The end of the agenda debate?

[nmc]

What’s all this about moss being caught on a microphone ?

He does a great Elvis impersonation I understand.

 

[Neville Kneville]

What’s all this about moss being caught on a microphone ?

Eyesight not great.

It was a Sure SM58 but he thought it said 99 so he eat it.

 

[dennishasdoneit]

What’s all this about moss being caught on a microphone ?

His once a week stand up comedian routine....

 

[SWP's back]

Link to Jon Moss who's meant to be one of the most corrupt refs in the Premier league, allegedly asking for help on the decision via the monitor

Exactly. If he was wired up to anyone but his three other officials, such as a var type van, he wouldn’t be asking his fourth official would he.

 

[SWP's back]

From the incident last year ; PGMOL said on Monday that Moss had correctly interpreted the Laws of the Game, which state a player is not offside if “receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball”.

Which is what happened with Sterling.

Totally different incidents. Sterling was already offside by moving towards and attempting to play the ball before the defender kicks it.

You’re not surely saying that Sterling’s goal was rightly awarded are you?

 

[Bill]

The problem here is nobody really know the rules. First phase this second phase that. its crazy. I say if you are the furthest player forward you are off. You know like it was for 60 years prior. No interpretation or wired up refs needed.

 

[Eds]

Totally different incidents. Sterling was already offside by moving towards and attempting to play the ball before the defender kicks it.

You’re not surely saying that Sterling’s goal was rightly awarded are you?

The way the laws are written you can argue that the goal was awarded correctly. However there is also a strong argument for why it should have been disallowed. If the defender had missed the ball and taken out Raz then again there is a strong argument that we should have been awarded a penalty. This offside law is shit the way it is written. Surely we all remember BFS Bolton team and the likes of Ruud Van Shergar all standing offside at free kicks trying to gain an advantage and nothing being done about it. The laws are even more confusing now and nobody actually understands them. Last week a penalty awarded against PSG because according to UEFA his arm was too far away from his body yet the penalty against Otamendi was given with his arm by his side. Again nobody knows the law as they are deliberately open to interpretation

 

[SWP's back]

The way the laws are written you can argue that the goal was awarded correctly.

I really don’t think you could as he was obviously interfering with play as he was attempting to play the ball.

Look I’m happy we got one going our way for a change but I’ve not seen a single ex pro, pundit or ex ref say the decision was correct and rightly so.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

I really don’t think you could as he was obviously interfering with play as he was attempting to play the ball.

Look I’m happy we got one going our way for a change but I’ve not seen a single ex pro, pundit or ex ref say the decision was correct and rightly so.

I was and still am bemused that the goal was given.

The key as I see it is that Sterling moved towards the ball, and was about a yard from it when it was kicked into him. How that cannot be affecting play under one of the four points of the law is beyond me. I've ended up with these in reverse order, but they are all separated by OR.
"interfering with an opponent by making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball" - if he'd not run towards the ball, then the opponent isn't hurried into a clearance.
"interfering with an opponent by clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent" - he ran and was a yard from it. If he wasn't attempting to play it, what was he doing?
"interfering with an opponent by challenging an opponent for the ball" - the laws don't actually appear (as far as I can see) to define 'challenge', but I think he must have been doing this.

"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" - this one he probably didn't do.

 

[CityInWashingtonState]

I was and still am bemused that the goal was given.

The key as I see it is that Sterling moved towards the ball, and was about a yard from it when it was kicked into him. How that cannot be affecting play under one of the four points of the law is beyond me. I've ended up with these in reverse order, but they are all separated by OR.
"interfering with an opponent by making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball" - if he'd not run towards the ball, then the opponent isn't hurried into a clearance.
"interfering with an opponent by clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent" - he ran and was a yard from it. If he wasn't attempting to play it, what was he doing?
"interfering with an opponent by challenging an opponent for the ball" - the laws don't actually appear (as far as I can see) to define 'challenge', but I think he must have been doing this.

"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" - this one he probably didn't do.

Agreed.

I guess that the ref wasn't tuned into the massive anti-CIty conspiracy... er, "Agenda."

Or maybe the ref was "bent" - paid off to favor City... - no, wait, that's not part of the Agenda - which is obviously true, debate being over and all.

Come to think of it... the P/L refs are total shit - allowing us to win 2 P/L titles within the last few years. Come on now! The agenda is on! No titles for City.