Offside rule changed after Silva's goal against Villa

[I'm Blue]

I was about to say that ! Watkins was off side until the Newcastle defender tried to clear than Watkins was played on side. But really the defender had to try and clear it, unlike Ming if he knew the rules could have let it run to his keeper

Just shows this will still cause problems (when we score)

 

[PistonBlue]

Absolutely laughable. Only City could score a perfectly legitimate goal and the legions of bitter twats who didn't like it have the rule changed because of it.
Fucking ridiculous state of affairs

 

[Academica]

So if we were to go back to the point where Mings controls the ball with his chest,(if we use the new rules) how long before Rodri can be involved in play without being classed as offside?

It's now down to an objective decision of the referee, I don't think time will be the deciding factor, more the colour of the shirt.

 

[Groke]

View attachment 9008
denied points haha. Do people forget that we won 2-0??

Villa were lucky they weren't on the wrong end of a thrashing - that's the only thing they were denied.
Also, the way this has been reported it's like Mings was dispossessed and the ball was rolled into an empty net

 

[cleavers]

Would absolutely love it if West Brom score a similar goal tonight, and it has to be ruled out.

Haha that would be brilliant, the piss boiling would be incredible.

 

[idahoblues]

Haha, what a fucking joke

 

[hihosilva]

And now refs are left with interpreting "immediately". You could certainly argue that Rodri's intervention wasn't immediate as Mings had time to chest the ball down and rather ineptly bring it under control at his feet. What was needed was some ruling on how soon a player in an offside position could involve himself in challenging for the ball again.

I remember a few seasons ago, pre-VAR, when Sterling scored a far more questionable goal when in an offside position at the far post. A defender in front of him took a swing at the cross and deflected the ball straight to him. The linesman had his flag up, everybody assumed the goal wouldn't count, but the ref went over and had a word, then awarded the goal. This change in the law would still let that goal stand though it seems more dubious to me. Swansea was it? Anyway, first goal of the game when were struggling to break the opposition down.

Absolutely correct. The wording "immediately" is still open for scrutiny.

 

[give it to gordon]

If I am right that's the off side and handball rule changed so far this season. Wouldnt it make sense and be fairer if the rules were set before the season started ? And I know this sounds funny but perhaps the manager could check to make sure his players know the rules. That's assuming the manager knows the rules of football.

 

[lancs blue]

I find it unpalatable and immoral that they have decided to change the rules during an active season...

I find it both hilarious ('cos it's City boiling piss) and pathetic ('cos it's PiGMOL being cunts).

 

[PistonBlue]

I don't know why the don't just print different interpretations of the laws based on what colour shirt you happen to be wearing.

 

[bluemooncas]

HA HA you gotta laugh, now made the rule even subjective.
if it had been salah or sir marcus that came from offside and made the tackle,
you can hear the commentator now " oh what play so clever"

 

[stan bowles]

By changing the rule mid season it clearly challenges the legitimacy of Bernardo's goal. We got lucky, should never have been allowed, without that Villa would have got at least a point, City are two points better off than they should be etc, etc.
What next ? No penalties if the ball is not heading on target when it strikes the opponent's arm ?
The "Rodri Law" is alive and kicking.

 

[TheThirdDeano]

Sets a dangerous precedent though that the governing body will take no time to think about it and change rules part-way through the season at the request of a few idiots.

Seriously, insanity.

 

[Maly]

Would you look at that, they changed the offside rule for little old us after the outrage we caused.

insanity!

I wonder why it wasn’t changed when Spurs got a penner vs Liverpool in exactly the same circumstances?

Does everything we benefit from have to get changed? Funny as fuck

 

[The Colonel]

Wait for the clamour for Bernardo's goal to be chalked off.
Which journalist or manager will push for this first ?
City's 2nd goal will be conveniently forgotten and brave little old Villa will have been robbed of the well-deserved point.
The incessant diving and cheating is the big issue not Rodri's offside goal in my opinion.
Why not have a 2nd VAR official to look solely at the cheating with a retrospective yellow card e.g. Donny the Beek on Sunday. It will continue if the serial offenders carry on NOT getting punished.
When amatuer and junior football starts again, no doubt many more scallies and kids will dive as there is no current deterrent...

Stelling was saying on Saturday that we ”were gifted the points by a rule which nobody knows about”. Cue Merson. “ well I certainly didn’t know about it”. Really now there’s a surprise.

I suspect there will be a rule to say that the attacking player can’t challenge the first ball player on the opposing side. This is all very weird.

 

[CC1]

If united or Liverpool had scored that perfectly legitimate goal there would have been no outcry and, hence, no controversy and hence no "guidance" handing yet more discretion for the referee/VAR to meddle with. What a shambles.

also red teams would have been praised for their awareness of the rules enabling them to score the goal. Hey ho

 

[The Future is Blue]

What a crock of shit!.....Changing rules halfway through a season to placate the moaning twats who can see it's City's league to lose as we're far and away the best team. Funny thing is though it probably won't affect us as we've had our one for the season. BTW what would have happened if Mings the Merciless had chested it down, turned left and had tried a back pass to his goalie but forgot Rodri was there and he intercepted the ball and scored...is that offside?

 

[lancs blue]

Sets a dangerous precedent though that the governing body will take no time to think about it and change rules part-way through the season at the request of a few idiots.

Seriously, insanity.

Yes it's scandalous to change the interpretation halfway through the season but the PL set a precedent for that last season by introducing the 5 subs rule for the post-lockdown matches.

 

[stan bowles]

Imagine if the goal had been ruled offside in the game and the goal disallowed and City had challenged the decision after the game was over. Think anyone would give a fuck or the decision would have been looked at and scrutinised ?
Like fuck it would.

 

[CC1]

Maybe ive missed it in the "conversation"...but whats the difference to intercepting a back pass, for example?

An attacking player can be in an offside position and a defender can pass it back to the keeper, the attacker can intercept and score.....why is one allowed and not the other?

Its only not allowed if it’s City that score -