Jump to content
talkfootball365
  • Welcome to talkfootball365!

    The better place to talk football.

Man City 2-0 Aston Villa - Wednesday 20th January, 2021


football forums

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Administrator
Posted
Just now, LFCMike said:

I've just seen Man City's first goal. Absolutely astonishing that's not been ruled out

Apparently the rule is because Mings makes a deliberate play at the ball, it renders Rodri not offside any more. 

Very weird.

If I remember correctly, there was similar in a Liverpool/Spurs game a few seasons back, so the rule isn't new. There was more debate about whether the ball was played deliberately back then.

Posted

This explanation of the decision from the Premier League is a mess. Rodri is clearly affecting play from that offside position when he’s chasing down that ball that Ming’s chests. I don’t know why he doesn’t just fucking header it or hoof it clear, but he is clearly affected in his judgement from Rodri. 

  • Administrator
Posted
1 minute ago, Rick said:

This explanation of the decision from the Premier League is a mess. Rodri is clearly affecting play from that offside position when he’s chasing down that ball that Ming’s chests. I don’t know why he doesn’t just fucking header it or hoof it clear, but he is clearly affected in his judgement from Rodri. 

Yep, this is the sticking point for me. Mings plays the ball because of where Rodri is. He's influenced in to playing the ball (and consequently a mistake) because of Rodri being there.

 

  • Administrator
Posted
1 minute ago, Rick said:

The only thing that’s going to cheer me up tonight is Utd getting a hiding. 

Yes please!

 

The one good thing about today is another Stones clean sheet and Gundogan getting another goal for FPL. 

  • Subscriber
Posted

There is no argument, you can't run back from 10 yards offside, tackle someone and set up a goal within a matter of seconds of the last time your team-mate played the ball. It's just silly, that's definitely offside.

Posted

I was watching it but couldn't listen to Steve  McManaman any longer

Posted
18 minutes ago, Stan said:

Apparently the rule is because Mings makes a deliberate play at the ball, it renders Rodri not offside any more. 

Very weird.

If I remember correctly, there was similar in a Liverpool/Spurs game a few seasons back, so the rule isn't new. There was more debate about whether the ball was played deliberately back then.

I don't think it's the same. In that incident, Lovren miskicked the ball and it went through to the Spurs player and they won a penalty. Rodri isn't receiving the ball from an opponent, he's tackling him from an offside position

  • Administrator
Posted
3 minutes ago, LFCMike said:

I don't think it's the same. In that incident, Lovren miskicked the ball and it went through to the Spurs player and they won a penalty. Rodri isn't receiving the ball from an opponent, he's tackling him from an offside position

Yeah but the point being Lovren deliberately played the ball? I can't remember fully what happened, just that there was a similar incident.

 

Posted

Yeah, if we take the Kane/Lovren thing as precedent, and we should as everyone came out and assured us it was the correct decision, this is the correct decision as well. As soon as the defender deliberately plays the ball, you stop being offside.

Absolutely ridiculous rule, but correct decision

Posted
1 minute ago, Stan said:

Yeah but the point being Lovren deliberately played the ball? I can't remember fully what happened, just that there was a similar incident.

 

The rule makes sense in the Lovren incident. It doesn't here. You always see offsides given for players coming back from an offside position. Bollocks interpretation of the rule imo

Posted
43 minutes ago, LFCMike said:

The rule makes sense in the Lovren incident. It doesn't here. You always see offsides given for players coming back from an offside position. Bollocks interpretation of the rule imo

Surely makes more sense in this incident? Lovren swung a boot at it which he had to do because of Kane's position and sliced it, whereas Mings brought the ball down and controlled it

Both attackers are interfering with play in my view, but apparently that doesn't matter

Posted
26 minutes ago, Burning Gold said:

Surely makes more sense in this incident? Lovren swung a boot at it which he had to do because of Kane's position and sliced it, whereas Mings brought the ball down and controlled it

Both attackers are interfering with play in my view, but apparently that doesn't matter

Kane doesn't run 20 yards to tackle the defender. The ball just falls to him

Posted
1 hour ago, LFCMike said:

The rule makes sense in the Lovren incident. It doesn't here. You always see offsides given for players coming back from an offside position. Bollocks interpretation of the rule imo

Yet another bogus interpretation of the rules.

Mings doesn't even try to play the ball if the City player isn't there.

  • Administrator
Posted
2 minutes ago, Scouse_Mouse said:

Mings doesn't even try to play the ball if the City player isn't there.

I think he would

  • The topic was unpinned
  • Administrator
Posted
Just now, LFCMadLad said:

Not a clue what he's doing.

It's how he went from 'I don't know if he's touched the ball' immediately to 'I'm giving a penalty'. Absolute knob of a ref.

Posted
Just now, Stan said:

It's how he went from 'I don't know if he's touched the ball' immediately to 'I'm giving a penalty'. Absolute knob of a ref.

Yeah, the obvious decision to give if he wasn't sure was to not give a penalty.

He just decided "fuck it, let them have one".

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...