mike_field
Vital Football Legend
Sorry but thats rubbish. How can it be a clear and obvious error when they got it right according to the rules?
They didn't get it right according to the rule.
Sorry but thats rubbish. How can it be a clear and obvious error when they got it right according to the rules?
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
I do not though. IMO the rule quoted is being misused and is not intended for this purpose.
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.
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.
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.
Yep I read the rule and do not understand how this decision was 'right to the letter of the law'.They didn't get it right according to the rule.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thats the key word and I'll die on my hill for it
Edit: and I feel like they're taking the piss out of us
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! ) 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.
Time to close the thread maybe?
Unless we storm the FA Capitol it's a done deal.