Manchester City v Aston Villa Match Thread - Wed 20th Jan @ 6pm | Page 37 | Vital Football

Manchester City v Aston Villa Match Thread - Wed 20th Jan @ 6pm

mike_field said:
Even if you take out 'challenging' Tierney it still leaves the remainder of interfering with-

interfering with an opponent by:
preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
challenging an opponent for the ball or
clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
Click to expand...

You're right Mike, but all of those are also led into by the line, "A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched by a team-mate". It wasn't a City players touch, so that list isn't applicable. They would have worked if from the City hook forwards, Rodri challenged Mings as he attempted to chest the ball.
 
It is a rubbish rule, but it is a rule, the motd summary seemed pretty clear to me.

Fact remains, you clear a ball like that and the motd summary also showed clearly Mings saw where their player was.
 
overlookedvillan said:
I do not though. IMO the rule quoted is being misused and is not intended for this purpose.
Click to expand...

If it was there for a specific purpose, eg. a wayward back pass that would be written into the law. It is there for any time that situation occurs, be it frequent or rare.

Again, as I say, I am in the it's offside camp. I've just propositioned some understanding to why what happened, happened and that the earlier part of Law 11 is not relevant in this situation.
 
The Fear said:
It is a rubbish rule, but it is a rule, the motd summary seemed pretty clear to me.

Fact remains, you clear a ball like that and the motd summary also showed clearly Mings saw where their player was.
Click to expand...

yep at the end of the day, we can't keep blaming ref or VAR for everything, we were well beaten because they are better than us.
Shows how far we've come though when we are disappointed not to have got something at Man city
 
Tierney said:
You're right Mike, but all of those are also led into by the line, "A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched by a team-mate". It wasn't a City players touch, so that list isn't applicable. They would have worked if from the City hook forwards, Rodri challenged Mings as he attempted to chest the ball.
Click to expand...

The moment the ball is played by a team mate he's offside, Mings checks him, then before Mings chests the ball, he's heading for Mings and then in position to nick the ball after the chest.

That's interfering and stopping Mings from playing the ball is also referenced in the rules - he's offside.
 
The Fear said:
It is a rubbish rule, but it is a rule, the motd summary seemed pretty clear to me.

Fact remains, you clear a ball like that and the motd summary also showed clearly Mings saw where their player was.
Click to expand...

Lineker didn't even know the rule, as they cropped it to suit so his summary was pathetic and wrong - Keown was the closest.

The rule is fine and has worked for years until last night.
 
mike_field said:
Lineker didn't even know the rule, as they cropped it to suit so his summary was pathetic and wrong - Keown was the closest.

The rule is fine and has worked for years until last night.
Click to expand...

It'll happen in another game but it won't get as far as being a goal. Someone will take it down, miscontrol it and the opposition will press and it will be called offside. Its also a lie to say this has never happened before. It has happened its just that the flag goes up immediately and the other side never even gets a chance to go and score.

We all know if the linesman puts up the flag nobody would have complained. If you have to go and issue a statement something is wrong. Common sense has not prevailed.
 
CDX_EIRE said:
It'll happen in another game but it won't get as far as being a goal. Someone will take it down, miscontrol it and the opposition will press and it will be called offside. Its also a lie to say this has never happened before. It has happened its just that the flag goes up immediately and the other side never even gets a chance to go and score.

We all know if the linesman puts up the flag nobody would have complained. If you have to go and issue a statement something is wrong. Common sense has not prevailed.
Click to expand...

Ten a penny isn't it, the Serie A example on the same night - the second Rodri gets involved he's offside.

I don't see how the rule isn't clear - Rodri moves to intercept and get involved = he's offside. Rodri makes no attempt at the ball, Mings cocks up and the ball heads to Rodri, he's receiving it and isn't offside.

You don't receive something by taking it.
 
mike_field said:
Ten a penny isn't it, the Serie A example on the same night - the second Rodri gets involved he's offside.

I don't see how the rule isn't clear - Rodri moves to intercept and get involved = he's offside. Rodri makes no attempt at the ball, Mings cocks up and the ball heads to Rodri, he's receiving it and isn't offside.

You don't receive something by taking it.
Click to expand...

