cheekybids
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 10,170
It’s the richest league in the world. There’s nothing small time here.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The worst thing about farcical officiating
- Thread starter SebastianBlue
- Start date
It’s the richest league in the world. There’s nothing small time here.
remember arthur mann
Well-Known Member
Offside is probably causing the most contention, by reverting to the old rules, not only will it probably save VAR, it'll more importantly save the game.remember when you tried to explain the offside rule to a girl , now no one has got a clue.
i used to spot an offside from 100 yards ,haven't got a clue what is and isn't nowadays , i can't even tell what phase of play im watching.
cheekybids
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 10,170
If it wasn't at the shit hole it would be been dis allowed
They’d have allowed it at the Etihad if they benefited. Look back at how we’ve been done in our own backyard.
Bluemoon has risen
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Dec 2020
- Messages
- 426
- Team supported
- Man City
Shove Haaland in an offside position, play the ball to him and have one of our other players run from deep from onside to tuck it in while Haaland shields the ball. Guarantee it would be disallowed if we tried that.
There are some very gullible people who actually think if we'd have scored a similar goal yesterday, if would have stood.It's corrupt
Don't think there's planned corruption but for sure there is a clear bias in favour of the Rags and Dippers.
I have said it all along, we look at decisions with a bias towards city gettinģ the correct call. Any 50 /50 call we favour city, i think the premier league look at it the same way. They want the league to be close and different winners, not city winning every year. Any close decision the var panel will have a bias towards a decision. Yesterday has blown their cover because that was a 90/10 call for offside and they overturned it.
I am pretty certain many players in the past who were offside were flagged the moment they moved towards the ball even if they had got back onside. A movement towards the ball run 20 yards following it and preventing at least two players from playing the ball. All those involved in yesterday’s cheating should be nowhere near a football match ever again and I include the fucking accountants league at Hough End.
The law makers at FIFA/UEFA/Premier League levels have messed about with so many areas of the game over the past decade or so that everyone is confused about what is and what isn't an offence.Trying to think how they can stop this happening again assuming they are not going to go back to the old rules, not sure how it can be done but maybe something along the lines of the player who is offside must run in a direction away from the ball until another player touches the ball.
Fucked if I know.
This has been particularly true of 'hand ball' and 'offside' offences.
However, throughout the interminable changes to the offside law one thing was always clear.. whatever the latest iteration of the law might say at the time, everyone understood that a player in an offside position who moves towards playing the ball commits an offence.. ALWAYS.
Yesterday's disgraceful, incompetent decision should result in the officials concerned being removed from the elite referee's list until they can prove their competence.
And City should make it known to the rest of the cartel that influence the game in this country that enough is enough, we're not taking this garbage any more..
Come on Pep/lads.. use this latest example of the cartel's behaviour to put some fire in your bellies, win every game between now and the end of the season to win the treble and stuff it up the cartel's jaxies..
Gordyola
Well-Known Member
The interpretation needs to be modified to include the word ACTIVE ie the ball is within playing distance which Rashford was. Its the same as a player shielding the ball out of play he isn't obstructing an opponent because the ball is within playing distanceTrying to think how they can stop this happening again assuming they are not going to go back to the old rules, not sure how it can be done but maybe something along the lines of the player who is offside must run in a direction away from the ball until another player touches the ball.
Fucked if I know.
So, the reason for the interpretation is for a player who in an offside position at the point the ball is played BUT not active If Rashford had been onside and Fernandez offside then this is fine as Rashford being active makes the fact that Fernandez offside not relevant
Its madness that goals are being ruled offside because a player is mm in front of an opponent but yesterday a player is over a meter off and is allowed to run with the ball because he didn't touch the ball Atwell fucked up end of
abu13
Well-Known Member
I really hope we do exactly this on Thursday night to show this for what it is.Shove Haaland in an offside position, play the ball to him and have one of our other players run from deep from onside to tuck it in while Haaland shields the ball. Guarantee it would be disallowed if we tried that.