If that goal was scored against United you'd be fine with it?if Rodri challenged for the ball before Mings controlled it, he would have been offside. But as soon as Mings controls the ball, Rodri is no longer in an offside position and is free to tackle.
when the opposition have control of the ball you cannot be in an offside position.
My argument is he affects Mings bringing the ball down. It's possible to affect the play without challenging for the ball.don’t think anyone is an expert!
It appears if he challenged for the long ball from the city player, he’s offside. But the second Mings (consciously) touched the ball, it’s fair play to tackle him - even if coming from behind when 10 yards offside. Bonkers.
Yes. Because Rodri was not offside when he won the ball from Mings. You saying it over and over again doesn’t make Rodri offside. The laws of the game state that Rodri was not offside when Mings controlled the ball.If that goal was scored against United you'd be fine with it?
Rodri is offside by any logical explanation because he's two yards away from Mings when he brings it down. Anyone who's ever played football will tell you recieving the ball that close to an opposition player affects you. It's as simple as that.
If he did know and he brought it down its on him. Its completely known that you cant be offside after the other team plays the ball. Mings defence is either a, I didn't know he was there (fair given the circumstances) or b, I didn't know the rules (not cool for a pro defender). He has to know a player from an oppo team can't be offside while his team possess the ball.That's conjecture. Me or you has no idea Mings didn't know. Unless Mings has come out and said it?
And I've already said, it's very possible he did know and made the decision to bring it down knowing Rodri was 15 yards offside when the ball was played. If it was marginal and Rodri was on his back and it wasn't clear whether he was offside or not, then sure Mings would never bring the ball down. But it wasn't so he didn't.
The rule can be interpreted to say he was onside and can be interpreted to say he was offside. That's ridiculous in and of itself. If that happened against my team I'd be absolutely fuming, and I think it's safe to assume so would every single other can in the country. Therefore I can't see the logic in anyone trying to argue that it was the right call and people should just leave it at that.
He affects Mings by Mings thinking he doesnt affect him?My argument is he affects Mings bringing the ball down. It's possible to affect the play without challenging for the ball.
no, because Mings doesn’t know he’s there. It’s a stupid rule, but I don’t agree with your point.My argument is he affects Mings bringing the ball down. It's possible to affect the play without challenging for the ball.
So Rodri isn't affecting play by being 2 yards behind Mings when he controls it? Because if he is affecting play, then he is offside yeah? Or am I not understanding the rule?Yes. Because Rodri was not offside when he won the ball from Mings. You saying it over and over again doesn’t make Rodri offside. The laws of the game state that Rodri was not offside when Mings controlled the ball.
So you agree that Rodri pressured Mings which surely is affecting the play? So the grey area is whether Mings knew he was there before he touched it or not?If he did know and he brought it down its on him. Its completely known that you cant be offside after the other team plays the ball. Mings defence is either a, I didn't know he was there (fair given the circumstances) or b, I didn't know the rules (not cool for a pro defender). He has to know a player from an oppo team can't be offside while his team possess the ball.
I get what you are saying is that he felt pressured by Rodri but when the ball first touch his chest Rodri was more than 2 yards away. He was about 20 yards offside when the ball was played.
He affects Mings by being there.He affects Mings by Mings thinking he doesnt affect him?
How do you know Mings doesn't know he's there? How do you know Mings knows he's there but assumes he can't tackle him in less than a second because he's offside?no, because Mings doesn’t know he’s there. It’s a stupid rule, but I don’t agree with your point.
In general yeah, though in this specific instance not really. It's a fairly easy play and he just fecks it up. Don't buy that Rodri influenced him passively - unless Mings is the dumbest player of all time. What he tried to do should be fairly easy, but also significantly riskier than simply clearing the fecking ball away. Why take the risk if he's worried about Rodri?Forget the rule for a second, this is utter nonsense.
how do you know, that I don’t know, that Mings doesn’t know he’s there?How do you know Mings doesn't know he's there? How do you know Mings knows he's there but assumes he can't tackle him in less than a second because he's offside?
So the rule should be changed so that shite like this should be clearly offside? Cool.how do you know, that I don’t know, that Mings doesn’t know he’s there?
He was not affecting play, he didn’t challenge or even go towards the ball until Mings controlled it, and once that happened he is no longer offside. The rules state 4 ways of an offside player interfering, Rodri did not do any of them.So Rodri isn't affecting play by being 2 yards behind Mings when he controls it? Because if he is affecting play, then he is offside yeah? Or am I not understanding the rule?
