Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: London Villan on January 24, 2021, 06:46:58 AM
-
Can someone tell me when this law changed to include the “defender deliberately playing the ball” rubbish. The Watkins goal last night didn’t need to be checked because of the defenders touch?? He looked behind the ball tbf.
-
2017 but it isnt that the law has changed, they just added this bit. Google law 11. It says an offside player is not given offside until he becomes active in the play. He becomes active if he challenges an opponent for the ball (man city) however if he receives the ball after it has been played by an opponent(newcastle) he is not given offside. Watkins didn't challenge for the ball, it came through to him from an opponent so it was a legal goal........rodri on the other hand did challenge for the ball and should have been given offside. Error pure and simple then covered up by the PGM spokesman and media fools like lineker and savage etc
-
Exactly Telford.
-
I think Mings touched the ball before Rhodri challenged for it, so his touch put Rhodri onside enabling him to rob Mings from an onside position.
Personally I think a player who has been offside cannot get involved in that phase of play but this would need a rule change.
-
Totally wrong. Couldn't be more wrong. Where do you get this stuff from
-
Please read law 11 before making any further comment. It only takes a minute.
-
I'm with you TV
-
Thanks pal. It's one of them, when you can see it, its so clear. Difficult to understand why people have trouble with it.
-
I did read the law, took 2 minutes.
“
A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent. “
My reading is that if Rhodri tackles Mings from an offside position - he’s offside.
But, as per the above quote, if Mings touches it THEN Rhodri tackles him, it’s ok.
I came on this thread for clarity. Where is my interpretation wrong?
-
I posted in the match thread that I thought Ollie was offside at the point where Targett put in the cross. Many people were saying no because the defender touched the ball deliberately. So have I got this right now? A striker can be offside when the ball is played to him but only if the ball goes straight to him. He can be offside by miles but if a defender touches it before it reaches him that negates him being offside and the goal stands? If so what have they done? Ollie's disallowed goal at West Ham was denied by the tiniest of margins but last night he was clearly ahead of the defender it's ok because the defender got a touch on the ball. Ffs what's going on?
-
The key word in Law 11 is “receive”
It requires a remarkable contortion of the English language to conclude that Rhodri “received” the ball from Mings. He clearly took it and Mings tried to prevent it.
-
I remember taking my girlfriend (now wife) to a couple of games at Villa Park in the 89/90 season and trying to explain offside to her. It seemed so simple to try and explain it back then.
I wouldn’t know where to start now.
-
I remember taking my girlfriend (now wife) to a couple of games at Villa Park in the 89/90 season and trying to explain offside to her. It seemed so simple to try and explain it back then.
I wouldn’t know where to start now.
But I bet she still doesn’t understand LBW
-
I did read the law, took 2 minutes.
“
A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent. “
My reading is that if Rhodri tackles Mings from an offside position - he’s offside.
But, as per the above quote, if Mings touches it THEN Rhodri tackles him, it’s ok.
I came on this thread for clarity. Where is my interpretation wrong?
The attacking player isn't allowed to try to tackle the defender, which is what Rodri did. Simply receiving the ball as in Mings' case doesn't make the attacker onside. He then has to give the ball to the attacker, which Schär did last night.
-
It's a bollocks law. The Newcastle defender wouldn't have touched it if Watkins hadn't been there. Therefore Watkins has gained an advantage by being offside.
However, Watkins was level with the ball when it was initially crossed so shouldn't have been offside anyway.
-
It's a bollocks law. The Newcastle defender wouldn't have touched it if Watkins hadn't been there. Therefore Watkins has gained an advantage by being offside.
However, Watkins was level with the ball when it was initially crossed so shouldn't have been offside anyway.
Correct. If he was offside (he wasn’t), it should have been ruled out regardless of the defender’s touch.
I mean, apart from all that, the defender’s touch could have been categorised as a deliberate save couldn’t it?
-
It's a bollocks law. The Newcastle defender wouldn't have touched it if Watkins hadn't been there. Therefore Watkins has gained an advantage by being offside.
However, Watkins was level with the ball when it was initially crossed so shouldn't have been offside anyway.
Exactly correct in my opinion
Extract from Law. 11 “ any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent”
MOTD got it wrong (deliberately??) by drawing the line from Targett. A line from the ball to Ollie shows that he is not in front of the ball - therefore what happened next is irrelevant. He was onside.
-
I suppose if the keeper hadn’t got both arms strapped to his sides and had actually tried to make a save we may not even be debating this.
-
It's a bollocks law. The Newcastle defender wouldn't have touched it if Watkins hadn't been there. Therefore Watkins has gained an advantage by being offside.
However, Watkins was level with the ball when it was initially crossed so shouldn't have been offside anyway.
Correct. If he was offside (he wasn’t), it should have been ruled out regardless of the defender’s touch.
I mean, apart from all that, the defender’s touch could have been categorised as a deliberate save couldn’t it?
No. A save is defined as stopping the ball going into, or very near to the goal. This was a cross that was going nowehere near the goal.
