Offside rule changed after Silva's goal against Villa

[es1]

was this offside too then? The rule change is a joke. That’s not the first time they’ve changed rules cos if the uproar after we benefited from the long-standing rule.

why would that be offside?

 

[Metalartin]

Wait, I thought "ability to play the ball" was still to do with the first touch. Which is when Mings chested the ball and they are finding a way to interpret whether a player has affected his ability to do that. Meaning they would have found a way to "interpret" that Rodri did affect Mings and disallow that goal. They do love to find new ways of disallowing City goals and allowing goals against afterall.

Are we sure that it really means Rodri would have to wait until Mings has passed it to another team mate? That sounds like it could throw up problems of it's own.

 

[@BluePhil8]

Personally dont have a problem with this. A bit farcical the fall out has been, but who cares really.

The law may well have meant he wasnt technically offside by the letter but anyone who believes he didnt benefit by being in an “offside position” is too blue tinted.
If that goes against us, I dont care what the “law” is, I’d feel hard done by. So if they’ve changed the interpretation to make that offside then good.

We were the better team and we won the game and deserved the win.

Not a problem, we’ve benefited once from a goal in an offside position since I’ve been born, and I’m nearly 30. This rule will probably effect us 2-3 times in the rest of my life.

What’s hilarious and sad in equal measure is the utterly predictable conspiring between United, Liverpool and the media whenever they get fucked in the ass and City are doing well.

There always has to be some ‘scandal’ no matter how artificial, like scoring a legitimate goal.

Bernardo’s ‘racist tweet’, let’s talk about it non-stop for 3 months whilst the FA investigate (literally took 3 months for his punishment to be handed down), question Pep about it at every press conference. Cavani does the exact same thing (worse to be fair), ignored for 3 weeks, punishment issued, glossed over, ancient history now.

The press in this country need to be taken to task, and there needs to be serious oversight and reform.

 

[prestonibbo_mcfc]

Just looked at the amendment, Rodri would now have to do 3 pirouettes, complete 1 full 360 round the target player, and a one handed press-up and a inverted Pike.

Turn around, touch the ground and baggsy not it.

 

[Chi-town blues]

but what about the corner kick chelsea player i think took twice just coz he miss hit the first time?
Where is the law ?

 

[BillCarlisle]

I thought football rules could only be changed by UEFA.

They haven't changed the law. They've added guidance to referees which means they've been able to change the law without actually changing the law !

 

[Brendan110_0]

Villa fans pointing to this. Even though THIS decision is wrong (or at least would be under FA's offside rules).

only one touch and not in control is why.

 

[Jesus H Gabz]

If only Mings had sliced the ball to Rodders & he duly dispatched the ball accordingly hmmmm methinks they would of been outlawing that instead right now....they really are laughable :)

 

[Chi-town blues]

They haven't changed the law. They've added guidance to referees which means they've been able to change the law without actually changing the law !

What is the process? Can they just change laws whenever or whoever see fit?

 

[St.Pauli support]

The rule change makes no difference, he challenged the second touch not the first one. VAR would give it.

Well, they were forced to change something and did,
while still being able to interpret the word "immediately" the way they like:


'Where a player in an offside position immediately impacts on an opponent who has deliberately played the ball, the match officials should prioritise challenging an opponent for the ball, and thus the offside offence of "interfering with an opponent by impacting on the opponent's ability to play the ball" should be penalised.'