Exactly in what universe should you be able to come back from an offside position and tackle someone in the process of controlling the ball?
Absolutely absurd
Refs & VAR 2020/2021 Discussion
- Thread starter Annihilate Now!
- Start date
Absolutely absurd
In the VAR universe. Because this poxy initiative is repeatedly making common sense, simple rules get bent all out of shape and confusing the shit out of everyone involved. Sometimes more than once during the same season. After decades of everyone being crystal clear on the rules of the game. All because a few cry babies can’t handle the fact that referees, like footballers, occasionally make mistakes. It’s absolute dog shit and it’s ruining football.Exactly in what universe should you be able to come back from an offside position and tackle someone in the process of controlling the ball?
Absolutely absurd
Last edited:
Trying to post a twitter link and I get an oops we have a problem message.
Seems tackling from an offside position is in the rules.
Edit
Seems tackling from an offside position is in the rules.
Edit
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Exactly, this is as clear as it gets.
Le ref got it wrong, they tried to give some shitty explanation afterwards as to why it was the right call.
There's no way this was another phase of play, Rodri challenges for the ball before Mings has even the time to get a second touch. How the hell is that another phase of play i don't know.
2 points gifted to city in a tight title race...
You go in about 3/4 of the forum but you’re as bad and was in here last night banging on repeatedly that mings didn’t know he was there, when mings clearly sees him close the keeper down so knows he’s there, mings also said himself that he didn’t know the rules after the match in his tweet yet you still kept going on about he hadn’t seen the defender, which just made it funnier. You’re sure pretty defensive over it.
None of that tops your post about there being a number of these k consents have happened and then you come back with an obscure mls game footage
, give over.That incident could have been called either way due to interpretation so you constantly going on about rules makes no sense and you’re not right
That’s not offside, just ask @padr81
Because the rules now change multiple times a year, even through out the season, plus they make no sense so it’s quite hard to keep up with. Rio mentioned last night how they used to change after each world cup and that gave you chance to digest them.While I don't think the gould should have stood, I find it absolutely shocking that not only Mings says he doesn't know the rule, he goes on Twitter to brag about it.
Yes, totally ruining it, and it makes me quite sad actually. They’re killing the game just to implement a pointless not fit for purpose technology
Well when did this particular rule change? No one could ever be offside once the opponent has control of the ball. That is the theory at the very least. What I think is probletmatic is Rodri's movement towards Mings through the time Mings has control over the ball. That's when he is actively offside and was therefore interfering with the play. If Mings would have called out this, we are talking about a different matter.
I heard Rio in the studio and I don't want to sound too rude but I would have hoped Rio is not exactly the benchmark when it comes to... well, knowing stuff. I might be wrong obviously.
This year? Last year? Whenever people stopped getting flagged for being offside
That goal still annoys me. How the defenders are meant to let the ball either bounce or just pass them by to make it offside is shocking, and against everything a defender learns from a young age.
How anyone can say that Mings are in control of the ball one second after it touches his chest are either a WUM or have never played football.
Furthermore, I don't think it is a new phase of play yet, you could argue that it is a transition for a new phase, or is a new phase immediately after the ball is touched, with any body part?
And to say that he makes a decision to make a play, would the ref give offside if Mings lets that ball bounce?
I don't know when the rule changed from impeding a player after gaining an advantage from being offside, as that is clearly easier to understand.
For the record, I think the Kane pen against Pool is offside as well, same with that eyesore from Mexico posted by the least biased poster in this thread.
In situations where:
offside, simple. Rodri coming back from an offside position clearly impedes Ming's ability to play the ball. Anybody with common sense knows this.
The big issue here is how people interpretate "playing the ball", is a chest control playing the ball? in this situation not for me.
- 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
offside, simple. Rodri coming back from an offside position clearly impedes Ming's ability to play the ball. Anybody with common sense knows this.
The big issue here is how people interpretate "playing the ball", is a chest control playing the ball? in this situation not for me.
Imagine if we had scored this goal last night.... Would have been a fun World this Morning.
It would be all over social media! It would be absolute carnage.
Yep, immediate review of rules, all refs reminded of responsibilities, ex-pro's highlighting incidents from 1927, counselling courses for all Fulham FC employees.... The works.
That has nothing to do with yesterday's situation though.
Of course it has, he was offside
H
He did play the ball, he chested it down?
Disclaimer: I'm an FA-qualified ref. Personally, I think the interpretation/wording of the law applied in the Rodri incident unquestionably needs changing. To the letter of the law, it's onside, and using common sense or (perhaps ignorant?) general expectation, it's offside.
But reading this thread, I love that many people just apportion blame to VAR and referees because it's convenient or the easiest target, when the law and bullet points in question here have been around for years now. It's a one in a million kind of incident that hardly ever occurs. Toys are being thrown out of prams because there is a widespread lack of understanding when it comes to how the laws will be applied... from both players and fans, it seems.
Rodri is initially in an offside position, but not committing an offside offence (whether you believe Mings knows he is there or not). When Mings touches the ball (whatever you do or don't believe about his control or Rodri challenging for/receiving the ball), that constitutes a deliberate action, which 'resets' the fact Rodri was in an offside position initially and therefore cannot, by the letter of the law, be gaining an advantage.
But reading this thread, I love that many people just apportion blame to VAR and referees because it's convenient or the easiest target, when the law and bullet points in question here have been around for years now. It's a one in a million kind of incident that hardly ever occurs. Toys are being thrown out of prams because there is a widespread lack of understanding when it comes to how the laws will be applied... from both players and fans, it seems.
