Media Discussion - 2023/24

Status
Not open for further replies.
I’ve just been reading the MEN and find that our friend Webb should be officiating every single PL game, such is his infallibility. He has “admitted” that City’s second should have been ruled ou, presumably on behalf of the ref and VAR! This is ntohis opinion but a statement of divine law. Thank yo, MUEN.
 
MillionMilesAway said:
I was referring to the Women's World Cup, as the comment I replied to referred mentioned Hemp.
Click to expand...
Surprised it hasn't been mentioned anywhere, but it would make sense that it's included (and typical of football that they didn't think about announcing it was, when all the fuss was made about the changes originally).

Half the tournament was before the July cut off, so unless they want to count the group stage this year, and the knockout rounds next year :/
 
bluenova said:
Surprised it hasn't been mentioned anywhere, but it would make sense that it's included (and typical of football that they didn't think about announcing it was, when all the fuss was made about the changes originally).

Half the tournament was before the July cut off, so unless they want to count the group stage this year, and the knockout rounds next year :/
Click to expand...

It's a bit strange, isn't it? I think they have probably included all of it but haven't seen a statement that it has. 6 Spaniards suggests it has.
 
halfcenturyup said:
That's a pretty literal interpretation of the LOTG tbf.

All we ask for is consistency in how the rules are applied. Either a player in an offside position can affect a keeper's decision making and become active, or he can't. They can't have one rule for Rashford and one for Akanji.
Click to expand...
A pretty literal interpretation is how it should always be imo. As soon as you deviate from it you run into the lack of consistency issue that you mention. And quell surprise, we all know which teams get favoured then!!
 
Keeper! said:
It was clearly offside , any other interpretation is a crock.

VAR is superb IF used correctly.

Sadly the PL referees and execs are utterly and totally incompetent and VAR in this current format is helping to tarnish the spectacle of the beautiful game.
Click to expand...
Not according to the laws as they are written today its not

These types of goals have been given for years. Spuds scored with Defoe stood next to Hart a decade ago. Never any controversy. Just given and move on. A bit like the Salah goal at the weekend. Hardly a murmur. Surprised some City fans still fall for it.

Having heard the audio over the last few days and the complete absence of any actual reference to the LOTG when reviewing incidents, its no wonder we are in the state we are in. I’d love to give PGMOL A test on the current offside law as its written today. I’m betting none of them would know it!!

*edit* found a still from the Spuds game for reference, 12 years ago!! Uncanny
 

Attachments

  • E115BE96-8AD8-402F-ADE9-BE4E0B9383FF.jpeg
    E115BE96-8AD8-402F-ADE9-BE4E0B9383FF.jpeg
    1.2 MB · Views: 76
Last edited:
Spurs quarter 69 said:
Can only say had that decision been given against City would have been pig sick. Also offside against rags on Sunday harsh as near level as could be, what happened to giving benefit of doubt to attacker. Mind you rags have many decisions the other way including an overturned penno in the same match can't say I'm sympathetic.
Click to expand...
Its a line decision. No “benefit of doubt” comes into it. Just like goal line decisions. Its a misconception from some fans.

“Oh it was nearly over the line, its United just give it anyway” is where we’d end up if that mindset was allowed to creep in.
 
Shirley said:
Strange article….

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk

Premier League FFP charges for Man City could cause 'mutiny' as UEFA warned

Manchester City are preparing their evidence to refute strong accusations from the Premier League that could change the game
www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk
Click to expand...
I didn’t think it was strange at all. Just providing some expert opinion on the enormity of the charges and consequences……should the charges not be we’ll thought out and evidenced.

Personally, I hope we take the PL to the cleaners and bankrupt them in court. I also hope we dish the dirt on other PL clubs and ask at what stage their investigations are at……we all know the answer to that
 
Trevor Morley's Tache said:
Can someone please summarise, as I flatly refuse to give that Rag biased toilet paper, or any other Reach plc publication internet clicks?
Click to expand...
2 Liverpool fans who happen to lecture on law in Sheffield want the PL to be sure they have proper evidence to convict city. Their feeling is that the charges were brought to show that PL execs are hard cunts who take no shit…and prior to the govt bringing in an external body to take over PL housekeeping relating to regulating members.
 
Keeper! said:
It was clearly offside , any other interpretation is a crock.

VAR is superb IF used correctly.

Sadly the PL referees and execs are utterly and totally incompetent and VAR in this current format is helping to tarnish the spectacle of the beautiful game.
Click to expand...

So many pundits, fans and ex players saying Akanji was in the goalkeepers line of site of the ball. When Ake headed the ball Akanji was yards to the keepers right. That is why Leno had to dive to try and make a save. IMO whether Akanji was there or not he would not have got to the ball.

However, Akanji moved his legs to avoid touching the ball and it is this movement that seems to be the crux of causing Leno to instinctively adjust his dive thinking Leno was going to divert it.

How far does a player have to be right or left of a keeper to be deemed not interfering with play? I think Phil took the corner....if he had taken his cock out after crossing it would he be offside for distracting Leno during his dive?
 
Last edited:
halfcenturyup said:
That's a pretty literal interpretation of the LOTG tbf.

All we ask for is consistency in how the rules are applied. Either a player in an offside position can affect a keeper's decision making and become active, or he can't. They can't have one rule for Rashford and one for Akanji.
Click to expand...
Surely, laws should always be interpreted literally. There is no room for ambiguity in law making.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top