Media Thread 2020/21

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dirty Harry said:
or this


And look who's in the assistant refs ear having a go and trying to intimidate him, who was probably pointing out to Twattenberg that it should be disallowed for Nani handballing it.
Click to expand...

not the same as Rodri, as Rodri did nothing wrong unlike the utd player that handballed the ball, the utd player knew he had cheated by handball and that caused the confusion. ;)
 
domalino said:
I was going to come in and say it's worth pointing out the BBC didn't even mention the "controversy" in their headline or paid it any attention in the match report, they simply said something dismissive like "Mings was wrong, Rodri was not offside".


But when I went to link the piece this morning and dig out the quote, I noticed they've changed it significantly and added 2 articles about the decision.
Click to expand...
You’ve made me click on the BBC website again mate, which is something I didn’t want to do. But on the main BBC Football page, these 3 headlines are featured prominently (within the first 10 articles).


0Wv1QXx.jpg



BLhkQdi.jpg


‘farcical Man City goal’

‘it’s a rubbish law’

‘did you get juggling balls for Christmas?’

‘pathetic decision’

If there’s anyone left that can’t see what’s going on, or think that the BBC report fairly and honestly on us, then I really don’t know what to say.

The factual headline would be; ‘The Laws on Offside, why Man City’s goal stood’.

They are literally the Sun, Star, Guardian, Mail level of click bait - and we have to pay for it.
 
Dirty Harry said:
or this


And look who's in the assistant refs ear having a go and trying to intimidate him, who was probably pointing out to Twattenberg that it should be disallowed for Nani handballing it.
Click to expand...

Nah. No whistle. Keeper with ball in his hands. Ref had played advantage.
 
domalino said:
I was going to come in and say it's worth pointing out the BBC didn't even mention the "controversy" in their headline or paid it any attention in the match report, they simply said something dismissive like "Mings was wrong, Rodri was not offside".


But when I went to link the piece this morning and dig out the quote, I noticed they've changed it significantly and added 2 articles about the decision.
Click to expand...
One of the articles is titled "Its a Rubbish Law". If City win the league it will be "it's a rubbish league anyway" or "football is rubbish game anyway".
 
Let's be honest, we'd be fuming if Watkins was 10 yards offside, Stones intercepted a long Villa pass forward, and Watkins came from behind and nicked it off him. Usually you see forwards retreating back onside whilst purposely not getting back involved in the play for a few seconds, sometimes with their hands up to the ref as if to say 'I'm just getting back in position, not making a challenge'. The law is ridiculous, and for once I don't mind the headlines today. What would be nice is a bit of recollection that in truth, the goal was coming and we battered them.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
If Mings is judged to have not played the ball deliberately then the offside stands. That's the current law. People need to get their heads round this.

Can I suggest Netball Corky? https://www.simplenetball.co.uk/rules/
Click to expand...
but when rodri actually touches the ball he's onside, there are two villa defenders(full backs) playing him on
its all irrelevant
 
Jefferson Airplane said:
Let's be honest, we'd be fuming if Watkins was 10 yards offside, Stones intercepted a long Villa pass forward, and Watkins came from behind and nicked it off him. Usually you see forwards retreating back onside whilst purposely not getting back involved in the play for a few seconds, sometimes with their hands up to the ref as if to say 'I'm just getting back in position, not making a challenge'. The law is ridiculous, and for once I don't mind the headlines today. What would be nice is a bit of recollection that in truth, the goal was coming and we battered them.
Click to expand...
We'd be fuming at Stones without a doubt for screwing up.

Why is the law ridiculous? At what point would Rodri be considered onside if not immediately after Mings played the ball?
 
Invisible_Goat said:
Yeah that was it. You could see how angry and shocked Gundogan was afterwards. He didn't even make a challenge. Yet McManaman laughed, and with pure excitement said 'he's great at doing that'. What? Diving? Cheating?
Click to expand...
They knew Moss was a useless bent **** who would give the free kick. He didn’t let them down.
 
Jefferson Airplane said:
Let's be honest, we'd be fuming if Watkins was 10 yards offside, Stones intercepted a long Villa pass forward, and Watkins came from behind and nicked it off him. Usually you see forwards retreating back onside whilst purposely not getting back involved in the play for a few seconds, sometimes with their hands up to the ref as if to say 'I'm just getting back in position, not making a challenge'. The law is ridiculous, and for once I don't mind the headlines today. What would be nice is a bit of recollection that in truth, the goal was coming and we battered them.
Click to expand...
The law is spot on!

If you change the law because of this Rodri incident, then all incidents like the following would not be allowed to happen:

Two attacking players break through the defensive line, one was offside when the ball was played through, but the man receiving the ball wasn’t. The man reviving the ball has a poor shot straight at the keeper who controls the ball with his feet but is then tackled by the other attacker and the other attacker scores.

An attacking player is stood on his own in the box in an offside position. Another attacker tries to play the ball to him even though he’s offside. A defender intercepts the pass and has the ball but doesn’t know the attacker who was offside is there. He tries to pass the ball back to his goalkeeper but passes it straight through to the attacker who scores.

There will be many situations that are scrapped and ruined for attacking teams if you change the law because of this Rodri incident.

The very simple fact is, because Rodri did not challenge for the ball, or impede Mings at this very moment:
B2C15041-764D-48A6-8B33-B6D6AB9768F3.jpeg
he is not offside.

As soon as Mings controls the ball it sets up a fresh part of the football match, and anything that happened before it is wiped out. It doesn’t matter whatsoever that Rodri was in an offside position previously.

The law is absolutely spot on. There’s nothing at all wrong with it. It’s a positive, good, common sense law of the game that, for once, benefits the attacking team.
 
Psychedelic Casual said:
The law is spot on!

If you change the law because of this Rodri incident, then all incidents like the following would not be allowed to happen:

Two attacking players break through the defensive line, one was offside when the ball was played through, but the man receiving the ball wasn’t. The man reviving the ball has a poor shot straight at the keeper who controls the ball with his feet but is then tackled by the other attacker and the other attacker scores.

An attacking player is stood on his own in the box in an offside position. Another attacker tries to play the ball to him even though he’s offside. A defender intercepts the pass and has the ball but doesn’t know the attacker who was offside is there. He tries to pass the ball back to his goalkeeper but passes it straight through to the attacker who scores.

There will be many situations that are scrapped and ruined for attacking teams if you change the law because of this Rodri incident.

Thr very simple fact is, because Rodri did not challenge for the ball, or impede Mings at this very moment:
View attachment 8673
he is not offside.

And anything that happens after Mings controls the ball sets up a fresh part of the football match and anything that happens before it is wiped out.

The law is absolutely spot on. There’s nothing at all wrong with it. It’s a positive, good, common sense law of the game.
Click to expand...

I agree with the sentiment of this, I don’t think the law is spot on though unless it removes the reference to receiving the ball from the defender as it’s that that creates a lot of the ambiguity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GPB
meltonblue said:
I agree with the sentiment of this, I don’t think the law is spot on though unless it removes the reference to receiving the ball from the defender as it’s that that creates a lot of the ambiguity.
Click to expand...
That bit that Peter Walton corrected himself with after the game and that Robbie Savage circled and Tweeted last night, was the wrong part of the law that relates to this incident.

Rodri has not received the ball from the defender so you move on to the next part of the law that this incident relates to. Which states:

“a player moving from, or standing in, an offside position is in the way of an opponent and interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the ball this is an offside offence if it impacts on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball”.

As soon as Mings controls the ball with his chest, with no interference from Rodri, the play is fresh and Rodri can tackle Mings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top