out over the next few weeks & will happily point out how many times the same incident occurs - with the attacker being given offside every time.
The Premier League have clarified that the correcr decision was made because Mings deliberately touched the ball it made Rodri onside
I am a bit confused to all this uproar, i have always thought this was the rule. Feel free to correct me someone, but pre all the change in offside rules i am sure it used to be the same or similar. Although it seems ridiculous still
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">No, the law doesn’t need changing. The rule is explained in bullet point 4. It states you can not challenge an opponent for the ball and that is exactly what happened <a href="https://t.co/exzjdaCM01">pic.twitter.com/exzjdaCM01</a></p>— The Shep (@Jonshepy) <a href="
If Mings had controlled it, looked around a bit for a pass etc, fine. But he basically struggled to chest it while it was coming at his throat, and hadn't really got the second touch in before Rodri was tacking him.
There isn't any doubt, Mings tried to control it and play it out. As soon as that happens its not offside the player coming back. People may disagree but its the rule lol
There isn't any doubt, Mings tried to control it and play it out. As soon as that happens its not offside the player coming back. People may disagree but its the rule lol
I think you can argue that Rodri "prevented an opponent from being able to play the ball".
I guess it comes down to how much you see Mings as controlling it before the challenge or being challenged originally.
There isn't any doubt, Mings tried to control it and play it out. As soon as that happens its not offside the player coming back. People may disagree but its the rule lol
It is the rule but it isn't applied correctly 99.9% of the time
Comments
I don't agree with the law, but according to the law, the goal should stand
The goal tonight was legal and there is nothing they did wrong in that case
I'll be watching out over the next few weeks & will happily point out how many times the same incident occurs - with the attacker being given offside every time.
I can see why by the letter of the law it was given but that's a mental decision.
65m is looking a bargain considering how many years he could be there.
Then we have the following which I read as Rodri tackling Mings from an offside position and therefore being offside;
At amateur level you got no chance and that decision would have caused uproar.
This is how I see it too.
If Mings had controlled it, looked around a bit for a pass etc, fine. But he basically struggled to chest it while it was coming at his throat, and hadn't really got the second touch in before Rodri was tacking him.
I guess it comes down to how much you see Mings as controlling it before the challenge or being challenged originally.
She reckons it was offside onside
Aguero tests positive. He was already self isolating