Media thread 2022/23

[asahartford1]

You wanna lay off that shit kid. The quality these days is so shit you may aswell buy a jar of talcum powder.

You should be official forum consultant on that topic, you seem very experienced and knowledgeable for the role -:(

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Bang on PB, my thought's too, they need to bring back simple black and white offside, not this dodgy make it up to suit rule.

They need to go back to first principles, as the incremental changes to accommodate small differences in interpretation have completely deviated from the original intention. That intention was to penalise goal-hanging yet now, under the current interpretation, a player could stand on the edge of the opposition six-yard box for the whole game yet still be onside when the ball is passed from the byline.

The two questions that needs to be answered are:
1. What is an offside position?
2. Is player X gaining an advantage by being in that offside position?

 

[Rochdale Blue]

Yeah mate, I’m gonna trawl through a thousand posts before every comment I make incase I upset a few sensitive souls.

When City declared an interest in Kev, there were numerous stories of Bayern throwing their toys out of the pram because they thought he would be theirs. One of the Wolfsburg directors, if I remember correctly, was on the board of one of the huge multi national companies that sponsored Bayern and thought the deal was as good as done. It was fun getting one over the German rags.

 

[asahartford1]

They need to go back to first principles, as the incremental changes to accommodate small differences in interpretation have completely deviated from the original intention. That intention was to penalise goal-hanging yet now, under the current interpretation, a player could stand on the edge of the opposition six-yard box for the whole game yet still be onside when the ball is passed from the byline.

The two questions that needs to be answered are:
1. What is an offside position?
2. Is player X gaining an advantage by being in that offside position?

I remember a few years ago examples of players being in offside positions but goals being awarded because player x "did not play the ball" even though they made a movement towards and tried to play the ball. The powers that be went through a period where they actively encouraged this.
One example was the Everton goal at the Etihad under Erikson when we had won a series of home games and dropped our first home points in the game.
It was another example of rule interpretation change that didn't fully understand its consequences.
In the same way Villa players stood 10 yds offside at free kicks on Saturday as they knew at second phase they become onside and are more difficult to mark. Making our very high defensive line less practical.

 

[eyalluvitt]

Neville constantly referring to our owners as Abu Dhabi. Why doesn’t he refer to the rags owners as America?

Or Republican snowbird Jewish Florida Cayman tax haven owned United

 

[Shaggy]

There are many bewildering things about Neville. None more so than how the fuck he managed to get 85 caps for England is beyond comprehension.

If Rob Jones of Liverpool was not injured, Ratty would have no caps.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I remember a few years ago examples of players being in offside positions but goals being awarded because player x "did not play the ball" even though they made a movement towards and tried to play the ball. The powers that be went through a period where they actively encouraged this.
One example was the Everton goal at the Etihad under Erikson when we had won a series of home games and dropped our first home points in the game.
It was another example of rule interpretation change that didn't fully understand its consequences.
In the same way Villa players stood 10 yds offside at free kicks on Saturday as they knew at second phase they become onside and are more difficult to mark. Making our very high defensive line less practical.

I've highlighted this game before, as there were a number of incidents in it that illustrated the stupidity of the current law, and it's the game we played at West Ham, our first PL game in the 2019/20 season.

There was a goal disallowed because Sterling's shoulder blade (or something) was about 5mm offside. It took quite along time to decide if I recall but there was no way he could be described as gaining an advantage.

Then there was a similar incident involving Sterling, but this time he was deemed to be onside when the ball was played. He crossed it to Jesus, who had been stood a few yards offside when the move started, with the pass to Sterling. Jesus never moved but he was behind the ball when Sterling crossed so called onside, even though he'd clearly been gaining an advantage by standing where he did.

Then (and I think it was the same game) David Silva had been standing on the goal line, in an offside position when the ball was played but came back to pick up the ball, at which point he was well onside. Had he been clear of the last defender when he received the ball, then it would have been the right call, as he'd have gained an advantage. But he was deemed offside. In my opinion, where he stood conferred no advantage as he had to move back to receive the ball and had defenders between him and the goal when he did so.

All three calls were correct by the letter of the law but, in my view, wrong by the spirit.

 

[Fordyboy46]

Neville and Delaney both cut from the same cloth, I feel for them really. They must have sleepless nights worrying about the human rights, the LGBT community etc over in the middle east, it must really be on their minds 24/7. Yeah I know what bs, it's because it's City who have benefitted that grates massively with the two bellends. Human rights worrier Neville, my fucking arse he is

 

[andyhinch]

I've highlighted this game before, as there were a number of incidents in it that illustrated the stupidity of the current law, and it's the game we played at West Ham, our first PL game in the 2019/20 season.

There was a goal disallowed because Sterling's shoulder blade (or something) was about 5mm offside. It took quite along time to decide if I recall but there was no way he could be described as gaining an advantage.

Then there was a similar incident involving Sterling, but this time he was deemed to be onside when the ball was played. He crossed it to Jesus, who had been stood a few yards offside when the move started, with the pass to Sterling. Jesus never moved but he was behind the ball when Sterling crossed so called onside, even though he'd clearly been gaining an advantage by standing where he did.

Then (and I think it was the same game) David Silva had been standing on the goal line, in an offside position when the ball was played but came back to pick up the ball, at which point he was well onside. Had he been clear of the last defender when he received the ball, then it would have been the right call, as he'd have gained an advantage. But he was deemed offside. In my opinion, where he stood conferred no advantage as he had to move back to receive the ball and had defenders between him and the goal when he did so.

All three calls were correct by the letter of the law but, in my view, wrong by the spirit.

As you said earlier, they seem to have forgotten what the rule was for in the first place.

 

[Octavian]

But he wouldn’t be independent would he? You can see that with the lies and half truths he peddles about our main owner

The **** thinks he has some right to be jury and executioner in English football.

He genuinely thinks he’s an authority.

The FA and Premier League need to put the **** back in his box but they won’t.