Media Thread 2020/21

[Jefferson Airplane]

Let's be honest, we'd be fuming if Watkins was 10 yards offside, Stones intercepted a long Villa pass forward, and Watkins came from behind and nicked it off him. Usually you see forwards retreating back onside whilst purposely not getting back involved in the play for a few seconds, sometimes with their hands up to the ref as if to say 'I'm just getting back in position, not making a challenge'. The law is ridiculous, and for once I don't mind the headlines today. What would be nice is a bit of recollection that in truth, the goal was coming and we battered them.

 

[stonerblue]

My heart sinks every-time I hear Steve McManaman is announced as the co-commentator on our games.

How do we lobby BT to get him off our televised matches?

Straight over to nbcsn or supersport

 

[tonea2003]

If Mings is judged to have not played the ball deliberately then the offside stands. That's the current law. People need to get their heads round this.

Can I suggest Netball Corky? https://www.simplenetball.co.uk/rules/

but when rodri actually touches the ball he's onside, there are two villa defenders(full backs) playing him on
its all irrelevant

 

[tonea2003]

Did we win 1-0 or 2-0 last night? Everyone seems to forget we scored a second

yeah but that shouldn't have been a pen so it was 0-0 ;-)

 

[Centurions]

Let's be honest, we'd be fuming if Watkins was 10 yards offside, Stones intercepted a long Villa pass forward, and Watkins came from behind and nicked it off him. Usually you see forwards retreating back onside whilst purposely not getting back involved in the play for a few seconds, sometimes with their hands up to the ref as if to say 'I'm just getting back in position, not making a challenge'. The law is ridiculous, and for once I don't mind the headlines today. What would be nice is a bit of recollection that in truth, the goal was coming and we battered them.

We'd be fuming at Stones without a doubt for screwing up.

Why is the law ridiculous? At what point would Rodri be considered onside if not immediately after Mings played the ball?

 

[Rammy Blue]

Yeah that was it. You could see how angry and shocked Gundogan was afterwards. He didn't even make a challenge. Yet McManaman laughed, and with pure excitement said 'he's great at doing that'. What? Diving? Cheating?

They knew Moss was a useless bent **** who would give the free kick. He didn’t let them down.

 

[Deleted member 77198]

Let's be honest, we'd be fuming if Watkins was 10 yards offside, Stones intercepted a long Villa pass forward, and Watkins came from behind and nicked it off him. Usually you see forwards retreating back onside whilst purposely not getting back involved in the play for a few seconds, sometimes with their hands up to the ref as if to say 'I'm just getting back in position, not making a challenge'. The law is ridiculous, and for once I don't mind the headlines today. What would be nice is a bit of recollection that in truth, the goal was coming and we battered them.

The law is spot on!

If you change the law because of this Rodri incident, then all incidents like the following would not be allowed to happen:

Two attacking players break through the defensive line, one was offside when the ball was played through, but the man receiving the ball wasn’t. The man reviving the ball has a poor shot straight at the keeper who controls the ball with his feet but is then tackled by the other attacker and the other attacker scores.

An attacking player is stood on his own in the box in an offside position. Another attacker tries to play the ball to him even though he’s offside. A defender intercepts the pass and has the ball but doesn’t know the attacker who was offside is there. He tries to pass the ball back to his goalkeeper but passes it straight through to the attacker who scores.

There will be many situations that are scrapped and ruined for attacking teams if you change the law because of this Rodri incident.

The very simple fact is, because Rodri did not challenge for the ball, or impede Mings at this very moment:

he is not offside.

As soon as Mings controls the ball it sets up a fresh part of the football match, and anything that happened before it is wiped out. It doesn’t matter whatsoever that Rodri was in an offside position previously.

The law is absolutely spot on. There’s nothing at all wrong with it. It’s a positive, good, common sense law of the game that, for once, benefits the attacking team.

 

[meltonblue]

The law is spot on!

If you change the law because of this Rodri incident, then all incidents like the following would not be allowed to happen:

Two attacking players break through the defensive line, one was offside when the ball was played through, but the man receiving the ball wasn’t. The man reviving the ball has a poor shot straight at the keeper who controls the ball with his feet but is then tackled by the other attacker and the other attacker scores.

An attacking player is stood on his own in the box in an offside position. Another attacker tries to play the ball to him even though he’s offside. A defender intercepts the pass and has the ball but doesn’t know the attacker who was offside is there. He tries to pass the ball back to his goalkeeper but passes it straight through to the attacker who scores.

There will be many situations that are scrapped and ruined for attacking teams if you change the law because of this Rodri incident.

Thr very simple fact is, because Rodri did not challenge for the ball, or impede Mings at this very moment:
View attachment 8673
he is not offside.

And anything that happens after Mings controls the ball sets up a fresh part of the football match and anything that happens before it is wiped out.

The law is absolutely spot on. There’s nothing at all wrong with it. It’s a positive, good, common sense law of the game.

I agree with the sentiment of this, I don’t think the law is spot on though unless it removes the reference to receiving the ball from the defender as it’s that that creates a lot of the ambiguity.

 

[Deleted member 77198]

I agree with the sentiment of this, I don’t think the law is spot on though unless it removes the reference to receiving the ball from the defender as it’s that that creates a lot of the ambiguity.

That bit that Peter Walton corrected himself with after the game and that Robbie Savage circled and Tweeted last night, was the wrong part of the law that relates to this incident.

Rodri has not received the ball from the defender so you move on to the next part of the law that this incident relates to. Which states:

“a player moving from, or standing in, an offside position is in the way of an opponent and interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the ball this is an offside offence if it impacts on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball”.

As soon as Mings controls the ball with his chest, with no interference from Rodri, the play is fresh and Rodri can tackle Mings.

 

[Nightmare Walking]

The press (or some of them) absolutely did bang on about that goal. I remember opinion being quite divided at the time.

They were not banging on about him coming back from an offside position though. The issue was whether Dibble had control of the ball.