Manchester City v Aston Villa Match Thread - Wed 20th Jan @ 6pm | Page 38 | Vital Football

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

mike_field said:
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:
Click to expand...


Of course Mings deliberately played the ball.... the ball was in play......
 
I don’t know the ins and outs of the rule, and I can’t be arsed to find out.

Fundamentally as Citeh are a team challenging for the title, the VAR ref is psychologically asking himself a different question because it was a City goal, than he would’ve done if the roles were reversed. If we had scored that, it would’ve been guilty before proven innocent - where every stone would’ve been unturned to prove it foul play.

I’m not talking about the black and white rules here, I’ll trust what I’ve read that by the letter of the law it was the right decision. However, if that was the other way round we’d be sat he arguing they didn’t follow the letter of the law, when they should’ve.

That’s the reality I suspect.
 
Silhillvilla said:
I'm more angry with the old Trafford robbery we deserved something there, realistically we were well beaten last night
Click to expand...
I'm still angry about Old Trafford too. They fueled the fire last night though. They're lucky there's no fans allowed in the stadiums, if there was a sniff of a controversial refereeing decision at Villa Park on Saturday they would be lucky to get out alive.
 
danvilla2 said:
I don’t know the ins and outs of the rule, and I can’t be arsed to find out.

Fundamentally as Citeh are a team challenging for the title, the VAR ref is psychologically asking himself a different question because it was a City goal, than he would’ve done if the roles were reversed. If we had scored that, it would’ve been guilty before proven innocent - where every stone would’ve been unturned to prove it foul play.

I’m not talking about the black and white rules here, I’ll trust what I’ve read that by the letter of the law it was the right decision. However, if that was the other way round we’d be sat he arguing they didn’t follow the letter of the law, when they should’ve.

That’s the reality I suspect.
Click to expand...
If we had scored that goal I would have known it was wrong and wondered how we got away with it just like the Sheffield Utd goal last season. It's never a legal challenge on Mings, not by any rule.
 
danvilla2 said:
I don’t know the ins and outs of the rule, and I can’t be arsed to find out.

Fundamentally as Citeh are a team challenging for the title, the VAR ref is psychologically asking himself a different question because it was a City goal, than he would’ve done if the roles were reversed. If we had scored that, it would’ve been guilty before proven innocent - where every stone would’ve been unturned to prove it foul play.

I’m not talking about the black and white rules here, I’ll trust what I’ve read that by the letter of the law it was the right decision. However, if that was the other way round we’d be sat he arguing they didn’t follow the letter of the law, when they should’ve.

That’s the reality I suspect.
Click to expand...

Nope, genuinely had we had a goal scrubbed off for that I'd be lambasting the player for getting involved (getting a daft yellow card most likely) instead of getting back onside.
 
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...
Let's say Johnny Evans or a Tarkowski have to deal with that same situation. What would they do?
 
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...
Had he chested it the other side then another city player might have got to it. If in doubt put it in row z. Nice to play football in the opponents half....not outside and around your own penalty area. Mings isnt good enough to do it anyway.
 
robbali said:
Had he chested it the other side then another city player might have got to it. If in doubt put it in row z. Nice to play football in the opponents half....not outside and around your own penalty area. Mings isnt good enough to do it anyway.
Click to expand...

They are being told to play football in their own half, even the keeper is constantly looking for the short option. Easy to say in hindsight he should have launched it, but everyone expected Rodri to be flagged offside if he did what he did.
 
garygaryshaw said:
They are being told to play football in their own half, even the keeper is constantly looking for the short option. Easy to say in hindsight he should have launched it, but everyone expected Rodri to be flagged offside if he did what he did.
Click to expand...

Agree about all this hindsight going on.

If Mings had wellied it into row z I guarantee there will be some calling him a donkey, distribution is shite, trying to be all Hollywood, it because he is chewing gum....blah...blah.

And FACT ....if he had wellied it away not one person would be saying they were glad he did because if he didn’t Rodri would have come from behind him and stolen the ball .

Because the whole world didn’t know that Rodri wouldn’t have been given as being offside.
 
Melon Donkey said:
Agree about all this hindsight going on.

If Mings had wellied it into row z I guarantee there will be some calling him a donkey, distribution is shite, trying to be all Hollywood, it because he is chewing gum....blah...blah.

And FACT ....if he had wellied it away not one person would be saying they were glad he did because if he didn’t Rodri would have come from behind him and stolen the ball .

Because the whole world didn’t know that Rodri wouldn’t have been given as being offside.
Click to expand...

Imagine if SJM had got that spin wrong in the first half and KDB had robbed him
 
Melon Donkey said:
If Mings had wellied it into row z I guarantee there will be some calling him a donkey, distribution is shite, trying to be all Hollywood, it because he is chewing gum....blah...blah.

And FACT ....if he had wellied it away not one person would be saying they were glad he did because if he didn’t Rodri would have come from behind him and stolen the ball .

Because the whole world didn’t know that Rodri wouldn’t have been given as being offside.
Click to expand...

With respect, that just isn't true. A couple of top defenders / now pundits said the same. Just clear it. Rio Ferdinand was the one, I forget the other, might recall later, might have been Micah.

The argument against him is his lapses, or the slow to deal with balls. That was a perfect example - off side argument aside.

Top defenders sometimes just hit the ball into row z and allow the team to re-set.

Mings had done really well through the match, blocked some shots etc really well. But that lapse was costly, and as per the video MOTD showed, he knew full well where the player was, it wasn't as if this was a total surprise. Get the ball, deal with it.
 
The Fear said:
With respect, that just isn't true. A couple of top defenders / now pundits said the same. Just clear it. Rio Ferdinand was the one, I forget the other, might recall later, might have been Micah.

The argument against him is his lapses, or the slow to deal with balls. That was a perfect example - off side argument aside.

Top defenders sometimes just hit the ball into row z and allow the team to re-set.

Mings had done really well through the match, blocked some shots etc really well. But that lapse was costly, and as per the video MOTD showed, he knew full well where the player was, it wasn't as if this was a total surprise. Get the ball, deal with it.
Click to expand...

I think Mings gets away with a hell of a lot of mistakes, but he's a cult hero at Villa hence people getting touchy when he's criticised, it seems ok to hammer Targett or Cash , Hause but mention Mings and people feel the need to defend him.
He is decent CB but nowhere near as good as some think. Come on we've seen some cracking CB's over the years.
He'll do for now but needs to up his concentration levels and stop thinking he's better than he is. Needs to focus on his own defending as he's creeping backwards.
On that goal, he did what he thought was right get it down and pass it but he dwelled on it, got robbed twice once by city once by the ref
 
Mings admitted not knowing that Rodri was 'in play' as it where. I have had the thought when Mings looked over his shoulder and saw Rodri that he thought he had more time because Rodri was not able to challenge him. He was wrong , as the whole world seemingly were with this rule.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.