Well, I don't know you reached that conclusion, but it kind of highlights my point; if the defender doesn't know that the attacker is offside or not, and plays the ball as they clearly can't roll the dice on the offside situation, the attacking player will benefit from the offside position by forcing the defender to make a decision, thus interfering with play.
Because then you can just hang about behind defenders in an offside position and wait for them to make mistakes?
ManUtd fan is glad that "controversial" goal for title rival is given, weird.
But the defender thought Rodri was offside so it didnt affect his thought process. Thats a reason why he isnt offside surely? Trying to phrase that as if by knowing he was offside he was interfering with play is just muddying the waters, there could never be a rule that covers that.
The bold part here is your own assumption too, though. You can't possibly referee football matches attempting to get into players' minds in every situation. By definition, to interfere is to make a deliberate action towards an opponent or the ball and Rodri doesn't do this, by current interpretation of the law, until after Mings has touched/played it, which is therefore lawful. Whether Mings has 'control' or not does not matter.
Nope.
Mings have stated that he didn't think Rodri would be able to compete for the ball because of the offside, so that doesn't really stand. That's how I interpret his tweet stating he didn't know of the exact rule.
I would say that isn't offside, as Rodri here would be receiving the ball from Mings' bad pass, where he competed for the ball in the actual incident, imo.
No & No for your first two questions, I thought it would be offside initially, but it was the same when City had that goal disallowed v 'Pool in the CL which should have been given, at least people know the law now, but seriously, Mings knew he was there and as a pro footballer should know the laws for things like that as a defender. I didn't see it but apparently Bernardo knew the law in his post match interview.
Funny you would say that, as this is exactly what Rodri is doing.
So if you run at full speed, but are three yards away when the ball is played by the defender, how long do you think it would take before the attacking player makes a challenge? Rodri was challenging inside of one second, after mowing towards the ball from the instance it was headed towards him.
It's so bad at the moment. The penalty on Fred not given and then the Maguire disallowed goal but that won't alter the perception in the media at all.Forgot that, surely you give the first foul? You know like the Shaw Cavani thing?There was a moment in the game yesterday where Greenwood got tripped up. He tried to stay on his feet but his momentum took him into Anguissa and the ref called a foul against Greenwood
Clearly not. Even though Greenwood's 'foul' is only because someone tripped him up!
Yes it was.
Consistency hey.It seems very odd that they can talk about phases of play after that Burnley debacle for sure.
With that I agree. The rules have been there for years and years though. How one interprets is a different matter, as we saw yesterday.
Chest the ball, get it down and take a couple of touches yes, but Mings second touch was tackling rodri because he had made an attempt to take the ball.
Couple of touches? he chests it down and Rodri is there immediately.
I was saying a chest and couple of touches then rodri tackling him would be ok
I see.
In fairness, I don’t think that is the issue at all. The laws are pretty clear that it’s not offside. The issue is that most of us aren’t comfortable with that being the law and would prefer it changed.
Not when Mings first plays the ball, on his chest. Rodri still isn't close enough to have challenged/be considered interfering by law at that point.
No, linesman would have flagged that in years gone by, the new rule is not to raise your flag untill play finishes isn’t it?
Where in the current offside law is this particular situation clearly onside? Please show me.
Not even being talked about it.
It’s absolutely nonsense to say once he’s chested that it’s a new phase of play and he’s in control of the ball, the ball just about touches the floor while Rodri is still coming from offside and then challenges for it. Utterly bizarre how people can say hes not interfering with play from offside position with a straight face
even Dermot Gallagher, for once, contradicted the refs decision and said it was a pen.
Depends, for obvious offside the flag goes up immediately. But the linesman has to make a decision. The linesman doesn't keep the flag down because of VAR, he keeps it down because he doesn't believe it's offside. If he thought he was he would have flagged it
It's been posted about 47 times in this thread already, just read back.
Yeah ive changed my mind over this. This isnt offside if you are only offside if you touch the ball.
Well if the linesman would have been the same person who was looking at it in the VAR room then he would have probably decided the same way.
It's just another layer of refs, sort of. (Whether we agree with the decision or not.)It was a shocking decision tbh.
It is perfectly obvious that the officials are making it up as they go.
This is a good question. Why is this different here to, for example, the penalty we got vs City when VAR went back and spotted that Rashford was offside. Why can’t VAR or of course the rules, allow for this goal to be disallowed due to the player being offside when the initial ball was played, but can for the Rashford penalty? At some point in the buildup a ball was played and the player was offside. One team benefits another doesn’t. Makes no sense
It’ll be great if Jose latches onto it and literally plays Kane in such a way as to take advantage every game.
Where’s the definition of “receives” in the rules? In ordinary English language, “receives” most definitely does not mean “takes from”.