-
The key word in Law 11 is “receive”
It requires a remarkable contortion of the English language to conclude that Rhodri “received” the ball from Mings. He clearly took it and Mings tried to prevent it.
Exactly. Rodri went and tackled for the ball
-
Love this debate even though Ollie wasn’t actually offside anyway as he was just behind the ball went it was crossed.
-
The key word in Law 11 is “receive”
It requires a remarkable contortion of the English language to conclude that Rhodri “received” the ball from Mings. He clearly took it and Mings tried to prevent it.
Exactly. Rodri went and tackled for the ball
Which isn't allowed. It's really galling to see Gallagher on Sky saying that as soon as Mings touched it, Rodri could take part in play again. That absolutely is NOT what the rules say. They do however, specifically rule out the offside player being able to tackle the defender.
-
The key word in Law 11 is “receive”
It requires a remarkable contortion of the English language to conclude that Rhodri “received” the ball from Mings. He clearly took it and Mings tried to prevent it.
Exactly. Rodri went and tackled for the ball
Which isn't allowed. It's really galling to see Gallagher on Sky saying that as soon as Mings touched it, Rodri could take part in play again. That absolutely is NOT what the rules say. They do however, specifically rule out the offside player being able to tackle the defender.
So at what point can Rodri take part in play again?
-
It's like Chinese whispers. Because one idiot got it wrong, other idiots are repeating the mistake as if it is gospel. I think it will need someone of authority in the game to make a statement and declare the man city goal as an error.
-
The key word in Law 11 is “receive”
It requires a remarkable contortion of the English language to conclude that Rhodri “received” the ball from Mings. He clearly took it and Mings tried to prevent it.
Exactly. Rodri went and tackled for the ball
Which isn't allowed. It's really galling to see Gallagher on Sky saying that as soon as Mings touched it, Rodri could take part in play again. That absolutely is NOT what the rules say. They do however, specifically rule out the offside player being able to tackle the defender.
So at what point can Rodri take part in play again?
Never. He has to go off and think about what he's done.
-
Lol
-
It's a good question. When can rodri get involved. I dont know. I imagine he has to get himself clearly onside first but not get involved in the action too soon.
-
It's a good question. When can rodri get involved. I dont know. I imagine he has to get himself clearly onside first but not get involved in the action too soon.
When the first phase of play has completed, i.e. after Mings chests it down, it has to be passed by him - if he had controlled it and gone a run with the ball, Rodri would still not have been allowed to tackle him & he clearly did tackle after the chesting down; an incorrect decision that the officials are clearly reluctant to admit, (see the Ronaldo touch in another game the following day, much the same situation & offside declared, no-one complained as they knew he was being "cheeky" by nicking it off the defender.
-
It's a good question. When can rodri get involved. I dont know. I imagine he has to get himself clearly onside first but not get involved in the action too soon.
He can't be back in an onside position until a Man City player touches the ball. There needs to be some clarity around this, and what the word 'receives' means. The current suggestion is that, as long as the offside player makes no obvious movement to challenge before an intentional touch is made, then as soon as that touch is made a challenge can be made. In my opinion, the suggestion that Watkins could not be offside because Schar touched the ball on is even more farfetched than the Mings incident.
-
So what law states 'phase of play' or 'opponent touches the ball' as the time a player can rejoin the game ?
-
None!
-
If you think Rhodri intercepted Mings pass rather than tackling him - would he have been onside as he “received it”?
Ignore whether you think he did this or tackled Mings for a second.
-
It’s an easy one either your onside or offside There should not be any grey areas
-
It's a good question. When can rodri get involved. I dont know. I imagine he has to get himself clearly onside first but not get involved in the action too soon.
I believe this part of the off side rule is specifically there to cover off when defenders deliberately touch the ball back i.e back pass or a touch back to another player and it falls to an opponent. It’s been badly interpreted or IMO VAR didn’t actually replay the goal from that moment and therefore cocked up. All the comments afterwards are an attempt to cover up their error.
-
I think Mings touched the ball before Rhodri challenged for it, so his touch put Rhodri onside enabling him to rob Mings from an onside position.
Personally I think a player who has been offside cannot get involved in that phase of play but this would need a rule change.
So a player that goes up for a header let's say and the header goes up in the air above him, the bloke that was 10 yards behind him and offside can steam in and challenge him from behind for the second header?
The rule has never, ever, been implemented like all of a sudden it is. It's purely to cover up a massive clanger, but in doing so they've opened up a right can of worms for themselves here. Watch it snowball.
-
I think Mings touched the ball before Rhodri challenged for it, so his touch put Rhodri onside enabling him to rob Mings from an onside position.
Personally I think a player who has been offside cannot get involved in that phase of play but this would need a rule change.
So a player that goes up for a header let's say and the header goes up in the air above him, the bloke that was 10 yards behind him and offside can steam in and challenge him from behind for the second header?
The rule has never, ever, been implemented like all of a sudden it is. It's purely to cover up a massive clanger, but in doing so they've opened up a right can of worms for themselves here. Watch it snowball.
