Villa (H) Post Match Thread

[SidJames]

Rodri didn’t interfere with play when he was in the offside position. He actually wasn’t anywhere near him:

Then as soon as Mings deliberately controls the ball (chested it) (where Rodri is still not interfering with play), he starts a new phase of play and the offside is cancelled.
View attachment 8647


And only then did Rodri win the ball off him.

If Rodri had challenged for the ball before Mings chested it, he would have been offside, but he didn’t.

Well explained.

Shocking ex players one a defender. And a ex referee didnt get it. Although the chancer studio ref walked it back later.


Even worse for me was the clear penalty they say was not.

Hand in an unnatural position contacts with Ball.

Maybe it is just because it was us (Rhetorical obviously :-))

 

[Deleted member 77198]

Those two still frames actually sum up the point I’m trying to make. That the ground he’s made up ‘should’ constitute interfering with play.

Either way it’s a very intelligent move from Rodri to wait for that precise moment to challenge for the ball.

But it’s only the same as someone having a shot in the box and it rebounding out to somebody who was originally in an offside position but wasn’t when the shot was taken. If you change the law because the Rodri one seems extreme, you’re ruining the game for all the other incidents the law was brought in in the first place - to give the benefit to the attacking team.

The touch by Mings represents the exact same act as the shot by the player in my example^.

There’s far too much ‘protecting’ (for want of a better word) defences in this sport, especially with the newest offside laws where players are level but given offside because the thread on the sleeve of their shirt was offside.

 

[St.Pauli support]

I fully agree with the last point and I think the definition of being involved with play is the grey area.

If Rodri challenged Mings before he chested the ball, it would have been offside.

I seem to be in a minority here but I think running towards the ball from an offside position also constitutes interfering with play.

I think you mix that up with a player in a passive offside position is irritating the keeper when he moves towards the ball.

In this case of passive offside the keeper isn't involved. Rodri can move where he wants as long as Mings has a controlled ball touch first.

 

[john blue]

I sent an email to NBCSN regards that twat Higginbotham. Here’s what I said....


As a viewer of your excellent soccer coverage over the past seven years or so, I feel it is appropriate that you receive feedback relating to comments made by Mr.Danny Higginbotham following the Manchester City versus Aston Villa English Premier League game.

I recognize that his views and comments are purely his opinions, but his comments relating to Manchester City’s first goal show a complete lack of understanding of the rules of the game. For an ex-professional to express such a strong opinion while clearly not knowing, or understanding the rules of the game (in this case the offside rule), I would expect NBCSN to question whether he is qualified to be on your panel and you should seriously consider an alternative to ensure your high standards are mainta

I can tell your not a window cleaner. well said sir.

 

[Gundogan's Moustache]

Rodri didn’t interfere with play when he was in the offside position. He actually wasn’t anywhere near him:

Then as soon as Mings deliberately controls the ball (chested it) (where Rodri is still not interfering with play), he starts a new phase of play and the offside is cancelled.
View attachment 8647


And only then did Rodri win the ball off him.

If Rodri had challenged for the ball before Mings chested it, he would have been offside, but he didn’t.

If Mings had tried to head it back to his Keeper Rodri wouldn’t have been offside as he has deliberately played the ball. In the same way he deliberately chested it down and brought Rodri back into play

 

[Blue Mist]

Maybe that too,but it doesnt alter my point.

It doesnt alter the fact that you are wrong either.

 

[daztrueblue91]

so why are you saying its harsh

I’ve stated that I disagree with the rule and I’d be pissed off if it was given against us.

I’d also wager that if the decision went in Villa’s favour, this thread would be full of similar comments.

 

[Blue Mist]

Rodri gained 20 odd yards on Mings before he touched the ball. He was in the perfect position to dispossess him due to the run he had made from an offside position.

My argument isn’t that Rodri was offside because the law states he clearly wasn’t, it’s that the law should change so Rodri should be offside.

So a law that has stood for many many years without complaint should be changed because City scored a perfectly legitimate goal.
Yeh seems fair to me that.

You do know you are on a Manchester City site dont you,

 

[Blue Til Death]

I’ve stated that I disagree with the rule and I’d be pissed off if it was given against us.

I’d also wager that if the decision went in Villa’s favour, this thread would be full of similar comments.

I bet some fans the Villa forum wouldn’t be discussing how the rule needs changing to deny them a goal though...!

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

Quite bizarre that some are arguing about a CORRECT offside decision in a game we WON.