Offside rule changed after Silva's goal against Villa

Corky said:
They will always be given and not given, he was 3 yards away when from the defender when the ball was played so it was marginal either way if he was interfering/active. If he was 3 ft away it should be offside, if he was 30 yards away of course not.

The officials gave it so of course it was 100% correct, if they didn't give it they would have backed themselves too. It will be an entirely different set of circumstances each time it happens and some will go either way.
Click to expand...
No no no Corky that's not allowed now. Every decision has to be one hundred percent accurate and right and therefore morally acceptable for a 'deserved' outcome.
 
johnevans said:
Two things regarding this completely unnecessary change..

First, this change will only add to the burden on officials (including VAR officials) regarding decisions on goals scored, causing extra delays and confusion, particularly for those of us in the crowd attending games when we get 'back to normal'.

Second, after the letters, the media coverage, FFP/CAS and so on and so on since 2008, anyone who still thinks there isn't an agenda which is anti-City is a complete numpty..
Click to expand...
Calling @franksinatra
 
Rodri came back and dispossessed Mings passed to Silva who drops his shoulder to curl a excellent shot past a couple of players and a keeper into the top corner.
Within the rules but not anymore.
What a bunch of fat grey suited wannabe politicians the authorities of football have become.
They want the power to say your fucking finger/armpit hair/left bollock is offside cos we say so and then overlook one of their own laws, that City scored from and immediately change it, making us look the bad guys.
Was it any worse than the diving twats from the swamp winning pens and fouls through diving/acting?
WAS IT FUCK.
Hey politicians start booking the cheats and show us your rules are righteous.
You could of started by booking that pub player van de beek on sunday for diving,but no you were probably to busy get the above law changed cos of City's goal you bunch of bent fuckers
 
So at what point under this new “interpretation “ would Rodri be able to tackle? Because he was onside when he did anyway, does he have go 10 yards past him, what happens if Bernardo tackles Mings runs past him and past Rodri who then runs towards net, then the keeper comes out and Bernardo squares it to Rodri, has Rodri not gained and advantage. Absolute joke but it’s fantastic we got the goal and anyone after will be livid if they don’t get it. Hope we win the league by two points now.
 
They never changed the rule that you actually had to be fouled in the area to get a pen after several incidents involving Fernandes, oh wait....
 
What happens if a player shoots and the keeper saves
An attacking player, who was in an offside position when his team mate took the shot, follows the shot and his momentum takes him past the keeper

The keeper stands up and as the penalty area clears he drops the ball at his feet (as keepers do) then the attacker who had run past the keeper, runs from behind the keeper, dispossess him and kicks the ball into an empty net
 
Beaker said:
The next rule change will be if you handball a shot inside the area that is going wide it isn’t a penalty.
Click to expand...
Flashbacks of McPointy: "Ahrrr eeehy, naaah, he can't give da' la, he can't give da' "... "Not to Man City anyway".
 
Last edited:
Just seen it on sky what a joke, they are saying Ollie Watkins goal at weekend is alright??? I see absolutely no difference between ours and the one he scored??
 
meltonblue said:
It’s not as it proves it was being interpreted differently. Unless you mean something else?
Click to expand...
I, like you, and millions of others have no idea whats going on with the offside bollox.
I am saying if the lino was allowed to flag immediately, like they used to, and not have to fuck about waiting for the offside player to touch the ball before doing so, then this incident would not have occured.
 
meltonblue said:
It’s not as it proves it was being interpreted differently. Unless you mean something else?
Click to expand...
The open to interpretation point I'm with you on(it was just on different matters before VAR) but I think this confused matters:

their striker was running back from an offside position and played it and was given offside for it as Laporte hadn’t had chance to properly play the ball.
Click to expand...
That seemed like it was your own interpretation of why offside was given. The game had no VAR and the flag probably went up early in anticipation. Which in my view would be why the ref had little choice but to give it, not because the referee deemed the player had impacted Laporte's ability to play the ball after already taking a touch.
 
Last edited:
Just imagine if at the end of the season us and the rags are fighting it out to win the league on the last day and the rags need a win they score a goal identical to the Bernie one against villa and it’s chalked off meaning we win the league!
 
Stortz said:
Just imagine if at the end of the season us and the rags are fighting it out to win the league on the last day and the rags need a win they score a goal identical to the Bernie one against villa and it’s chalked off meaning we win the league!
Click to expand...
OK, I've done that. Now what?
 
Ferdinand has been appointed as VAR "spirit of the game" interpreter. He will sit alongside the VAR ref to ensure no further shenanigans are allowed...
 
Now they have clarified the offside law can the Premier League clarify what is a morally acceptable goal ?

(aside from any goal scored by a media favourite that is)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top