Media Discussion - 2023/24

[Bluearmy]

Amused by the faux outrage in ALL the media about the Ake/Akanji "offside" goal. Seems Fulham were robbed of 3 points ( despite City actually winning 5-1 ) . Silly Simon Stone's opening RANT for the BBC yesterday was a classic - his report concentrated in its entirety on the Ake goal - Oliver and VAR were apparently complicit in the worst refereeing decision in footballing history.

Some contributors to this forum drew comparisons to the St Marcus / Ratface / Attwell offside goal against City early this year. At the time, Herr Webb commented that the goal could stand under the letter of the law ( it shouldn't have ) but it was not within "the spirit of the game " . The Laws of The Game specifically avoids subjective notions as to what "interfering with play is" and tries to to put down in objective terms what is and is not offside. Thus :

THE LAWS OF THE GAME ( 11 ) OFFSIDE

1. Offside Position

We can all agree that Akanji ( and of course St Marcus ) were in offside positions But...to quote the rules:-

"......... It is not necessarily an offence to be in an offside position"

2. " A player in an offside position is only penalised if " :

(a) "he is interfering with play (by his) playing or touching the ball"

Akanji deliberately disengages with play by taking avoiding action to prevent his touching the ball

(b) "prevents an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the line of vision"

At no time was the Fulham Keeper's view of the ball obstructed by Akanji's position.

(c) "clearly attempting to play a ball which is close ( to him )

Akanji deliberately takes action to avoid his touching the ball

(d) " Makes an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play a ball"

Akanji simply raises his foot to avoid touching the ball with no Fulham player near him.

So IMHO , I have to admit that Oliver and VAR, under the letter of the law, were quite right in letting the goal stand. Anyway, must dash - have to watch MOTD - I believe Liverpool had a far more contentious offside goal "allowed" without VAR intervening ! ( and the rags lost too - deep into Fergie Time... Happy days ! ) But will the media even mention Salah's positioning ?

Why can you (no offence intended) clearly follow the law coherently to get to the decision the law requires, however those pricks at PGMOL cant….

 

[Bluearmy]

Further to the above, let us not forget, the faux outrage at Ake's goal is the media's attempt to divert attention away from the incessant corrupt decisions given in favour of the rags. "You point to bad decisions given in favour of ManU - what about that farcical decision given in favour of Man City ! "
The precise wording of the Offside Law is as follows :
A player in an offside position is not necessarily offside. That player is deemed offside in the following circumstances
(a) If interfering with play by ........ (his) touching a ball
(b) Interfering with play by playing ..... a ball
Interfering with an opponent by :
(c) preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent's line of vision.
(d) challenging an opponent for the ball
(e) clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent...
...or (f) makes an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball.

Gallagher and Webb's contribution to the debate about Ake's goal are interesting.
The clown Dermot Gallagher - having received his instructions from above - and clearly being prompted by the presenter to toe the party line - denounces the decision to let Ake's goal stand ( " a really poor decision" ) Gallagher argues that (c) + (e) are relevant. But the t.v. view from behind the goal confirms the Fulham Keeper had a clear view of the ball from the moment it left Ake's head. And Sorry Dermot - Akanji does NOT attempt to play the ball - he does the precise opposite and takes avoiding action to ensure he does not play the ball.

What was the judgement of Howard Webb ?. He judges that it was a wrong decision to allow the goal because the keeper delays his dive as a result of Akanji's actions. Webb is rewording (f) to make a case. Akanji's presence may well have influenced the keeper's thought process and delayed his dive but Akanji in no way impacts on the keeper's ability to play the ball. ( That is the wording of the law ) If Webb's reasoning was valid then any goal scored with a player in offside position could be chalked off.
So Webb reinvents the Laws of Football ! Looking back at that most corrupt decision ever - the St Marcus / Ratface / Attwell goal < which was 100% offside (b) (c) (f) >. Webb's verdict at the time, however, was that the goal should stand "under the letter of the law" ( but was not "in the spirit of the law" ) Bizarrely, Webb then added that there was no need to rewrite the Laws of the Game because they confirmed his opinion that the goal should stand .

P.S.Still very little attention to Salah's offside in the Liverpool vs Villa game. Why's that Howard ?




:

Post of the day!!

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

I noticed on the Rags share price plummet piece in the Rags share price plummet article on the BBC on the BBC business section a claim that only City had spent more than the rags £1.18bn since the Glazers took over. I resisted the urge to complain about lack of accuracy. I later saw the article on net spend that said the rags had a net spend of £1.67bn in the last 10 years. If that is net then what is their gross spending, which is going to be a lot more than their net spend. And what about Chelsea, their last 3 window's spending alone is huge.

Anyway, I went back to the share price plummet article and noticed the erroneous City reference had been removed, so someone has had a word.

Not only that they now have a headline saying Utd have outspent everyone. Someone's had a word.. Hopefully it was our legal dept, whilst trying to build the case of unfair bias against this club.

 

[Stiff Little Wingers]

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.