Sickening isn't it? They are prepared to go to any lengths to cover each others backs rather than admit to a mistake being made. It's time the game was taken back from these self serving arseholes.
-
It's a bollocks law. The Newcastle defender wouldn't have touched it if Watkins hadn't been there. Therefore Watkins has gained an advantage by being offside.
However, Watkins was level with the ball when it was initially crossed so shouldn't have been offside anyway.
Correct. If he was offside (he wasn’t), it should have been ruled out regardless of the defender’s touch.
I mean, apart from all that, the defender’s touch could have been categorised as a deliberate save couldn’t it?
No. A save is defined as stopping the ball going into, or very near to the goal. This was a cross that was going nowehere near the goal.
I posted the following in the Newcastle post-match thread.
If Watkins had not been behind the ball when it was kicked, he should have been offside.
The Offsite rule states A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent. A ‘save’ is when a player stops, or attempts to stop, a ball which is going into or very close to the goal with any part of the body except the hands/arms (unless the goalkeeper within the penalty area)
The defender did not know that Watkins was onside or offside and had to play the ball to try and prevent Watkins scoring. Watkins would have been gaining an advantage. In a similar way, Rodri should have been offside. Both are different to a defender making a back pass that goes to the attacker, for which the rule (I believe) was intended.
Interpretation of the rules are made up by officials, pundits and other 'experts' as they go along. I think the FA should come out with a detailed explanation of each rule with as many different examples of each situation and publish videos of each that football from top to bottom could learn from.
I understand your take on 'near to the goal' but there is not clarification of the distance. Yours is your interpretation.
I think the point is that there is a big difference in a player attempting to play the ball (whether it is a through ball or cross) when he is unsure whether the attacker is onside or not and a player coming from an offside position to make a tackle. The offside rule was to stop the attacker seeking to gain an advantage by being closer to the goal than the defender.
-
Bottom line for me is that the law SHOULD be there to stop an attacker gaining advantage from being offside, currently it doesn’t.
I’d make any player offside basically unable to be involved in that phase of play.
-
So what law states 'phase of play' or 'opponent touches the ball' as the time a player can rejoin the game ?
It's called common sense. Much the same principal as you are not allowed to track a goalkeeper and kick the ball in-between him letting go/dropping the ball to his foot to kick it.
-
If you think Rhodri intercepted Mings pass rather than tackling him - would he have been onside as he “received it”?
Ignore whether you think he did this or tackled Mings for a second.
If Mings tried a pass, then yes, Rodri was then onside.
-
Ok so this all revolves around whether Rhodri tackles Mings or if he intercepted a pass attempt.
-
Law 11 part one says rodri is given offside as soon as he challenges for the ball. End of story. No need to read any further into the law. Watkins on the other hand did not challenge for the ball so law 11 part two comes into the equation. Since watkins received the ball from an opponent he is fine to head it hone and celebrate a legal goal.
-
There was a time when you only had to explain offside to your girlfriend at the time but now nobody knows what the law is.
-
Do they have VAR in the Europa cup asking for a friend
-
I posted in the match thread that I thought Ollie was offside at the point where Targett put in the cross. Many people were saying no because the defender touched the ball deliberately. So have I got this right now? A striker can be offside when the ball is played to him but only if the ball goes straight to him. He can be offside by miles but if a defender touches it before it reaches him that negates him being offside and the goal stands? If so what have they done? Ollie's disallowed goal at West Ham was denied by the tiniest of margins but last night he was clearly ahead of the defender it's ok because the defender got a touch on the ball. Ffs what's going on?
Ollie might have been ahead of the defender, but he wasn’t ahead of the ball, that’s why he was onside.
-
I posted in the match thread that I thought Ollie was offside at the point where Targett put in the cross. Many people were saying no because the defender touched the ball deliberately. So have I got this right now? A striker can be offside when the ball is played to him but only if the ball goes straight to him. He can be offside by miles but if a defender touches it before it reaches him that negates him being offside and the goal stands? If so what have they done? Ollie's disallowed goal at West Ham was denied by the tiniest of margins but last night he was clearly ahead of the defender it's ok because the defender got a touch on the ball. Ffs what's going on?
Ollie might have been ahead of the defender, but he wasn’t ahead of the ball, that’s why he was onside.
I didn't spot that so thanks for pointing that out. Makes sense now.
-
My head hurts after trying to digest all that.
-
I posted in the match thread that I thought Ollie was offside at the point where Targett put in the cross. Many people were saying no because the defender touched the ball deliberately. So have I got this right now? A striker can be offside when the ball is played to him but only if the ball goes straight to him. He can be offside by miles but if a defender touches it before it reaches him that negates him being offside and the goal stands? If so what have they done? Ollie's disallowed goal at West Ham was denied by the tiniest of margins but last night he was clearly ahead of the defender it's ok because the defender got a touch on the ball. Ffs what's going on?
Ollie might have been ahead of the defender, but he wasn’t ahead of the ball, that’s why he was onside.
I didn't spot that so thanks for pointing that out. Makes sense now.
Why were the panel on MOTD last night not aware of this? It’s really quite shocking that they are so clueless....and Dion, you are included too.
