Peter Walton..

[Centurions]

The goalkeeper fumble is an interesting one to mention because that is the most common one and is ruled out every time. It comes down to the interpretation of "ball under control", if a keeper blocks a shot he clearly doesn't have control of it but if he parries it to his feet does the attacker have the right to tackle him before he gathers it? We all know the answer is no, so its the same for Mings. Does he have control of the ball? I would say clearly not because by the time its at his foot Rodri is on top of him, exact same as the clip I posted above of Ronaldo. At the very least the decision is subjective based on opinion and not fact. The ref should have looked at it and decided for himself if Mings had it under control.

You mean the Ronaldo clip that should have been allowed? Not the best example really.

The ref, the assistant ref and the VAR people (however many that is nowadays) all looked at it in real time and decided it was a good goal.

 

[Maly]

Nothing in Law 11 for Offside mentions "Control". The relevant part of the law simply says...

• A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent.

Rodri is no longer offside as soon as Mings chests the ball. By doing so, Mings has played the ball deliberately. It is completely irrelevant if Mings does or doesn't control it.

And if you argue that he was challenging for the ball, then you have to look at the Offside Offences bit. The answers to this bit are clear as well though...(answers in BOLD)

• A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:
  • interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate (NO - Rodri doesn't touch it until after Mings does) or
  • interfering with an opponent by:
  • preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision (NO - Rodri is behind Mings) or
  • challenging an opponent for the ball (NO - not until after Mings has deliberately played the ball) or
  • clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent (NO - Rodri is at least 2 probably 3-4 yards away when Mings chests it) or
  • making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball (NO - As previous, Rodri is at least 2 probably 3-4 yards away when Mings chests it)

The Ronaldo clip is exactly the same situation, and from what I've seen on social media is being reported in Italy as a refereeing mistake and shouldn't have been called offside.

Far too sensible using actual facts to prove Bobby has no idea what he’s going on about. Odd how many people can’t ever accept that they’re wrong, even when presented with the facts

 

[Cornish_Blue]

 

[Blue Llama]

What you're describing there is 1 every 10 year scenario like Dion Dublin against Newcastle I think, definitely Shay Given. If I'm misunderstanding you feel free to highlight some examples.

Edit: I've a mate who is about to be added to the FIFA list of referees, he's not in the pocket of Mike Riley so I'll post up his response when he comes back to me. I'll bow out until then.

Surely you don't need anyone else to help you understand 4 lines of the offside rule? The only relevant part is the bit that covers the intentional contact with the ball by in this case Mings. Unless, I wasn't concentrating properly and I didn't notice Mings having a crafty fag on the pitch as the ball appears out of a low cloud and before he knows anything about it the ball inadvertently collides with his chest causing him to swallow the fag.

 

[eastmanc]

Clueless Dipper supporting c*nt , i wonder if his Dipper supporting kids pay for thier season cards or get freebies.

What, off Liverpool. Don’t think so.

 

[eastmanc]

I don’t like him but it is a very, very complicated one and he did correct himself after the game

It might be complicated but as a former ref you would think he would have a better understanding of the rule. Colin Hendry stated in an interview recently that he didn’t like him due to his bias against City. Walton even claimed that the handball goal that Spurs scored against us in the Champs League actually came off Llorente’s thigh. Knob head of the highest order.

 

[Thaksinssoldier]

It might be complicated but as a former ref you would think he would have a better understanding of the rule. Colin Hendry stated in an interview recently that he didn’t like him due to his bias against City. Walton even claimed that the handball goal that Spurs scored against us in the Champs League actually came off Llorente’s thigh. Knob head of the highest order.

absolutely, but my point was solely focused on the particulars of last night.

 

[Vienna_70]

Peter Walton is scary.
Looks like someone's very seedy uncle.
Oh and he's a twat

I always hated seeing his name listed to referee our games, as I instantly knew we wouldn’t win it.

 

[johnnytapia]

I thought it was offside because Rodri affected Mings’ control. Without Rodri there would he have been so “hurried”? Looks like the correct decision was made though and I’ve misinterpreted the rule.

 

[fulabeer]

People need to know the difference between offside and an offside POSITION.
If the ball had glanced off Mings and then to Rodri, he would have been deemed offside.

It never reached Rodri, therefore although in an offside position, still not offside. (ie he had gained no advantage for being there)
No interference in play (or try to intercept) and didn't touch the ball.
As soon as Mings took the ball down, Rodri was free to challenge for the ball. Where he was previously, makes no difference now.
What he supposed to do, just stand there and wait for something? There is no rule how long you have to wait once an opposition players now has the ball.