Well I've only been going since 1972, admittedly a lot more off than on these days. Maybe you're right but I think the mentality is interesting. I used to get angry when I heard of teams going 1-0 down at the swamp hnder Ferguson and then basically giving up. And it clearly happened - teams were scared of them.
And my point is teams are clearly scared of us - hence the multitude of busses parked over the years. So, if you assume that with Fulham, my point is getting to half time at 1-1 is a victory to them. Of course we most probably would have won but going in at 2-1 down having been so close to a 1-1 "victory" must have left scars and whilst maybe they should have been full of fire and determined to get back - there is the counter argument that they would be deflated and that's my view.

 

[Paladin]

Further to the above, let us not forget, the faux outrage at Ake's goal is the media's attempt to divert attention away from the incessant corrupt decisions given in favour of the rags. "You point to bad decisions given in favour of ManU - what about that farcical decision given in favour of Man City ! "
The precise wording of the Offside Law is as follows :
A player in an offside position is not necessarily offside. That player is deemed offside in the following circumstances
(a) If interfering with play by ........ (his) touching a ball
(b) Interfering with play by playing ..... a ball
Interfering with an opponent by :
(c) preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent's line of vision.
(d) challenging an opponent for the ball
(e) clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent...
...or (f) makes an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball.

Gallagher and Webb's contribution to the debate about Ake's goal are interesting.
The clown Dermot Gallagher - having received his instructions from above - and clearly being prompted by the presenter to toe the party line - denounces the decision to let Ake's goal stand ( " a really poor decision" ) Gallagher argues that (c) + (e) are relevant. But the t.v. view from behind the goal confirms the Fulham Keeper had a clear view of the ball from the moment it left Ake's head. And Sorry Dermot - Akanji does NOT attempt to play the ball - he does the precise opposite and takes avoiding action to ensure he does not play the ball.

What was the judgement of Howard Webb ?. He judges that it was a wrong decision to allow the goal because the keeper delays his dive as a result of Akanji's actions. Webb is rewording (f) to make a case. Akanji's presence may well have influenced the keeper's thought process and delayed his dive but Akanji in no way impacts on the keeper's ability to play the ball. ( That is the wording of the law ) If Webb's reasoning was valid then any goal scored with a player in offside position could be chalked off.
So Webb reinvents the Laws of Football ! Looking back at that most corrupt decision ever - the St Marcus / Ratface / Attwell goal < which was 100% offside (b) (c) (f) >. Webb's verdict at the time, however, was that the goal should stand "under the letter of the law" ( but was not "in the spirit of the law" ) Bizarrely, Webb then added that there was no need to rewrite the Laws of the Game because they confirmed his opinion that the goal should stand .

P.S.Still very little attention to Salah's offside in the Liverpool vs Villa game. Why's that Howard ?




:

Great analysis using the Laws of the Game, which expert pundits rarely do.

Webb's pronouncement on the Rashford offside goal, that it should have stood under the letter of the law, as you have correctly pointed out, is false. There is an interesting maxim that requires referees to apply the Laws within the spirit of the game. It comes direct from The Laws of the Game. "Those who are educating match officials and other participants should emphasise that referees should apply the Laws within the ‘spirit’ of the game to help produce fair and safe matches."

So the concept of fairness should ALWAYS be a consideration. Hence Webb also saying that goals similar to the Rashford situation would normally not be allowed (because it wasn't a fair decision).

I'm a big fan of fairness, including when it goes against my own team. Greater fairness is a bi-product of greater consistency.

 

[gaz76]

Ballon d'Or 2023: England stars Bukayo Saka and Jude Bellingham on shortlist | Four Lionesses nominated

Ballon dOr, Womens Ballon dOr, Yashin Trophy and Kopa Trophy shortlists named; Bukayo Saka and Jude Bellingham nominated; Erling Haaland and Kevin De Bruyne lead charge for Man City; four Lionesses on shortlist; WSL stars also included; winners will be announced on October 30 in Paris

www.skysports.com

Crikey this article couldn't have been more let's not mention that city have 8 nominated if it tried, even went as far as spelling eight with a W to try and hide us from any praise

 

[Chris in London]

Akanji was offside and we all know it. Mental gymnastics can prove anything. But on the face of it both that and rashford was offside and PGMOL royally fucked up on them both.

If you think that actually applying the laws of the game is “mental gymnastics “ maybe discussing refereeing decisions is not for you

 

[Bluearmy]

Because it was offside.

The vast majority of people know it. Your mental gymnastics are on the United scale of denying that the rashford one wasnt offside. Which they do.

No according to the current laws of the game its not!!

@34yearsandstillgoingstrong post from earlier is superb… maybe review it and then ask why the two mouthpieces of PGMOL (Webb & Dean) are ignoring the law as its currently written

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

If you think that actually applying the laws of the game is “mental gymnastics “ maybe discussing refereeing decisions is not for you

LOL. Are you ten yrs old or something. Whatever.

 

[SebastianBlue]

Sky with the outstanding news coverage, as always.

The fact that we have 8 players shortlisted is buried in the article.