-
I posted in the match thread that I thought Ollie was offside at the point where Targett put in the cross. Many people were saying no because the defender touched the ball deliberately. So have I got this right now? A striker can be offside when the ball is played to him but only if the ball goes straight to him. He can be offside by miles but if a defender touches it before it reaches him that negates him being offside and the goal stands? If so what have they done? Ollie's disallowed goal at West Ham was denied by the tiniest of margins but last night he was clearly ahead of the defender it's ok because the defender got a touch on the ball. Ffs what's going on?
Ollie might have been ahead of the defender, but he wasn’t ahead of the ball, that’s why he was onside.
Correct, he was onside because of his position in relation to the ball.
But according to VAR, there was no offside check because the defender played the ball.
-
Tammy scored a similar one for Chelsea. Was ahead of the defenders but because he was behind the ball when it was cutback there was no issue of offside whatsoever because he simply wasn't.
I really get the feeling premier league made up the touch thing just to get the Rodri offside out of the media agenda but it's a load of nonsense.
-
Ok so this all revolves around whether Rhodri tackles Mings or if he intercepted a pass attempt.
Correct.
-
They cocked up with the Rodri goal and tried to cover it up by miss interpretation of the rule book. It’s not the mistake that winds me up the most, it’s the whole load of rubbish afterwards. Just put your hands up, admit it and move on.
-
They cocked up with the Rodri goal and tried to cover it up by miss interpretation of the rule book. It’s not the mistake that winds me up the most, it’s the whole load of rubbish afterwards. Just put your hands up, admit it and move on.
It's quite obvious they won't admit their mistakes which is why they've made the rules so convoluted. Pathetic bunch of pricks if you ask me.
-
For the same reason I’m sure that’s why they have been so focused on ruling out goals which are a gnats whisker offside because of the same sort of arrogant attitude and to show the fans how mighty clever they are now, in doing so all common sense has left the building.
-
Anyone else just wishing we could go back to the old offside rule?
If you're standing in an offside position, you're offside, if you aren't you're not. End of, no interpretation required.
-
Anyone else just wishing we could go back to the old offside rule?
If you're standing in an offside position, you're offside, if you aren't you're not. End of, no interpretation required.
Totally agree. The Rhodri debacle for instance would have been offside once their player headed the ball forward. Simple. They've tinkered and tinkered with the offside to the point where it's so complicated that players, managers, pundits, and especially us the fans just don't know what the hell is going on anymore. With that and their catastrophic use of VAR they are ruining the game as a spectacle. Is there no one out there with the clout and the balls to call a stop to the whole bloody mess and have a rethink. The few are ruining the game for the many.
-
Anyone else just wishing we could go back to the old offside rule?
If you're standing in an offside position, you're offside, if you aren't you're not. End of, no interpretation required.
Totally agree
Link to the 1925 meeting that changed the offside rule that was used until 1990
It’s simple, clear and unambiguous
https://ssbra.org/ifab/assets/pdf/1925min.pdf
-
The bit with the offside rule that bugs me, and has ever since the 'interfering with play' idea came in is why the rule only applies to attacking players. Why is the full back 50 yards away from where the ball is played interfering with play but the striker he's jogging out in front of isn't? If they want an objective rule then it needs to be the old version as above, if they want it to be subjective then officials need to apply the rule in the spirit it was designed.
The problem right now is we have a subjective law that requires understanding and context but they're using things like the VAR lines to make it highly objective and losing all common sense in the process.
-
Surprise, surprise.
They have instructed referees to interpret the offside rule now which means Rodri would have been offside.
-
I’ve just see that too on Twitter
https://twitter.com/robdorsettsky/status/1354061816427667456?s=21
-
Surprise, surprise.
They have instructed referees to interpret the offside rule now which means Rodri would have been offside.
Just read about that. Predictable but so annoying that we paid for their incompetence in the first place.
-
Wonder if Deano gets his £8k back ?
-
It seems they are making it up as they go along to try to fit in with the VAR and no flag raising narrative. It’s an absolute piss poor of a show really.
-
The ridiculous thing is that the rules already had the line about being offside "where taking action that might impact on an opponents ability to play ball". As that event in this case came long before Rodri was back onside or played the ball why did it need to be prioritised in the rules? It happens first so just needed to be recognised and penalised. This isn't a change of rule its just highlighting Moss, the linesmen, 4th Official and VAR all fucked up!
-
Mings on Twitter: https://twitter.com/OfficialTM_3/status/1354063905513988102
-
Who has instructed the refs and what exactly have they been told to do. Ah yes. The rules are now to be used exactly as they were previously set out in law 11. Who knew....
-
But, but they're only in the league anyway because of Hawkeye.
-
If only we had a system that could look at a ref's decision at the time, with the aid of technology and a clear understanding of the rules....
-
Twats.
-
So Dean was correct about them being clowns. Interesting.
-
How do they contort themselves into explaining Ollies goal on Wednesday now then?
Apparently, we benefitted from the same rule Man City did, but that rule is now bollox !
