Media Thread 2020/21

[meltonblue]

Not in this case though. Mings has deliberately played the ball, so no one is offside from then.

I don’t think the way the law is written helps, I actually don’t think pgmols interpretation of it was correct. It wasn’t offside for me because Rodri doesn’t challenge for the ball in an offside position.

The deliberately played the ball bit, the law is that a player is not offside if the ball is received from a player deliberately playing the ball. I don’t think it was - Rodri needed to challenge to win it.

 

[paulchapo]

I don’t think the way the law is written helps, I actually don’t think pgmols interpretation of it was correct. It wasn’t offside for me because Rodri doesn’t challenge for the ball in an offside position.

The deliberately played the ball bit, the law is that a player is not offside if the ball is received from a player deliberately playing the ball. I don’t think it was - Rodri needed to challenge to win it.

Wrong, Ming's had clearly played the ball by chesting it down. Once he's done that Rodri is onside and allowed to challenge for the ball.

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

The only saving grace with BT coverage is more often than not recently there has been a City pundit - Joleon, GB, Nedum etc. Even Owen Hargreaves when paired with Joleon has been pretty decent as well.

Not tonight though with Ferdinand and Savage arguing about whether KDB would get into the United midfield of Giggs Keane Scholes and Beckham. All stirred by the professional shit stirrer that is Jake Humphreys.

Soon as I knew McPointy was on co-comms I synched with Radio 5 live and listened on there. Almost turned off because it was the dull and shrieking Vicky Sparks with Clinton Morrison. Stuck with it, she didn't grind with her voice, Clinton ok as well praising both teams, City better and deserved winners,Villa great defending and had their moments, could have been 6-2 etc. Great coverage compared to McPointy etc.

Morrison thought it was an offside but admitted he wasn't sure with the rule because of the Mings involvement, taking the ball etc. Sparks then jumps in almost immediately and comes out with the rule off pat. Rodders in an offside position but Mings had a controlled touch meaning Rodders was ok to come in and win the ball. Kudos to you Vicky Sparks.

Next up was the handball. Morrison instantly says I need to see it back but that's a penalty because his arm is well above his head. He was right.

Back to the studio after the game, and shit stirring scouse Kelly asks Morrison about the offside but adding Peter Walton on BT had said it should have been ruled out. He starts to answer but Sparks speaks over him and quite forcefully comes out with the rule again,

Just brilliant. My media gold star award of the day goes to Vicky Sparks.

Then watched MOTD. Usual shit there. Surprised we weren't 1st match because it was a brilliant game (didn't come over as that anywhere in the coverage) and they could do a City go top drama followed by their darlings having to win to go back top.

Keown was a disgrace.

 

[meltonblue]

Wrong, Ming's had clearly played the ball by chesting it down. Once he's done that Rodri is onside and allowed to challenge for the ball.

Rodris not received the ball from Mings chesting it down though so that surely backs up my point that either the law is poorly written or he was onside because he challenged from an onside position?

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Rodris not received the ball from Mings chesting it down though so that surely backs up my point that either the law is poorly written or he was onside because he challenged from an onside position?

You are right that Rodri was onside when he got the ball but even if Mings had chested it down and then backheeled it towards the keeper but it had been intercepted by Rodri (in an offside position) then he would have been played onside. Once Mings controls it Rodri is onside. There have been plenty of goals like this over the years.

 

[LongsightM13]

I don’t think the way the law is written helps, I actually don’t think pgmols interpretation of it was correct. It wasn’t offside for me because Rodri doesn’t challenge for the ball in an offside position.

The deliberately played the ball bit, the law is that a player is not offside if the ball is received from a player deliberately playing the ball. I don’t think it was - Rodri needed to challenge to win it.

Deliberately played the ball when he chested it down. Anything after that is onside and fair game

 

[paulchapo]

Rodris not received the ball from Mings chesting it down though so that surely backs up my point that either the law is poorly written or he was onside because he challenged from an onside position?

I'm not sure if I have misinterpreted what you said originally but here's how it went and goes.

Rodri is in an offside position when the ball reaches Ming's. Ming's then chests the ball down to control it, as soon as he does Rodri challenges him and wins it back. Ming's controlling it plays Rodri onside, whether other players were then playing him on or not it didn't matter, Ming's played him on.

 

[paulchapo]

Deliberately played the ball when he chested it down. Anything after that is onside and fair game

It is so simple and basic I just don't get what people,including the so called expert in the media, find hard to understand.

 

[LongsightM13]

It is so simple and basic I just don't get what people,including the so called expert in the media, find hard to understand.

Not to mention the fact that, as someone showed with photographic evidence earlier in the thread, by the time Rodri won the ball there were three Villa players playing him on

 

[paulchapo]

Yes he could probably have been onside anyway. Again it's the media making something out of nothing. Just because Smith and the Villa players rant and rave doesn't make the decision wrong.