Manchester City v Aston Villa Match Thread - Wed 20th Jan @ 6pm | Page 40 | Vital Football

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

@Tierney

Appreciate that mate :thumbup:

I now 100% get where you are coming from in your reading, but yup, I'm locked in and despite now better understanding, I still disagree.

For me Rodri was active prior to Mings touch and I'd argue the intent of his activity was proven by how quickly he was there to challenge Mings. I don't buy he legally received the ball in the manner the framing of the text implies - so I'm stuck to him interfering with Mings, so for me, the bullet points are still in play.

But again, I do now see why you (and others) see it differently.
 
@Tierney

Appreciate that mate :thumbup:

I now 100% get where you are coming from in your reading, but yup, I'm locked in and despite now better understanding, I still disagree.

For me Rodri was active prior to Mings touch and I'd argue the intent of his activity was proven by how quickly he was there to challenge Mings. I don't buy he legally received the ball in the manner the framing of the text implies - so I'm stuck to him interfering with Mings, so for me, the bullet points are still in play.

But again, I do now see why you (and others) see it differently.
So am I. It's the recieving thing. He did not receive it. He went and got it.
 
Yup that's the bit I can't get past - had Mings chested it but sent it 2-3yards to Rodri and basically lost control of the ball - I would agree Rodri then 'received it' so it's null and void as an argument.

But he obstructed Mings directly on the chest touch and challenged for the ball, so was clearly active for me and I just can't get past that.

I don't however blame Rodri for taking advantage and thinking the ball was then in play (you play to the whistle afterall) as I wouldn't have said he was wrong if he threw his hands up as an apology for impeding Mings without meaning to expecting the whistle.

I just do now genuinely see, thanks to Tierney going through his thought process, that I was wrong in saying the law was clear. It's clearly not clear as he made a very good argument for why it was valid, even though I disagree.
 
I won't add further debate to your post above, as I think @JuanPabloAngel and @Silhillvilla might self-combust otherwise!

If nothing else, the incident has brought up some good debate and discussion around the Laws of the Game and how (somewhat understandably) they still have holes of interpretation and subjectivity.
 
I won't add further debate to your post above, as I think @JuanPabloAngel and @Silhillvilla might self-combust otherwise!

If nothing else, the incident has brought up some good debate and discussion around the Laws of the Game and how (somewhat understandably) they still have holes of interpretation and subjectivity.
Yep but custom and practice a player running back from an offside position challenging or attempting to, even in the very slightest way is flagged offside.

What has changed is lino's have been told to keep flags down so much they have become unable to raise their arms anymore
 
My 2p worth. Anything that complicates the game makes it worse. I watch rugby and don't understand half the rules. We don't want football going more and more that way.

I already think the offside and handball rules are heading in the wrong direction.
Plus it devalues records as you aren't comparing now to the past equally.

I would happily go back to all the old rules....Even allowing passes back to keepers.
:jangel:
 
My 2p worth. Anything that complicates the game makes it worse. I watch rugby and don't understand half the rules. We don't want football going more and more that way.

I already think the offside and handball rules are heading in the wrong direction.
Plus it devalues records as you aren't comparing now to the past equally.

I would happily go back to all the old rules....Even allowing passes back to keepers.
:jangel:

Nobody understands the rules of Rugby, not even the players
 
https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.allf...ter-controversial-Bernardo-Silva-goal/2540200

Guidance now given to officials following this incident is that they should prioritise dispossessing the player rather than the now much quoted “deliberate play” rule.

Shouldn’t have been needed imo, and it’s too late for us now. Just shows that they cannot admit when they’ve made a mistake.

Are they going to give Dean his £5k fine back, doubt it, they've had a piss up on that. Man City got away with that one
 
Are they going to give Dean his £5k fine back, doubt it, they've had a piss up on that. Man City got away with that one

Thought the same.

Good will gesture and give back or donate to AVFC foundation.

Nah. Me neither.

Still being AVFC we are a mere inconvenience. Imagine if this was Citeh, dippers or Manure or a league title decising game.

Id rather they go with the shite interpretation. Changing the goal posts now is sheer incompetence and/or corruption.
 
You mean the Man City "offside"?
What gets me is this myth that Ollie's goal last game was also offside. Like that should stop us moaning about Rodri. Ollie was behind the ball. I even saw MotD draw a line to Targett's back foot to make it look offside!

I've never been one of the big 6 conspiracy theorists but this smells of hush it up.

Never quoted myself before. But maybe belongs here.
 
Changing the rules again mid season. One rule for one another rule for the likes of us.


The thing is the decision they gave didn't fit the rule anyway. Their definition of "playing the ball" is meant to be a pass or clearance but Mings had the ball completely under control till Rodri came and tackled him. They just wanted to look clever and give peps boys a goal.