Rodri is initially in an offside position, but not committing an offside offence (whether you believe Mings knows he is there or not). When Mings touches the ball (whatever you do or don't believe about his control or Rodri challenging for/receiving the ball), that constitutes a deliberate action, which 'resets' the fact Rodri was in an offside position initially and therefore cannot, by the letter of the law, be gaining an advantage.
That bullet point is irrelevant in this case, unfortunately. When the ball first comes to Mings, Rodri is NOT in the way of his opponent and has NOT interfered with Mings' movement towards the ball. It is right there for Mings to play. He could have easily headed it away unobstructed and unimpeded.
If Mings clears the ball because of Rodri's position, would that not indicate that he is inferring the play? Any defender takes that ball down if there is no one near them, saying that he could easily head the ball away is irrelevant in this case. He runs towards the ball and goes in for the challenge before Mings has control of the ball.
Had that been a through ball where Mings are first to the ball with an attacker behind him coming from an offside position to immediately go in for a challenge the ref blows the whistle every time. How is this any different?
If this were true then the rule wouldn't be needed if all it took for a player to stay offside is a defender knowing the striker is offside?
That's not playing the ball, playing the ball is intentionally passing it not just controlling it. If the ball was fired at him and it hit his chest, would you still say the same?
You cannot intercept a long ball and have it stolen off you before it even hits the floor from somebody behind you that's been offside for the last 5 seconds, it's just bonkers.
Wrong receives doesn't mean the ball is given to him, it means he gets control of it. Literally every ref has said the city goal should stand which means the Juventus one was wrong.
read the rest of it, he challenges him for the ball from an offside position. You can't stand offside and then run back and tackle people from - this has never been allowed.
I don't care if Mings brought it down on his chest, Rodri should never of even attempted to get involved at that stage - and quite clearly he didn't expect him to get involved hence why he didn't panic.
You can see his reaction after Rodri does kick it away, he's confused and so is the whole Villa defence.
if that isn't interefering with play then what is?
For the record every refereeing report on the game over here(which are done by ex-refs) agree this was a major mistake by the ref
He doesnt have to have possession, he gas to deliberately play the ball. Whether he controls it or not doesnt matter. His action was controlled. The result of said action doesn't matter.While I don't think the gould should have stood, I find it absolutely shocking that not only Mings says he doesn't know the rule, he goes on Twitter to brag about it.
You need to check the rules. Playing the is deliberately doing anything with it.
Blocking the ball is different because you aren't trying to control the outcome and counts as saving in the rules.
Ive just seen the City goal. Imho the player in the offside postion had the advantage. Should have been ruled out.
You're blaming VAR for refs being poor and people not knowing the rules?
And in a specific instance where VAR had nothing to do with it and which has been fairly consistently applied for years?
Look I posted another video from the pl and more examples. sick of rubbish like this. It was a legit goal. Cry about it all you like. Onside - goal.You go in about 3/4 of the forum but you’re as bad and was in here last night banging on repeatedly that mings didn’t know he was there, when mings clearly sees him close the keeper down so knows he’s there, mings also said himself that he didn’t know the rules after the match in his tweet yet you still kept going on about he hadn’t seen the defender, which just made it funnier. You’re sure pretty defensive over it.
None of that tops your post about there being a number of these k consents have happened and then you come back with an obscure mls game footage
That incident could have been called either way due to interpretation so you constantly going on about rules makes no sense and you’re not right
Half the Caf - offside,
Every ref in the world- onside with the same explanation myself, Giorno and Cyberman etc.. have given.
They know the laws better than you and I guess so do myself, Giorno and co.
Suck it up.
It happens all the time, it’s not a one in a million, it even happened in a different game yesterday! But was called offside
As I said in the rest of the post, I think offside is mostly nonsense and gives defenders way too much protection. Mings made an error of judgement and was punished. Good.
How Fred did not get a penalty last night is beyond me. The, at best incompetent, Kevin Friend (our ref against Burnley) in the VAR room explains alot.
City being allowed that off side goal is ridiculous. Especially in the context of the play being pulled back in our game against Burnley, so instead of then going down to 10 men and us having a free kick on the edge of the box, in an unprecedented move, the ref brings it back to a Shaw yellow card and a Burnley FK on the edge of our box.
Absolute joke.
City being allowed that off side goal is ridiculous. Especially in the context of the play being pulled back in our game against Burnley, so instead of then going down to 10 men and us having a free kick on the edge of the box, in an unprecedented move, the ref brings it back to a Shaw yellow card and a Burnley FK on the edge of our box.
Absolute joke.
Last edited:
That's what it is it's a grey area open to interpretation and here they interpreted that Mings did control the ball.
It seems very odd that they can talk about phases of play after that Burnley debacle for sure.
It's not a grey area at all. Even if he messed up controlling it he played the ball. The second he makes a deliberate touch (whether it works out or not) he played the ball.
It can't be this black and white... what if it skimmed his head? Like others have said teams will just stick a man offside and exploit this.
I’d flip it and say “why shouldn’t you be able to do that”?Exactly in what universe should you be able to come back from an offside position and tackle someone in the process of controlling the ball?
Absolutely absurd
Offside is literally only there to stop players goalhanging and prevent the game turning into AFL with the ball being launched forward at every opportunity. There’s no reason why a player shouldn’t be able to interfere with play after being offside that isn’t essentially “well that’s the way it’s always been”. The only reason I could imagine supporting it is if I were a lazy, slow defender who enjoyed the benefit of only having to look in 180 degrees.
I have read the rest of it. I think you're clinging on to the challenging for the ball from an offside position part, but because Rodri has not spatially interfered with Mings or affected/prevented him from moving towards the ball, the second half of that bullet point is void for this case.
For others here: playing the ball is broadly interpreted in law, ie touching it deliberately or with a deliberate action.