Peter Walton..

[Blue Budgie]

At least the twat's consistent. He was fucking shocking as a ref and he's just as shocking now as the ref analyser.

 

[johnnytapia]

Johnny, there is a saying, when in a hole, stop digging.
If Mings did not know Rodri was behind him he shouldn't be on the pitch in the first place. He did not know the law simple as and assumed Rodri would not tackle him because he was offside. He should have headed it clear but he messed up. Rodri either knew the rule or chanced his arm hoping no flag would go up. Bearing in mind how stupid referees are it makes Mings stupidity worse.

You hit the nail on the has when you say he chanced his arm. In days gone by the flag would have gone up, defender stops playing. Now, defender not sure, touches ball and attacker is back in the game. I’m not digging, I didn’t realise this was the rule or interpretation. It went our way last night but I can see how/ why mings felt aggrieved.

 

[Vienna_70]

Remember Brian Clough on the offside conundrum saying if a players not interfering with play then he shouldn’t be on the pitch :)

I believe that was Danny Blanchflower.

 

[richardtheref]

Wasn't he, for a time, the refereeing supremo in the good ol' US of A after he "retired" from the PL list a few years ago?

Yes he was, after being asked by the PL to "retire".

 

[Mike Cledford]

Walton - so bad they named a jail after him

 

[Saddleworth2]

You hit the nail on the has when you say he chanced his arm. In days gone by the flag would have gone up, defender stops playing. Now, defender not sure, touches ball and attacker is back in the game. I’m not digging, I didn’t realise this was the rule or interpretation. It went our way last night but I can see how/ why mings felt aggrieved.

Why aggrieved when from his own lips he claims he didn't know the law?
The only person he should be aggrieved with is himself. If he knew the law he must have known he was taking a chance by playing the ball in the way he did.

 

[sir baconface]

This fkin wanker is clueless..

Hard to add anything to that...except to say his CV is perfect for BT.

 

[Metalartin]

I thought it was offside because Rodri affected Mings’ control. Without Rodri there would he have been so “hurried”?

I've seen this argument given by Villa, United and Liverpool fans and find it baffling.

If he felt rushed, that means he felt there wasn't much time. So if that was the case, why did he try and chest it down?

No, he felt he had enough time(cocky), fucked up controlling the ball and then he panicked. It's not like he didn't have much safer options, if he really didn't think he had time to control it. So that argument doesn't work for me. A cushioned header to a teammate or a step to the side, were much easier options, where we probably wouldn't be having the discussion. To their credit, I've seen some Villa fans call Mings out on his own mistakes in that goal, it seems it's not the first time he's let them down with his decision making.

The only argument I'll accept, is perhaps the law can be changed on what constitutes a turnover of possession. An unsuccessful attempt to play the ball or control it, is not really a turnover of possession in my eyes. So on that I can see the argument that Villa fans might think: "Why is that a turn over of possession when he didn't really have control of the ball?"

I love how all it takes, is for City to benefit from a law, for all our broadcasters to go into meltdown on the laws not being fit for purpose. They had no sympathy at all for City last season, with the same "new phase of play" rule going against them, in much harsher circumstances, considering the way the goal against Spurs was ruled out. Gundogan didn't have any safer options to choose from last season, after AA's handball at Anfield. He was being contested by Salah and on the stretch in his own penalty area when he scuffed that clearance to Fabinho. There was no outrage, only smiling faces from the broadcasters, they loved it.

 

[johnnytapia]

I've seen this argument given by Villa, United and Liverpool fans and find it baffling?

If he felt rushed that means he felt there wasn't much time, so did he try and chest it down then? No, he got cocky fucked up controlling the ball and then he panicked. It's not like he didn't have much safer options if he didn't think he had time to control it. Gundogan didn't have that last season after AA's handball at Anfield(he was being contested by Salah and on the stretch).

The only argument I'll accept, is perhaps the law can be changed on what constitutes a turnover of possession an unsuccessful attempt to play the ball or control it, is not really a turnover of possession in my eyes. I love how all it takes is for City to benefit from a law for all our broadcasters to go into meltdown on the laws not being fit for purpose. They had no sympathy at all for City last season with the same "new phase of play" rule going against them much harsher, considering the way the goal against Spurs was ruled out.

Watching the game I thought it would get overturned but that’s because I thought in old school terms of interfering with play etc. Goal was perfectly legitimate. Thankfully. Still think the law’s daft but it ain’t changing any time soon.

 

[KS55]

Good post.

Is it time for us to throw off the shackles of a lifetime of being fair and reasonable fans and just becoming what we are portrayed to be , a bunch of arrogant cunts.

Anybody in.

Feral rats