It doesn’t matter now, but it just demonstrates how the authorities and rulemakers and pundits and officials don’t know what the feck they are talking about.
-
Ok if Ollie wasn’t behind the ball then it should have been offside.
-
Who has instructed the refs and what exactly have they been told to do. Ah yes. The rules are now to be used exactly as they were previously set out in law 11. Who knew....
I don't think it's an interpretation of the rules at all. It's nothing more than a clear misunderstanding of basic English language. It's the nearest thing we'll get from them admitting that the Ref,' former refs, Var and plenty of pundits got it totally wrong.
-
They got it wrong, and either just can't understand perfectly clear English "the attacking player isn't allowed to tackle from an offside position" or they just blatantly lied to try to save face.
-
How do they contort themselves into explaining Ollies goal on Wednesday now then?
Apparently, we benefitted from the same rule Man City did, but that rule is now bollox !
It doesn’t matter now, but it just demonstrates how the authorities and rulemakers and pundits and officials don’t know what the feck they are talking about.
We CORRECTLY benefited from the law that Man City INCORRECTLY benefited from. Rodri should have been given offside as soon as he challenged Mings for the ball. It doesnt matter whether Watkins was offside or not because when he received the ball it was last played by the Newcastle player.
-
Furthermore...Robbie Savage should publicly apologize next time he is on BT Sport. 1. For getting it wrong and castigating Tyrone Mings for not knowing the rules. and 2. for being a monumental ****.
-
Sadly its what happens when Captain Mainwaring is ref and Corporal Jones is on VAR! :o
Why can they not issue the Refs with tablets to watch incidents without having to go to all that effort to go over to the side and look at a tv screen before making it up as they go along to suit the big 6? Issue them with some sort of holster to hold it and they would be in their element as pseudo crime fighters ;)
-
Furthermore...Robbie Savage should publicly apologize next time he is on BT Sport. 1. For getting it wrong and castigating Tyrone Mings for not knowing the rules. and 2. for being a monumental ****.
A bit harsh on dear Robbie. Yes, he could apologise for what he said about Mings and the laws but he can’t do anything about being a monumental *****
-
The most annoying thing about this whole saga is that we all know as sure as fuck that if it had happened against Citeh, no way would we have been awarded the goal.
-
How do they contort themselves into explaining Ollies goal on Wednesday now then?
Apparently, we benefitted from the same rule Man City did, but that rule is now bollox !
It doesn’t matter now, but it just demonstrates how the authorities and rulemakers and pundits and officials don’t know what the feck they are talking about.
We CORRECTLY benefited from the law that Man City INCORRECTLY benefited from. Rodri should have been given offside as soon as he challenged Mings for the ball. It doesnt matter whether Watkins was offside or not because when he received the ball it was last played by the Newcastle player.
Although that definition is closer, I would still want Ollie's goal ruled out*. The only reason the defender is attempting the play is because Ollie is right there. I would have interpreted the rule as if Jack was running with the defender in an onside role, the defender sliced it trying to stop him getting it and it fell to a previously offside Watkins, then maybe onside.
* However we all know that he wasn't offside as he was behind / level with the ball. PGMOL, MotD and a lot of football Journalists really need to have a refresher of the main basics of the Offside rule before looking at the lesser known bits.
-
Surprise, surprise.
They have instructed referees to interpret the offside rule now which means Rodri would have been offside.
That's what the rule was anyway. They've basically backtracked on trying to make up an excuse for an enormously shit VAR decision made by a muppet.
-
Surprise, surprise.
They have instructed referees to interpret the offside rule now which means Rodri would have been offside.
The only thing that surprises me about this is that it took them a whole week to issue a clarification.
-
And this whole waiting forever to put the flag up bollocks to call offside has to change also. Where it has to be the player that is offside has to have gained a clear advantage in the next phase. If he's clearly offside call it. Otherwise a tackle is going to come in and hurt someone.
-
And this whole waiting forever to put the flag up bollocks to call offside has to change also. Where it has to be the player that is offside has to have gained a clear advantage in the next phase. If he's clearly offside call it. Otherwise a tackle is going to come in and hurt someone.
I thought the waiting was a FIFA VAR directive so not sure if the FA can make that change.
-
What really sticks in the craw is watching and listening to all the pundits, has beens, never was beens and ex officials who contorted themselves into knots trying to explain why a terrible decision was a good one, when it has now been confirmed the terrible decision was a terrible decision.
It proves they all know feck all.
-
That Referee expert on BT who thought it was a terrible decision during the game then miraculously realised it was a great decision afterwards because "I hadn't realised Mings had played the ball, I thought it hit him"
I wonder what he thinks now?! Right decision or wrong dickhead?
Just as I'd made my peace with yet another travesty of a decision against us, they back track as the reality of what a precedent they'd set for themselves sank in. I'm seething again. PGMOL Cock wombles.
-
Lots of experts and past and present refs now look even more stupid.
-
#AbolishPGMOL
-
And this whole waiting forever to put the flag up bollocks to call offside has to change also. Where it has to be the player that is offside has to have gained a clear advantage in the next phase. If he's clearly offside call it. Otherwise a tackle is going to come in and hurt someone.
