Media Discussion - 2023/24

[Fiftyyearsandcounting]

Leno clearly knew that if Akanji touched the ball he'd be ruled offside. So Leno should have focused solely on Ake's header.

 

[Bluearmy]

When web was asked about the rags goal against us last year he did say that in the rules it can be onside! So can ours but he said it should be offside!

And doesnt that tell a story. Im in the camp that both should probably be called offside (albeit the law as it stands doesnt help and adds ambiguity), but only a village idiot or a corrupt ref can construe that the rags goal could possibly be offside but ours was 100% off.

 

[sd33]

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Love him to get it, can’t see them allowing him into the club though.

 

[hertsblue]

And doesnt that tell a story. Im in the camp that both should probably be called offside (albeit the law as it stands doesnt help and adds ambiguity), but only a village idiot or a corrupt ref can construe that the rags goal could possibly be offside but ours was 100% off.

Same as Dean who said ours was offside but Salah interfering wasnt despite Salah impeding the keeper more.
Just shows you for most of them its the colour of the shirt

 

[Spanishbob]

My god a slow afternoon on here.

 

[halfcenturyup]

My god a slow afternoon on here.

International breaks. You've got to love them.

 

[Kippax77]

Why don't the BBC just quote the Kaiser Chiefs, "I predict a riot"?

I reckon this is what their aim is just to keep the Raggys headline news for weeks on end

 

[HalfwayUpTheKippax]

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.

 

[34yearsandstillgoingstrong]

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 ?

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 ?




: