If he had cleared it, it wouldn't even be an issue.
.
If he had cleared it, he would have given possession back to Man City for absolutely no reason. The nearest onside Man City player was 20 yards ahead of him, he had time to chest it down and think about a pass, try and keep some possession and build an attack from the back as we have done all season.If he had cleared it, it wouldn't even be an issue.
Hey ho, game done now.
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.
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.
If he had cleared it, he would have given possession back to Man City for absolutely no reason. The nearest onside Man City player was 20 yards ahead of him, he had time to chest it down and think about a pass, try and keep some possession and build an attack from the back as we have done all season.
There's no need to find fault in our players for a clear and obvious refereeing fuck up. If Mings kicked that ball out of play after chesting it down with no Man City players around him I would have been screaming at my TV.
But why clear it and give the ball back to Man City when they already have us under pressure. He was trying to retain the ball and more than likely would have knocked it back to Martinez to let us re-set. He has gained an advantage by standing 15 yards offside.
The video of Ronaldo being flagged offside on the same night in the same situation says it all for me. He knew as soon as he flicked it away from the defender it was a free kick.
Whenever that has happened previously its always been called offside and nobody has ever argued the case.
I'm glad you're insulted Jonathon. How DARE you question Mings?I am not finding fault in a player for a clear ref mistake The ref didn't make a mistake according to the rules and Mings faths about.
It is a different opinion, but not 'finding fault'. That is quite insulting. But there is a cult of Mings I realise, I'll go with what experience like Rio Ferdinand says, you clear that sort of issue.
I'm glad you're insulted Jonathon. How DARE you question Mings?
Because there was a player behind him, did he think that player was just going to stand still and wait for him to do his little bits and bobs, then run back onside?
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
I’m still stuck on this. As mentioned in this forum isn’t the phrase “receiving the ball” the critical phrase. It’s presumably written in the laws to be different from “getting the ball”. And yet no talking heads are commenting on this.
Yes, flogging a dead horse now, it must be said.Lads let it go now
It's new tactical position to play
Stay behind the defenders on their blindside to block a backpass to the keeper and to creep up on them and tackle from behind
It should end the era of defenders playing the ball around amongst themselves as there will be a guy behind them that they cannot see waiting to pounce