Because the corrupt British sports media can never bring themselves to admit that we can be on the wrong end of bad decisions. It simply doesn't fit their agenda, which is why they gave so much coverage to Klopp's ridiculous claims. Leeds fan Martin Atkinson was tonight's ref, with a long history of shafting us. VAR tonight was Leicester fan Kevin Friend, who disallowed Harry Maguire's headed goal at Burnley last week. I've been saying for years, the majority of PL refs and the British sporting media are corrupt.Why isn't there a lot of noise about the Fred penalty in the aftermath? Is it because controversial VAR decisions never gets discussed when United is involved? No. Usually they get major headlines. So why? When will the media point out the hypocrisy by Klopp who has Mané and Salah diving as a tactic and has gotten an incredible amount of soft penalties and has conspired with actual Liverpool supporters to misuse their powers because they are working on tv as pundits, so they get to put pressure on the referees to give them penalties and deny United clear goals and penalties. It's beyond unfair, it's corruption and if those comments didn't get investigated - then they need to investigate the comments and the refs now, after evidence of clear misuse of VAR to not correct clear and obvious decisions in favour of Liverpool in the chase for the title.
To the letter of the law yes. There is no way in hell I believe any CB who's ever played football will try and pull a ball down on his chest whilst being pressured.So you agree that Rodri pressured Mings which surely is affecting the play? So the grey area is whether Mings knew he was there before he touched it or not?
Do you think it's black and white ie. it's clear as day that Rodri was onside and there's no discussion to be had at all?
Was astonished at the Fred decision. Clear and obvious error. Takes away his standing legThe inconsistency and lack of transparency is horrible. A player coming from an offsides position and directly from behind the play/ball causes a dispossession. But no VAR shows that the VAR and Jon Moss saw nothing wrong. I also don't feel bad for Mings because he's a thug and that's what happens when you get caught on the ball like a tool he is.
And then how VAR wasn't intervened with the foul on Fred is inept officiating. Challenge from behind, kicks Fred's foot and the ball is on the other side of his body. Clear penalty, but no review.
The whole issue is that this phrase right here is just an opinion. No one knows if he affected Mings, even if for the briefest of seconds.He was not affecting play
Mings should have known Rodri was there to be fair. He watched Rodri close down Martinez.To the letter of the law yes. There is no way in hell I believe any CB who's ever played football will try and pull a ball down on his chest whilst being pressured.
There is no way Mings was pressured if he "knew" Rodri was offside.
There is no logical reason for him to take down the ball if he believed Rodri was there and onside as soon as he chested it.
I just don't see any way what you are describing could happen. To the letter of the law 100% Rodri is onside and not interfering at the time Mings chests the ball. Its a shitty rule and Rodri exploited it (maybe if he was quicker he would have challenged for it and then been off) but as it played out, he's 100% onside and in my humble opinion, Mings has zero clue he's there till after he's chested the ball which is unfair on Mings and why the rule needs looking at.
is anyone saying the rule is correct? That’s not my view, and from what I’ve seen, not the pundits view Either. The rule is bloody stupid.So the rule should be changed so that shite like this should be clearly offside? Cool.
It’s not. It’s literally in the rules. I stated that in the part of my post that you conveniently cut off.The whole issue is that this phrase right here is just an opinion. No one knows if he affected Mings, even if for the briefest of seconds.
I agree that the rule is the rule and IF it's clear that he isn't affecting Mings, then he isn't offside. But if you read back, you'll see my whole point is we don't know if he affected Mings play.
My opinion is that he did. Yours is that he didn't.
This, so much. A blatant pen, but VAR does not think it is a blatant wrong decision, even though it is.The inconsistency and lack of transparency is horrible. A player coming from an offsides position and directly from behind the play/ball causes a dispossession. But no VAR shows that the VAR and Jon Moss saw nothing wrong. I also don't feel bad for Mings because he's a thug and that's what happens when you get caught on the ball like a tool he is.
And then how VAR wasn't intervened with the foul on Fred is inept officiating. Challenge from behind, kicks Fred's foot and the ball is on the other side of his body. Clear penalty, but no review.