And we all know which team is going to be on the wrong end of this....
-
And this whole waiting forever to put the flag up bollocks to call offside has to change also. Where it has to be the player that is offside has to have gained a clear advantage in the next phase. If he's clearly offside call it. Otherwise a tackle is going to come in and hurt someone.
Or Spend a week desperately trying to find an excuse for the wrong decision.
-
Absolute joke isn't it? They've admitted they got it wrong but doesn't do us much good.
-
Absolute joke isn't it? They've admitted they got it wrong but doesn't do us much good.
At the very least they should apologise to Dean Smith give him a set of juggling balls as a memento and refund his fine. Imagine if it had been Fergie complaining, he would have been knighted. Oh , almost forgot he was made a sir for his 'services to football.
Maybe Deano should be knighted now for his services to football in getting the rule changed. Arise sir Dean.
-
So they made up one rule for one match. ******.
I didn't think it was corrupt before, just incompetent, now I've changed my mind.
It's utter bullshit. They should be ashamed and should apologise but of course they won't.
-
Incompetence of the highest order, not corruption.
They would have much more respect from the fans if they just said we got it wrong. The spin of the excuse makes it look so much worse.
-
It had to be done and I’m not surprised at the lack of remorse. The FA is a shithouse mess.
Seriously though, imagine if Aguero or Salah just camped off the CBs shoulder and as soon as the ball came to them, waited for a touch and tackled them from behind. A slippery slope and a malicious tactic.
It had to be changed.
As a consolation we should be able to veto Jon Moss officiating our matches for 2 or 3 years.
-
Incompetence of the highest order, not corruption.
They would have much more respect from the fans if they just said “we got it wrong”. The spin of the excuse makes it look so much worse.
-
This wouldn’t be an issue today has Watkins got the ball from their CB and set up the goal. He’d have been offside.
-
Watkins RECEIVED the ball from the newcastle defender. He did not challenge for the ball so it doesnt matter whether he was onside or offside.
-
Watkins RECEIVED the ball from the newcastle defender. He did not challenge for the ball so it doesnt matter whether he was onside or offside.
I'm glad you get it!
-
That's still a stupid rule. The Newcastle player wouldn't play the ball unless Watkins is there. Ludicrous that defenders are expected to leave a dangerous ball into the box or risk being penalised even if their opponent was offside.
Though he was level when the ball was passed to him so didn't matter, in that instance.
-
I believe the league apologised to Sheffield United after the Villa game last year. Where is our apology?
-
The defender has no idea whether the forward is onside or offside. He just does his job and defends as best he can. In Newcastle case, not very well.
-
Sadly its what happens when Captain Mainwaring is ref and Corporal Jones is on VAR! :o
Why can they not issue the Refs with tablets to watch incidents without having to go to all that effort to go over to the side and look at a tv screen before making it up as they go along to suit the big 6? Issue them with some sort of holster to hold it and they would be in their element as pseudo crime fighters ;)
Made me chuckle....😂😂
-
The defender has no idea whether the forward is onside or offside. He just does his job and defends as best he can. In Newcastle case, not very well.
But that is the bit I disagree with the rule. Defender knows Watkins is there so has to stretch to try to intercept it away from him. So to me Watkins is forcing the play. Whilst I'm not a stickler of "if you are on the pitch, you are interfering with play", I do think if the attacker makes a move to attack the ball then offside should be called and it is mostly. There shouldn't be a miscontrolled ball suddenly stopping that. It was the same when Sterling should have been offside last season and majority of others. He was deemed to have not interfered in play when he essentially dummied the ball in front of the keeper which gave the split second delay to stop the save.
I actually like that Watkins was always onside so we know we haven't benefitted from the rule no matter what PGMOL, refs and really badly informed TV Pundits will say.
-
It isn't any different for defenders though who should always play till the whistle. The defender just has to focus on their job and let the officials decide rightly or wrongly on offside etc. The defender simply has to try to defend everything.
-
Absolute farce.
I don't think the rule has changed, only the interpretation.
-
How do they contort themselves into explaining Ollies goal on Wednesday now then?
Apparently, we benefitted from the same rule Man City did, but that rule is now bollox !
It doesn’t matter now, but it just demonstrates how the authorities and rulemakers and pundits and officials don’t know what the feck they are talking about.
This is why it's important that Ollie was behind the ball anyway, as I've been saying all along. By accepting that "Villa benefitted from the rule" everyone can say it's all evened itself out and no harm has come from it. As soon as they used it to justify our goal instead of drawing the line and seeing he was onside you knew a clarification like this would come before long.
I file it in the same list of bullshit as "you only stayed up because of hawkeye" which I'm already fed yup of seeing every single time Villa have a bad decision against us.
-
Don’t let the fact that even without that point we’d have stayed up in goals scored... some idiots out there.
-
Surprise, surprise.
They have instructed referees to interpret the offside rule now which means Rodri would have been offside.
That's what the rule was anyway. They've basically backtracked on trying to make up an excuse for an enormously shit VAR decision made by a muppet.
