Media thread 2022/23

Status
Not open for further replies.
remember arthur mann said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Stephen230 said:
Yeah mate, I’m gonna trawl through a thousand posts before every comment I make incase I upset a few sensitive souls.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
laserblue said:
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.
Click to expand...
If Rob Jones of Liverpool was not injured, Ratty would have no caps.
 
Last edited:
asahartford1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
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.
Click to expand...
As you said earlier, they seem to have forgotten what the rule was for in the first place.
 
warringtonblue said:
But he wouldn’t be independent would he? You can see that with the lies and half truths he peddles about our main owner
Click to expand...
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.
 
2 rules I'd immediately change in football are:

1. Scrap Offside completely. It gives needless advantages to a defending team for absolutely no sensible reason and the judging of it and the disallowing of great goals just cannot be justified any longer. This is an entertainment businesses and being caught offside or pmaying offside offers no entertainment whatsoever.

2. Scrap Penalty Kicks and introduce Penalty goals for when a foul or handball has stopped a certain goal. This would in an instant end players diving to win penalties and penalties being awarded for non goal preventing handballs. If it's an intentional handball then as in any other part of the field of play it's merely a free kick. If the hand ball was like Suarez in the World Cup and effectively a save then there is a goal awarded.

Just those 2 things would cut back on cheating and any bloody need for VAR anyway and I can guarantee it would be a better watch.
 
Bald fraud said:
Neville constantly referring to our owners as Abu Dhabi. Why doesn’t he refer to the rags owners as America?
Click to expand...

eyalluvitt said:
Or Republican snowbird Jewish Florida Cayman tax haven owned United
Click to expand...
I've just quickly scanned through the article and literally lost count of the number of times "Abu Dhabi" was mentioned,the man's an utter twat!!
 
Rochdale Blue said:
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.
Click to expand...

Rochdale Blue said:
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.
Click to expand...

Mate, I was obviously exaggerating when I said no one had heard of him. My only point was I wouldn’t hold it against someone questioning at the time whether a bloke with a couple of years at an average German team was value for money at what I think was a near British record at the time.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
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.
Click to expand...
Seem to remember the Sterling offside goal at WHU was deemed as armpit hair being off by the commentator.
A very recent example for me of a goal being disallowed correctly by the letter of the law but not in keeping with the spirit of the game was Connor Coady's for Everton on Saturday.
The undiluted passion of the toffees in celebration at the goal was tangible...... and then the dreaded passion killer arrived and with it deflation.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
It's a disgrace that a former professional should be advocating hurting another professional and a double disgrace that the national broadcaster doesn't see anything wrong with highlighting his comments. But does anyone seriously expect better from the BBC where we're concerned?
Click to expand...
But when we won 4-0 at Swansea in early 2018 Danny Murphy wanted to know why none of the Swansea players "had left something on" our lads. Where are the yellow cards? he wanted to know. He didn't advocate kicking opponents but why hadn't they kicked us?
 
Stephen230 said:
Mate, I was obviously exaggerating when I said no one had heard of him. My only point was I wouldn’t hold it against someone questioning at the time whether a bloke with a couple of years at an average German team was value for money at what I think was a near British record at the time.
Click to expand...
You’d have thought being named German player of the year might have given them a clue ?
 
Stephen230 said:
Mate, I was obviously exaggerating when I said no one had heard of him. My only point was I wouldn’t hold it against someone questioning at the time whether a bloke with a couple of years at an average German team was value for money at what I think was a near British record at the time.
Click to expand...
13 goals & 27 assists in 50 league games in the 1½ years he was at Wolfsburg. Anyone who questioned it (even without the benefit of hindsight) was an idiot in my opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top