The end of the agenda debate?

[blueinsa]

Imo, they are deliberately trying to give rules several interpretations. Because the people at the top, are bent.

Bingo.

Ready made excuse every time regardless of how they give it.

 

[nmc]

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.

It’s all about opinions I know, but real game scenarios are more complex, as you’ve said in the Schalke scenario keeper starts to come, in theory making everyone inactive but what if Ederson changes his mind and stops, at what point is the striker active again? There’s an awful lot of subjectivity in the present rule and sometimes officials have to presume intent which isn’t really something that lends itself to transparency nor is it reliable. The present rule might work in a strategic debate at a Football conference if your aim is to get the game to flow more but I honestly think with VAR it will undermine the credibility of the game if the offside rule isn’t simplified. We need a simpler rule that can be interpreted quickly and efficiently - and one that doesn’t leave a lasting debate after every decision. Football needs to be decided on the pitch not in the VAR trailer.

 

[Deleted member 77198]

It’s all about opinions I know, but real game scenarios are more complex, as you’ve said in the Schalke scenario keeper starts to come, in theory making everyone inactive but what if Ederson changes his mind and stops, at what point is the striker active again? There’s an awful lot of subjectivity in the present rule and sometimes officials have to presume intent which isn’t really something that lends itself to transparency nor is it reliable. The present rule might work in a strategic debate at a Football conference if your aim is to get the game to flow more but I honestly think with VAR it will undermine the credibility of the game if the offside rule isn’t simplified. We need a simpler rule that can be interpreted quickly and efficiently - and one that doesn’t leave a lasting debate after every decision. Football needs to be decided on the pitch not in the VAR trailer.

If Ederson changes his mind and stops, the Shalke player is active as soon as he can challenge for or touch the ball.

 

[East Level 2]

It’s very simple for me, as soon as the ball can be challenged for by Sterling he is offside.

Is that according to:

1) The laws of the game
2) The laws and the instructions to the officials of how to interpret the laws
3) Your opinion of the laws and the instructions to the officials of how to interpret the laws
4) Your opinion of what the laws should be

Genuine question as I feel the laws relating to offside and handball sometimes don't match the interpretations the FA/PL/UEFA/FIFA are asking officials to put on them.

 

[Neville Kneville]

It’s very simple for me, as soon as the ball can be challenged for by Sterling he is offside.

It's simple for you, but it would have to be deemed an actual 'challenge for the ball' by Sterling or: A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save by any opponent) is not considered to have gained an advantage..

A ‘save’ is when a player stops, or attempts to stop, a ball which is going into or very close to the goal with any part of the body except the hands/arms (unless the goalkeeper within the penalty area).

Also: a player in an offisde position is moving towards the ball with the intention of playing the ball and is fouled before playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the foul is penalised as it has occurred before the offside offence

So if Sterling's action wasn't deemed a 'challenge', he would have been entitled to a pen, if the bloke had kicked him, rather than the ball.

On the slomo I saw from the goal angle, Sterling did not appear to make any kind of challenge for the ball, just reacted when the bloke kicked it.

Offside offence

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 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 or
• challenging an opponent for the ball or
• clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
• making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

*The first point of contact of the 'play' or 'touch' of the ball should be used

or

• gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when it has:
• rebounded or been deflected off the goalpost, crossbar or an opponent
• been deliberately saved by any opponent
• A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save by any opponent) is not considered to have gained an advantage.

A ‘save’ is when a player stops, or attempts to stop, a ball which is going into or very close to the goal with any part of the body except the hands/arms (unless the goalkeeper within the penalty area).

In situations where:

• a player moving from, or standing in, an offside position is in the way of an opponent and interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the ball this is an offside offence if it impacts on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball; if the player moves into the way of an opponent and impedes the opponent's progress (e.g blocks the opponent) the offence should be penalised under Law 12
• a player in an offisde position is moving towards the ball with the intention of playing the ball and is fouled before playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the foul is penalised as it has occurred before the offside offence
• an offence is committed against a player in an offside position who is already playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the offside offence is penalised as it has occurred before the foul challenge

 

[ctid1894]

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.

The offside and handball rules have purposefully been left open to interpretation, specifically to ensure cases can be made for either allowing or disallowing goals, as it can be used to cover up the corrupt decisions.

The same can be said of red card decisions, if it’s Vinny for example the referees and media can portray it as a red card, if it’s Pogba then it’s not a red card because of this, that or the other, again to cover up the corrupt decisions.

Penalty decisions are the same, Salah goes down and there’s the merest hint of contact so it’s a penalty. Bernardo or Sterling go down and suddenly there’s not enough contact, it has to be a WWF wrestling move to be a penalty.

You’ll still get idiots who use the offside yesterday to try and say we benefit as well and it evens itself out when we all know basic maths and know full well it doesn’t. Just like you’ll get idiots who try to ignore the extreme amount of penalties Leicester got in their title year or Crystal Palace have got under Roy Hodgson.

 

[blueinsa]

The offside and handball rules have purposefully been left open to interpretation, specifically to ensure cases can be made for either allowing or disallowing goals, as it can be used to cover up the corrupt decisions.

The same can be said of red card decisions, if it’s Vinny for example the referees and media can portray it as a red card, if it’s Pogba then it’s not a red card because of this, that or the other, again to cover up the corrupt decisions.

Penalty decisions are the same, Salah goes down and there’s the merest hint of contact so it’s a penalty. Bernardo or Sterling go down and suddenly there’s not enough contact, it has to be a WWF wrestling move to be a penalty.

You’ll still get idiots who use the offside yesterday to try and say we benefit as well and it evens itself out when we all know basic maths and know full well it doesn’t. Just like you’ll get idiots who try to ignore the extreme amount of penalties Leicester got in their title year or Crystal Palace have got under Roy Hodgson.

100% this.

 

[bobom]

It wasn’t pro Utd and liverpool when Leicester won the league. The press were gushing about that ‘fairytale’ and what a fantastic achievement it was.

Remind me again - how many records did City break last year? As another poster has said, we achieved 100 points and it’s never mentioned.

Any other club ( whether they play in red or not) would be lauded for that whenever they got mentioned.

Rubbish. It's mentioned all the time.

 

[Maccblue]

The scousers are convinced the worlds against them after the first goal yesterday
Some dick on talk shite rang in practically crying

 

[blueinsa]

The scousers are convinced the worlds against them after the first goal yesterday
Some dick on talk shite rang in practically crying

They have istreeeeee lar...