Thats the key word and I'll die on my hill for it :computer:

Edit: and I feel like they're taking the piss out of us
 
CDX_EIRE said:
I agree with all of that Tierney. Re: Item #1 I get it but I also think it's bollocks. I am ambivalent about the penalty, it almost takes away from the real story. Even though I get it I am also flabbergasted that it still wasn't flagged for offside. IMO they're bending the rules to fit reality.

I am convinced if we were locked in a room with them for an hour it would be an incredibly uncomfortable hour and they'd fight tooth and nail to show they were right. They've no interest in being wrong.

It would be great to see us make a farce of it by trying to get Ollie into a position like that where they call him offside.
Click to expand...

I sincerely hope that Dean instructs Ollie to that every game.
 
mike_field said:
The moment the ball is played by a team mate he's offside, Mings checks him, then before Mings chests the ball, he's heading for Mings and then in position to nick the ball after the chest.

That's interfering and stopping Mings from playing the ball is also referenced in the rules - he's offside.
Click to expand...

Yes, he is off when the City header happens, but he doesn't stop Mings playing the ball as he gets him on the second touch on the floor. So that whole first paragraph of the law doesn't come into it, the preceding touch before Rodri's involvement wasn't from a City player, it's from Mings' chest trap.

I've just watched it back (again! o_O) and Rodri is jogging back from the City header in a straight line, as you'd expect of any player in that situation; he only changes his angle towards Mings as he chests it, by which point, because Mings had to backpedal to control it, the distance is minimal and he can pounce on touch two because the chest trap was directed to his side. It's why only when analysing it more today do I think the issue is more Mings' choice (or mistake) of how he chest the ball down.

If Mings had taken another step back and attempted to cushion volley it and it Rodri was in the way, I imagine the flag would be raised based on the argument you're putting forward.

It's naff (in the politest sense), I'm not a fan, I think it should've been offside; but you're wrong to reference the part of the LotG that you have.
 
CDX_EIRE said:
Thats the key word and I'll die on my hill for it :computer:

Edit: and I feel like they're taking the piss out of us
Click to expand...

I'm known for my meltdowns on here, but last night was the angriest I've been in a long time at something football related. I've been off all day as well which is why I didn't appear until this late lol

Ridiculous really as I'm not annoyed City won, on balance they deserved to, but not in that manner.
 
Tierney said:
Yes, he is off when the City header happens, but he doesn't stop Mings playing the ball as he gets him on the second touch on the floor. So that whole first paragraph of the law doesn't come into it, the preceding touch before Rodri's involvement wasn't from a City player, it's from Mings' chest trap.

I've just watched it back (again! o_O) and Rodri is jogging back from the City header in a straight line, as you'd expect of any player in that situation; he only changes his angle towards Mings as he chests it, by which point, because Mings had to backpedal to control it, the distance is minimal and he can pounce on touch two because the chest trap was directed to his side. It's why only when analysing it more today do I think the issue is more Mings' choice (or mistake) of how he chest the ball down.

If Mings had taken another step back and attempted to cushion volley it and it Rodri was in the way, I imagine the flag would be raised based on the argument you're putting forward.

It's naff (in the politest sense), I'm not a fan, I think it should've been offside; but you're wrong to reference the part of the LotG that you have.
Click to expand...

I think I see what you are saying I just don't agree. The fact he's in position for the second touch shows he was offside, involved and active on the first touch. He stops Mings from playing the ball/controlling the ball/having the ball under control - whatever preferred phrase. So his simple body closeness makes him active irrespective of first or second touch argument.

So it's offside for me as you don't receive a ball you are challenging for - had Mings properly chested it to him, that would be different. But bringing down in his general direction, by the rule Rodri should still not have got involved.

It's lifted from the FA website - which part am I missing or do you think I'm misinterpreting?

Offside offence

A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:

interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or
interfering with an opponent by:

preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
challenging an opponent for the ball or (he's in position at the chest)
clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or (same again, moving to Mings impacts the opponent)
making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball (as above)

*The first point of contact of the 'play' or 'touch' of the ball should be used

Genuine question as I plan on doing an FP ramble about this, so if there's an argument I'm blind to here owing to anger I want to see it lol
 
Last edited:
By the letter of the law, City's goal was legitimate because Mings was deemed to have deliberately played the ball. Subsequently, Rodri was not considered to have gained an advantage.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55757428

The dumb bastards are sticking to this aren't they in the full knowledge that players will now lurk offside, wait for the touch to bizarelly and wrongly justify a new phase of play and pounce.

:mad:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.