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.

 

[sir baconface]

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.

Let it go and enjoy the win, mate. Anyone would think we wuz robbed.

 

[brazilians hurt]

Maybe if the dozy twonk wasn't busy chewing gum during a professional football match like a nightclub tart giving it the big I am he would have seen Rodri sneaking in. Fuck him. No one else to blame. Might be a daft law to some but its the law for now. Ergo, its a fuckin goal.

Absolute this Mings could have headed it clear but the big headed get that he is took it on his chest because he thinks he’s John Stones. He’s not the rest is history.
I was thinking all though the game sooner or later that he would fuck up. You can’t have the luck he had with all those blocks without some payback

 

[The1nvisibleMan]

Hopefully we thus will push on us and we can win all games going into the pool one. Should give us a good indicator of how things will go

 

[ChicagoBlue]

For an ex-professional

That is NOT how you spell “rag bastard!” ;-)

I watch same game and show as you, and it is amazing how much they want to inject emotion and wishes into the Laws of the Game.

Old pros always seem wistful for the way it used to be, with Higginbotham even admitting there are numerous rules he doesn’t like and would change!

WHO CARES?! The Laws are the Laws, and you can’t pick and choose which ones you like, you rag bastard!!!

 

[yerwot?]

very disappointing,, not probably the most entertaining game so far, the post-match thread. After 80+ pages rehashing the incident with Mings over and over again it is probably the most boring thread...ever

 

[city saint]

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.

tbf mate years ago i would agree but this rule has been in for years only rags and dippers kicking off.its a modern goal that if its in the rules its a goal despite people hankering for the old days.for what its worth i also preferred it when offside was offside but the modern game trys to give the attackers the advantage until v a r that is

 

[Chris B]

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.

Well, the way things go with football I’m sure it won’t be too long till you can test that theory. Personally, I can’t see anyone having a problem with someone tackling a player dawdling on the ball too long in a dangerous area of the pitch.

The handball that went our way this time is more arguable, but like all teams we’ve had plenty of those go against us before.

 

[brazilians hurt]

Yep he’s had a shocker today. If he had any insight he’d be embarrassed tomorrow.

Pundit my arse - he’s a complete tool. How the fuck BT don’t give him a straight red is beyond me.

 

[WEMBLEY76]

Great win against a decent Villa team for a change,Dias was masterful with his clearance before the first goal,had to laugh when the BT commentator said Gundogan scored the first,then didn’t correct himself.

 

[the-ecstacy-of-eight]

but there main aim was to try and nick the game on the break...

...and dive almost every time they got into a position where a dangerous free-kick could be taken from. And scream for the ref to give a penalty EVERY time they shot at goal and it hit any part of a defender. They're simply copying LiVARpool's blueprint on how to master the art of VAR. Funny how it works for some and not for others, isn't it? ;)