Media Discussion - 2023/24

[Maly]

I'm still waiting for someone to show me where the goal shouldn't stand according to the current Laws of the Game.
No apology from Webb and no official complaint from Fulham.
You're entitled to your opinion however everything I've stated above is fact and anything else is just white noise.

You stated that Leno should’ve known Akanji was offside, so shouldn’t have dived late

That isn’t a fact bud, that’s your opinion & I don’t believe it’s correct. Players play to the whistle, so he has to presume Akanji is onside. The law actually states you’re interfering with play by

• making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

So to put it another way, does the keeper dive earlier & therefore save the ball if Akanji isn’t there? If the answer is yes, it should be offside & I think the answer is clearly yes

It’s the same law as the Fernandes/Rashford bollocks from last season mate. I think both should be disallowed

Edit: Webb has admitted they got it wrong for the reasons above dude

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66724505

 

[Pingu the Penguin]

You stated that Leno should’ve known Akanji was offside, so shouldn’t have dived late

That isn’t a fact bud, that’s your opinion & I don’t believe it’s correct. Players play to the whistle, so he has to presume Akanji is onside. The law actually states you’re interfering with play by

• making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

So to put it another way, does the keeper dive earlier & therefore save the ball if Akanji isn’t there? If the answer is yes, it should be offside & I think the answer is clearly yes

It’s the same law as the Fernandes/Rashford bollocks from last season mate. I think both should be disallowed

Edit: Webb has admitted they got it wrong for the reasons above dude

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66724505

The keeper paused his dive. Clearly. It was offside. IMHO

 

[adelaideblue]

You stated that Leno should’ve known Akanji was offside, so shouldn’t have dived late

That isn’t a fact bud, that’s your opinion & I don’t believe it’s correct. Players play to the whistle, so he has to presume Akanji is onside. The law actually states you’re interfering with play by

• making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

So to put it another way, does the keeper dive earlier & therefore save the ball if Akanji isn’t there? If the answer is yes, it should be offside & I think the answer is clearly yes

It’s the same law as the Fernandes/Rashford bollocks from last season mate. I think both should be disallowed

Edit: Webb has admitted they got it wrong for the reasons above dude

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66724505

Yes but the VAR even said it was subjective, so Webbs is just his opinion. i guess it comes down to what is an obvious action - and did it impact the keepers ability to save the ball. you could argue he still had the opportunity to save it. Anyway move on Liverpool had similar goal to some degree and no real debate on that one.

 

[Shirley]

With all the fuss over a kiss in Spain a rapist is being greeted as a hero…

 

[mexico1970]

With all the fuss over a kiss in Spain a rapist is being greeted as a hero…

His victim is clapping as loudly as anyone in Spain too ;)

 

[LongsightM13]

They were already fucked and breathing out of their arses at 30 minutes
Offside or not it had absolutely zero bearing on the result. Fuck all. Nothing. Nada.
We were always going to smash them second half.
We know it, they know it. Everything else is fairytale bullshit.

 

[halfcenturyup]

If Akanji touches the ball, even the slightest waft, then it's offside. So why didn't Leno just dive where Ake put the ball, and that way he either saves it, can't get to it anyway, or gets to claim it was deflected.

That said, I can understand why they weren't happy. But you expect your players to play the game committed and not rely on telling tales to the referee to get out of jail.

First point, because he wouldn't know for sure Akanji was offside. Who is to say there wouldn't have been a defender near the corner flag or out of his vision? He isn't a goldfish with eyes in the side of his head.

Second point. All goalkeepers claim offside for nearly every goal. It's a defense mechanism that doesn't mean anything. Ederson did it for Fulham's goal, and Sheffield Utd's goal last week, rather hopefully iirc.

But you are right about the decision, if the referees are applying their interpretations consistently (with the Rashford non-offside justification, for example), then Akanji wasn't offside, although personally I think it's a stupid interpretation.

 

[eversince 76]

I'm not going to debate the offside any more. But going in at 2-1 up was hugely significant. Fulham came here against a City team that was pretty poor first half. They'd come back straight after we scored and would have been absolutely delighted to go in at 1-1. We all knew City would play better and after 1-1 Fulham might have got away with it but being 2-1 down was a killer

Than you havent seen a lot of City games played under Pep.

And the way you put it says more about the Fulham attitude of the squad. If they felt wrongly treated they should’ve come out firing the 2nd half. They came back vs Arsenal only a week ago after falling behind with only 10 minutes to go and a man down?!
5-1. We scored 3. And gave away one chance. All this because of a wrongly given goal on the stroke of HT ? No.

When the rags beat us last year. Now THAT was a game changer.

 

[Blueboy73]

You stated that Leno should’ve known Akanji was offside, so shouldn’t have dived late

That isn’t a fact bud, that’s your opinion & I don’t believe it’s correct. Players play to the whistle, so he has to presume Akanji is onside. The law actually states you’re interfering with play by

• making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

So to put it another way, does the keeper dive earlier & therefore save the ball if Akanji isn’t there? If the answer is yes, it should be offside & I think the answer is clearly yes

It’s the same law as the Fernandes/Rashford bollocks from last season mate. I think both should be disallowed

Edit: Webb has admitted they got it wrong for the reasons above dude

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66724505

Sorry but I don't agree with that at all.

The very best forwards don't assume a defender is going to cut out a pass when making an attacking run and sometimes if a defender fails to cut out a through ball and the attacker scores, they are praised for anticipating this.

Whether Leno dived late or not is a moot point anyway, if you read the offside law Akanji is not making an obvious action or blocking Leno's line of sigjt.
As a highly paid professional he should also play to the whistle and the very best goalkeepers will do this.
Leno's failed to play to the whistle and there is also an argument that he wouldn't have reached the header anyway.

The Rashford/ Fernández "goal" is completely different for reasons already outlined previously debated in depth as an obvious was made by Rashford to impede his opponents.

What Webb actually said was his opinion but the fact remains that nobody has come up with a valid reason to disallow the goal based on the laws of the game.

Webb apologised to Wolves but hasn't apologised to Fulham.
Fulham have not complained either.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

You stated that Leno should’ve known Akanji was offside, so shouldn’t have dived late

That isn’t a fact bud, that’s your opinion & I don’t believe it’s correct. Players play to the whistle, so he has to presume Akanji is onside. The law actually states you’re interfering with play by

• making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

So to put it another way, does the keeper dive earlier & therefore save the ball if Akanji isn’t there? If the answer is yes, it should be offside & I think the answer is clearly yes

It’s the same law as the Fernandes/Rashford bollocks from last season mate. I think both should be disallowed

Edit: Webb has admitted they got it wrong for the reasons above dude

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66724505

It seems to me, and did after the Rashford instance, that the goals stood because the "clearly impacts" was being interpreted as a physical block to get to the ball.

Both goals were aided by the goalkeeper being impacted in a mental manner - no Rashford, and Ederson clears it; no Akanji and the keeper doesn't hesitate.

As you say, it's the same argument IMO for both instances. None or both are the options.