The end of the agenda debate?

Maybe this is what Sheikh Mansour really got involved for. He chose us, a club in a city that has one of the biggest supporter and most successful clubs in the world who are darlings of the media and governing bodies, who have a big media rivalry with a team from a close but enemy city. He didn’t go for Newcastle or Arsenal, the biggest or only club in their cities. He didn’t go for the easy option. He came to the club that would upset the most people. Upset our local rivals and their media rival.

Maybe he knew there was corruption behind the scenes and that he thought the best way to expose it was to come to us to rile everyone up and one day get it all to come out.
 
nmc said:
Setting aside his obvious bias - and more likely hatred for us - Peter Walton didn’t have a clue yesterday re the present offside rule. Even with VAR it would have been contentious because you could make a case for giving or disallowing a goal. The offside rules were fine 10 years ago - then they dicked about with it and now it’s too complicated and can’t deal with real game scenarios. Raz should have been offside yesterday but so should the player in the Schalke game.
Click to expand...


The question I have, is why have they inserted that rule ?

I can't see how the ref was wrong; the rule exists, so how else are you supposed to interpret it, if that's wrong ?

But if he'd let the offside stand, then he would also be right in most people's opinion.

So why would anyone come up with that, as an addition to the offside law ?

Imo, they are deliberately trying to give rules several interpretations. Because the people at the top, are bent.
 
blueinsa said:
This. For VAR to work effectively re offsides the law has to be changed and it has to go back to if you are stood in an offside position then you are offside.

No active, inactive crap or not interfering with play, offside or not as it takes away the interpretation and the ability for VAR to be used to benefit certain sides whilst penalising others.

Dont hold your breath though.
Click to expand...
I think the current offside law is exactly how it should be. It’s easy to understand once you’ve read the laws and it’s the best way to give an advantage to the attacking side and keep the game flowing better.
 
nmc said:
Setting aside his obvious bias - and more likely hatred for us - Peter Walton didn’t have a clue yesterday re the present offside rule. Even with VAR it would have been contentious because you could make a case for giving or disallowing a goal. The offside rules were fine 10 years ago - then they dicked about with it and now it’s too complicated and can’t deal with real game scenarios. Raz should have been offside yesterday but so should the player in the Schalke game.
Click to expand...
No he shouldn’t, because as soon as Ederson comes to punch the ball, Fernandinho and the Shalke player are inactive in terms of the ball and therefore he wasn’t offside.
 
Psychedelic Casual said:
I think the current offside law is exactly how it should be. It’s easy to understand once you’ve read the laws and it’s the best way to give an advantage to the attacking side and keep the game flowing better.
Click to expand...

Dont agree.

The game has become so fast, so attacking that players dont need an advantage any longer and officials, fans and VAR doesnt need muddy waters when trying to get a decision right that no one can argue with and is fair.

Current laws on offside and VAR will have everyone up in arms next year mark my words.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nmc
blueinsa said:
Dont agree.

The game has become so fast, so attacking that players dont need an advantage any longer and officials, fans and VAR doesnt need muddy waters when trying to get a decision right that no one can argue with and is fair.

Current laws on offside and VAR will have everyone up in arms next year mark my words.
Click to expand...


Pep is completely wrong in saying v.a.r. would clear that up. The v.a.r. would be under pressure to give the most 'popular' outcome, as both are pretty much correct.
 
Neville Kneville said:
Good that he got in the dig about most of the Premier League voting for it & 'a few teams' didn't, though.
Click to expand...

He is playing a blinder media wise no doubt about it.

He can see exactly what they are trying to do to us and if only they knew rather than weakening, its galvanising the very people that will ensure we just get stronger.
 
Neville Kneville said:
Pep is completely wrong in saying v.a.r. would clear that up. The v.a.r. would be under pressure to give the most 'popular' outcome, as both are pretty much correct.
Click to expand...
It’s very simple for me, as soon as the ball can be challenged for by Sterling he is offside.
 
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
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.