Precisely, there is no change to the the law, nor any change to the correct interpretation, they just referred to the wrong bit of the law to try and excuse the cock up. BBC are still claiming the decision was right according to the letter of the law "at the time". Which is utter bollocks, the bit about a challenge being deemed as interfering with the opponent playing the ball was always there, and it was always offside. I bet there still won't be any sanctions against Jon Toss.
-
Wouldn't it be lovely if just for once they could say "Sorry lads, we fucked it up"?
-
Absolute farce.
I don't think the rule has changed, only the interpretation.
The interpretation that was only for that one moment in one match, ever, you mean?
-
I love the way the Man City fans who apparently all knew this rule so well before last Wednesday and were so proud of their team for exploiting it are still defending it as being "correct" at the time. No it wasn't its just that Moss gave it and the refereeing mafia all joined to support the farsical justification of it until they realised that they were holding a turd.
-
That's still a stupid rule. The Newcastle player wouldn't play the ball unless Watkins is there. Ludicrous that defenders are expected to leave a dangerous ball into the box or risk being penalised even if their opponent was offside.
Though he was level when the ball was passed to him so didn't matter, in that instance.
Had he been offside the defender could elect to not play the ball. But he would need to be absolutely cock sure in that case. I guess that’s what entails being a professional. If he had left it and Watkins had been offside VAR would have sorted it surely. ;)
-
Just like it's always sorted it for us eh.......
-
...and football has been played for how long? Anybody with an ounce of common sense knew that was an offside goal and yet they're talking about it today as though they've just invented the wheel. Farcical for me and in that one monent shows just how weak the officiating of football is.
-
The total bollocks being spouted by officials around this issue has been appalling and all to cover up for that useless turd Jon Moss. If he had anything about him he would of blew his whistle the moment he saw Rhodri take the ball off Mings. He knew he was offside by a mile so what made him not call a halt right there? That stinks but not as much as the clamour by PGMOL to cover up for him with their absurd stance on it. For me it's so bad that heads should roll Jon Moss should be taken off the referee's rota, at least at the elite level, and finally our club should receive an apology.
-
Don’t let the fact that even without that point we’d have stayed up in goals scored... some idiots out there.
Is this correct? Please tell me it is. I'm sick of arguing with plebs on social media about this. That would be a great weapon to bash them with.
-
Don’t let the fact that even without that point we’d have stayed up in goals scored... some idiots out there.
Is this correct? Please tell me it is. I'm sick of arguing with plebs on social media about this. That would be a great weapon to bash them with.
Yep, we'd have had the same points and goal difference as Bournemouth but having scored 1 more goal (on the basis that that was the only goal in the game and every other result went unchanged).
-
Don’t let the fact that even without that point we’d have stayed up in goals scored... some idiots out there.
Is this correct? Please tell me it is. I'm sick of arguing with plebs on social media about this. That would be a great weapon to bash them with.
I had to check, because it was doing my head in too. FTF UTV!
-
Don’t let the fact that even without that point we’d have stayed up in goals scored... some idiots out there.
Is this correct? Please tell me it is. I'm sick of arguing with plebs on social media about this. That would be a great weapon to bash them with.
Yep, we'd have had the same points and goal difference as Bournemouth but having scored 1 more goal (on the basis that that was the only goal in the game and every other result went unchanged).
We would have gone down
With the Sheffield Utd goal against us we would have had a gd of -27 while Bournemouth had -25
-
The correct response to anyone who says we only stayed up because of Hawkeye failure is kevin friend.
-
Don’t let the fact that even without that point we’d have stayed up in goals scored... some idiots out there.
Is this correct? Please tell me it is. I'm sick of arguing with plebs on social media about this. That would be a great weapon to bash them with.
Yep, we'd have had the same points and goal difference as Bournemouth but having scored 1 more goal (on the basis that that was the only goal in the game and every other result went unchanged).
We would have gone down
With the Sheffield Utd goal against us we would have had a gd of -27 while Bournemouth had -25
shit, yes we would sorry, I had the respective goal differences the wrong way round in my head.
-
The generic answer to anyone saying we are only in the league because of VAR/Hawkeye is that their team is only in a league because of Aston Villa.
-
Don’t let the fact that even without that point we’d have stayed up in goals scored... some idiots out there.
Is this correct? Please tell me it is. I'm sick of arguing with plebs on social media about this. That would be a great weapon to bash them with.
Yep, we'd have had the same points and goal difference as Bournemouth but having scored 1 more goal (on the basis that that was the only goal in the game and every other result went unchanged).
We would have gone down
With the Sheffield Utd goal against us we would have had a gd of -27 while Bournemouth had -25
shit, yes we would sorry, I had the respective goal differences the wrong way round in my head.
Idiot number 1 here - teach me to look at football tables while on a Zoom call
-
Took their time didn’t they.
Should have been corrected within 24hrs at the very most.
An apology to Villa and Dean would be nice.
-
Don’t let the fact that even without that point we’d have stayed up in goals scored... some idiots out there.