Which is my problem with it. Not that it's your opinion, just that it comes down to an opinion.and in my humble opinion
Maybe he forgot, I dunno. If he didn't know the rules then I kinda have less sympathy for him (not that I have much anyway given Zlatan and the other horror tackle he did).Mings should have known Rodri was there to be fair. He watched Rodri close down Martinez.
Yeah I agree. Mings would have heard and felt him, he definitely affected the player before he touched it.If that goal was scored against United you'd be fine with it?
Rodri is offside by any logical explanation because he's two yards away from Mings when he brings it down. Anyone who's ever played football will tell you recieving the ball that close to an opposition player affects you. It's as simple as that.
How would Mings have felt him? Rodri was yards away!Yeah I agree. Mings would have heard and felt him, he definitely affected the player before he touched it.
Can you show me the rule that determines whether a player is affecting play or not? Not your wording of the rules, the literal rule that determines if and when a player is affecting the play.It’s not. It’s literally in the rules. I stated that in the part of my post that you conveniently cut off.
Yep, thought it was a pen too. Maybe the scousers crying about conspiracies is working.Was astonished at the Fred decision. Clear and obvious error. Takes away his standing leg
https://resources.fifa.com/image/up...game-2020-21.pdf?cloudid=d6g1medsi8jrrd3e4impCan you show me the rule that determines whether a player is affecting play or not? Not your wording of the rules, the literal rule that determines if and when a player is affecting the play.
But it can't be in situations like this. How do they make it black or white. At what point do they decide the offside player is allowed back in? How long should he give Mings? There are too many variables, same with a defender sticking out a leg and deflecting the ball to an offside striker, its hard to tell between a block (save in the rules) and an attempted pass by (playing the ball).Which is my problem with it. Not that it's your opinion, just that it comes down to an opinion.
Offside is one of the rules that should be black and white.
Well, heard him more so, but he would have been aware of him there too.How would Mings have felt him? Rodri was yards away!
Why did he take the ball down with his chest so casually then? Surely if he was aware and being impacted by a player he wouldn’t do that and he would clear the ball?Well, heard him more so, but he would have been aware of him there too.
does he wear bells on his socks?Well, heard him more so, but he would have been aware of him there too.
Thats on Mings if its true. It doesnt give him license to feck it up.He affects Mings by being there.
Thank you. I'd say running straight towards the player with the ball is an obvious action which impacts the ability of an opponent to play the ball.https://resources.fifa.com/image/up...game-2020-21.pdf?cloudid=d6g1medsi8jrrd3e4imp
Pages 99 and 100 state 4 ways an offside player can interfere with play. Rodri did none of them under the letter of the law.
I never used to use the word corruption before, but when you have proof of the manager of a team publicly reiterate points made from tv-pundits about a fabricated narrative with claims against the refs such as "unexplainable decisions" "Impossible numbers", based on selective information with the ultimate goal of effecting the outcome of the league title by putting pressure on referees of the league, the only appropriate word is corruption. It might be inadvertent but that's giving them the benefit of the doubt, either way it has to be covered, pointed out and removed to not ruin the spectacle and professionalism of the sport.Because the corrupt British sports media can never bring themselves to admit that we can be on the wrong end of bad decisions. It simply doesn't fit their agenda, which is why they gave so much coverage to Klopp's ridiculous claims. Leeds fan Martin Atkinson was tonight's ref, with a long history of shafting us. VAR tonight was Leicester fan Kevin Friend, who disallowed Harry Maguire's headed goal at Burnley last week. I've been saying for years, the majority of PL refs and the British sporting media are corrupt.
I guess he thought he could control it and hold off your man. The point I’m making though is cancelos presence and movement towards the ball affects Mings’ decision making.Why did he take the ball down with his chest so casually then? Surely if he was aware and being impacted by a player he wouldn’t do that and he would clear the ball?
He didn’t run straight towards Mings though, watch it again. He turns and runs towards Mings once Mings controls the ball. Not before. He clearly doesn’t impede Mings control, as Mings is able to chest the ball down completely unopposed.Thank you. I'd say running straight towards the player with the ball is an obvious action which impacts the ability of an opponent to play the ball.
But it's fine, we'll agree to disagree.
Bottom of page 99. “Interfere with an opponent” by “challenging for the ball”. He fecking tackled him!https://resources.fifa.com/image/up...game-2020-21.pdf?cloudid=d6g1medsi8jrrd3e4imp
Pages 99 and 100 state 4 ways an offside player can interfere with play. Rodri did none of them under the letter of the law.
