Offside rule changed after Silva's goal against Villa

[es1]

was this offside too then? The rule change is a joke. That’s not the first time they’ve changed rules cos if the uproar after we benefited from the long-standing rule.

why would that be offside?

 

[Metalartin]

Wait, I thought "ability to play the ball" was still to do with the first touch. Which is when Mings chested the ball and they are finding a way to interpret whether a player has affected his ability to do that. Meaning they would have found a way to "interpret" that Rodri did affect Mings and disallow that goal. They do love to find new ways of disallowing City goals and allowing goals against afterall.

Are we sure that it really means Rodri would have to wait until Mings has passed it to another team mate? That sounds like it could throw up problems of it's own.

 

[@BluePhil8]

Personally dont have a problem with this. A bit farcical the fall out has been, but who cares really.

The law may well have meant he wasnt technically offside by the letter but anyone who believes he didnt benefit by being in an “offside position” is too blue tinted.
If that goes against us, I dont care what the “law” is, I’d feel hard done by. So if they’ve changed the interpretation to make that offside then good.

We were the better team and we won the game and deserved the win.

Not a problem, we’ve benefited once from a goal in an offside position since I’ve been born, and I’m nearly 30. This rule will probably effect us 2-3 times in the rest of my life.

What’s hilarious and sad in equal measure is the utterly predictable conspiring between United, Liverpool and the media whenever they get fucked in the ass and City are doing well.

There always has to be some ‘scandal’ no matter how artificial, like scoring a legitimate goal.

Bernardo’s ‘racist tweet’, let’s talk about it non-stop for 3 months whilst the FA investigate (literally took 3 months for his punishment to be handed down), question Pep about it at every press conference. Cavani does the exact same thing (worse to be fair), ignored for 3 weeks, punishment issued, glossed over, ancient history now.

The press in this country need to be taken to task, and there needs to be serious oversight and reform.

 

[prestonibbo_mcfc]

Just looked at the amendment, Rodri would now have to do 3 pirouettes, complete 1 full 360 round the target player, and a one handed press-up and a inverted Pike.

Turn around, touch the ground and baggsy not it.

 

[Chi-town blues]

but what about the corner kick chelsea player i think took twice just coz he miss hit the first time?
Where is the law ?

 

[BillCarlisle]

I thought football rules could only be changed by UEFA.

They haven't changed the law. They've added guidance to referees which means they've been able to change the law without actually changing the law !

 

[Brendan110_0]

Villa fans pointing to this. Even though THIS decision is wrong (or at least would be under FA's offside rules).

only one touch and not in control is why.

 

[Jesus H Gabz]

If only Mings had sliced the ball to Rodders & he duly dispatched the ball accordingly hmmmm methinks they would of been outlawing that instead right now....they really are laughable :)

 

[Chi-town blues]

They haven't changed the law. They've added guidance to referees which means they've been able to change the law without actually changing the law !

What is the process? Can they just change laws whenever or whoever see fit?

 

[St.Pauli support]

The rule change makes no difference, he challenged the second touch not the first one. VAR would give it.

Well, they were forced to change something and did,
while still being able to interpret the word "immediately" the way they like:


'Where a player in an offside position immediately impacts on an opponent who has deliberately played the ball, the match officials should prioritise challenging an opponent for the ball, and thus the offside offence of "interfering with an opponent by impacting on the opponent's ability to play the ball" should be penalised.'

 

[Mike Cledford]

Sets a dangerous precedent though that the governing body will take no time to think about it and change rules part-way through the season at the request of a few idiots.

Seriously, insanity.

Who is the governing body? PL, FA, FlFA, UEFA, PIGMOL? Is the whole of football in UK from the Championship down to grass roots and kids football now to implement the PL 'guidance'? Will there be different rules for games three days apart for players and officials to have to think about? Do we still have the PL rules made in a panic after a year of consideration and training of refs and players but all changed in the first couple of weeks in the 19-20 season and do these still differ for teams playing in European and international competition?
What a bloody mess.
And all for the 'Stop City at all Costs' brigade of which two of the biggest clubs still do not have the equipment to show people at matches what is happening.
Let's smack in a netfull tonight and go to the top in style.

 

[EdersonsSmiley]

So if we were to go back to the point where Mings controls the ball with his chest,(if we use the new rules) how long before Rodri can be involved in play without being classed as offside?

Can only assume never, otherwise where do you draw the line, 1 touch or 10 touches?

They have just made a rather simple rule (if people bothered to learn them) into something incredibly vague.

It's like a few years ago when they were saying people stood in an offside position were interfering with goalkeepers even if they were 3 ft to the side and the goal went in the other corner of the net.

Thankfully they realise that was a moronic interpretation and stopped doing it. Doesn't look like they've learnt any lessons though.

 

[NMB]

Would absolutely love it if West Brom score a similar goal tonight, and it has to be ruled out.

Even better if Villa score one against us in the return fixture

 

[hammocity]

Pleased the goal stood but it's an odd one, no question - not sure what the right interpretation should be there

It's far less clear now, this time last week there was no ambiguity.

 

[johnevans]

Two things regarding this completely unnecessary change..

First, this change will only add to the burden on officials (including VAR officials) regarding decisions on goals scored, causing extra delays and confusion, particularly for those of us in the crowd attending games when we get 'back to normal'.

Second, after the letters, the media coverage, FFP/CAS and so on and so on since 2008, anyone who still thinks there isn't an agenda which is anti-City is a complete numpty..

 

[meltonblue]

Wait I thought "ability to play the ball" was still to do with the first touch. Which is when Mings chested the ball and they are finding a way to interpret whether a player has affected his ability to do that.

Are we sure that it really means Rodri would have to wait until Mings has passed it to another team mate? That sounds like it could throw up problems of it's own.

It’s not saying that. It’s saying that if the challenge comes in immediately after a player has deliberately played the ball then that should be considered offside too, not just during that attempt to deliberately play it.

On a lot of occasions, it already was interpreted that way. That’s why this is additional guidance rather than a law change as such.

 

[BillCarlisle]

What is the process? Can they just change laws whenever or whoever see fit?

I think we all know the answer to that question. "Whoever" being the operative word.

 

[Berts Neck]

Will this mean an end to umpteen players purposely standing in an offside position for free kicks against us due to our high line? God I miss the days of teams charging out on masse with arms held aloft proclaiming offside

Exactly..surely this clarification means that if when the ball is kicked those who were offside cant come back on side and challenge a City player ? To be honest the Rodri scenario is a rarity and for once we got the benefit which was most unusual. What isnt a rarity is Salah and Rashford diving about trying to get penalties and never getting booked.Why is that never dealt with ? It makes a mockery of the game far more than us playing by the rules and scoring.

 

[bluebaja]

Slightly off topic but I still cannot understand why 'shielding' the ball by a defender to ensure it goes out for a goal kick is not classed as 'impeding'.

'A player may shield the ball by taking a position between an opponent and the ball if the ball is within playing distance and the opponent is not held off with the arms or body. If the ball is within playing distance, the player may be fairly charged by an opponent.' Law 12

 

[Chi-town blues]

New rule: assault city player and take them out for weeks without getting booked .