Media Thread 2020/21

[Onholiday(somemightsay)]

One of the articles is titled "Its a Rubbish Law". If City win the league it will be "it's a rubbish league anyway" or "football is rubbish game anyway".

'May as well be Celtic'........

 

[meltonblue]

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.

Yes, that’s exactly the point I was making last night. I didn’t think they were focussing on the right part of the law (and the bit they focussed on is poorly worded too).

 

[manchester blue]

You’ve made me click on the BBC website again mate, which is something I didn’t want to do. But on the main BBC Football page, these 3 headlines are featured prominently (within the first 10 articles).

‘farcical Man City goal’

‘it’s a rubbish law’

‘did you get juggling balls for Christmas?’

‘pathetic decision’

If there’s anyone left that can’t see what’s going on, or think that the BBC report fairly and honestly on us, then I really don’t know what to say.

The factual headline would be; ‘The Laws on Offside, why Man City’s goal stood’.

They are literally the Sun, Star, Guardian, Mail level of click bait - and we have to pay for it.

To be fair they are quotes and make Smith look the idiot.

 

[Glenn Ponder]

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 the keeper has thrown it out so there is no offside to be considered whether it hits Mings on the back of the head or he heads it back.

This is a completely different scenario to a ball being played forward by a City player.

 

[LongsightM13]

Expect a full-on media assault on City over the next few weeks if this is how they react to a perfectly good goal. The fear and hatred is palpable, as the response to the Everton postponement demonstrated.
Now we are coming up on the rails I’d expect the WhatsApp group and the usual media suspects to awake and renew their usual bullshit. Human rights, Covid, finances etc

 

[hammocity]

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.

Absolute nonsense and a poor reading of the offside law, I had to explain to Mrs H last night and she understands it now.

 

[blue b4 the moon]

Expect a full-on media assault on City over the next few weeks if this is how they react to a perfectly good goal. The fear and hatred is palpable, as the response to the Everton postponement demonstrated.
Now we are coming up on the rails I’d expect the WhatsApp group and the usual media suspects to awake and renew their usual bullshit. Human rights, Covid, finances etc

Yep shits going to get real to put as many obstacles and influences of officials possible in our way.

We did it in 11/12 when they reached their last peak, we'll do it again when they go for new heights.

 

[Blue Pete]

It was a goal, the referees opinion of the laws of the game say it was the right decision. It doesnt matter if you, me, the bbc, bt, or the pundits agree its offside or not. It's only an issue because it was us and it was the breakthrough goal. It counted, we won. The End.

 

[kippaxwarrior]

Absolute nonsense and a poor reading of the offside law, I had to explain to Mrs H last night and she understands it now.

Genuinely can't get my head round why so many people are failing to grasp this rule.

The simple fact is when Mings controlled the ball uncontested Rodri was deemed to be ONSIDE and he can then attempt to contest the ball

 

[hammocity]

Keown saying the rule is right but it needs changing, it is right because it's black and white, very easy to interpret. If the rule was changed when does the attacker become "not offside" the ambiguity would be difficult to deal with and it wouldn't be a binary decision as it is now.

Perhaps Keown should rewrite the rule, I'd love to see him defend what would be a subjective interpretation, probably based purely on last nights goal.