Is this correct? Please tell me it is. I'm sick of arguing with plebs on social media about this. That would be a great weapon to bash them with.
Yep, we'd have had the same points and goal difference as Bournemouth but having scored 1 more goal (on the basis that that was the only goal in the game and every other result went unchanged).
We would have gone down
With the Sheffield Utd goal against us we would have had a gd of -27 while Bournemouth had -25
shit, yes we would sorry, I had the respective goal differences the wrong way round in my head.
Idiot number 1 here - teach me to look at football tables while on a Zoom call
We can all agree though that those who bang on about us only surviving relegation because of that Hawkeye mistake are just bitter haters of the Villa. We were on the receiving end of far more wrongdoings which easily outweighed that one slice of luck that we got.
-
The idiot who made the wrong decision gets away unpunished as usual Moss and Friend are two examples of why not one single Premier referee was selected for the last world cup
-
For me it's not even about the balancing out of good and bad decisions but rather the idea that a goal in 42nd minute of our 29th game would've had no impact on anything that followed.
-
Surprise, surprise.
They have instructed referees to interpret the offside rule now which means Rodri would have been offside.
That's what the rule was anyway. They've basically backtracked on trying to make up an excuse for an enormously shit VAR decision made by a muppet.
Precisely, there is no change to the the law, nor any change to the correct interpretation, they just referred to the wrong bit of the law to try and excuse the cock up. BBC are still claiming the decision was right according to the letter of the law "at the time". Which is utter bollocks, the bit about a challenge being deemed as interfering with the opponent playing the ball was always there, and it was always offside. I bet there still won't be any sanctions against Jon Toss.
Correct. The law hasn’t changed, the officials and pundits got the interpretation wrong. The second Rhodri moved towards the ball he was offside. Clearly gaining an advantage from being in an offside position. Simple.
-
Surprise, surprise.
They have instructed referees to interpret the offside rule now which means Rodri would have been offside.
That's what the rule was anyway. They've basically backtracked on trying to make up an excuse for an enormously shit VAR decision made by a muppet.
Precisely, there is no change to the the law, nor any change to the correct interpretation, they just referred to the wrong bit of the law to try and excuse the cock up. BBC are still claiming the decision was right according to the letter of the law "at the time". Which is utter bollocks, the bit about a challenge being deemed as interfering with the opponent playing the ball was always there, and it was always offside. I bet there still won't be any sanctions against Jon Toss.
Correct. The law hasn’t changed, the officials and pundits got the interpretation wrong. The second Rhodri moved towards the ball he was offside. Clearly gaining an advantage from being in an offside position. Simple.
Precisely. And any referee at any level of the game would of blown the whistle as soon as the ball was played forward and Rhodri was still yards offside. Because it was the right thing to do.
-
Rodri hadn't committed any offence the moment the ball was played forward. He committed an offence when he challenged mings for the ball. That's when the ref should have awarded a free kick for offside.
-
No doubt the delicious Robbie Savage will explain it all to everyone's satisfaction.
-
The correct response to anyone who says we only stayed up because of Hawkeye failure is kevin friend.
Or Michael Oliver who didn't give Spurs an obvious Penalty against Bournemouth which meant they also earned an underserved point. That was also the same night that Fernandes got his Penalty against us for fouling our defender. This lead to the first goal and changed that match as well.
-
The standard of refereeing and implementation of VAR in this country are an absolute disgrace.
-
So will smith have his fine refunded?
-
If they had just admitted at the time that Moss & his linesman made an incorrect decision on the field & VAR spending less than 10 seconds reviewing it was an even bigger mistake it would have created a shitstorm for 24 hours then gone away....what the PGMOL did in that 10-15 minutes after the mistake to the ‘clarification’ of the decision to cover Moss & Co’s arse being issued to BT just compounded the error - you just know that in that office they tried to find a grey area in the rule that they could tag the mistake to to make it appear that the oaf had got it right.
At the same time somebody clearly told Walton to get into line behind the referee.
Offside WAS a very simple concept, the rule makers constantly adding interpretations and grey areas is where it has gone soooo wrong - just take out interfering with play or active/ non-active...make it black & white players are either the onside or offside. That’s how you protect the officials, make it simple & don’t cover up mistakes.
I honestly think there was less debate about decisions before VAfaRce was introduced to get more correct decisions - it adds absolutely nothing to the spectacle, takes all spontaneous celebration away & worst of all is used by likes of PGMOL to cover up the fact the standard of the on field refs is actually getting worse.
-
So will smith have his fine refunded?
Of course not, and I'm sure he's not expecting to.
-
So will smith have his fine refunded?
No chance. His frustration was completely understandable and has now been vindicated but you can't call the officials clowns. Even when it's true.
-
I think Smith will be happy enough that the clowns in charge have had to take retrospective action, proving his point valid.
We're down a rabbit hole with the introduction of VAR, it's very presence is invoking unwanted rule changes that will twist and turn in varying directions in reaction to incidents such as the one that happened to us in Manchester.
Last night is a fine example, the assistants have been told to delay flagging because of the ability to check post incident or goal. Massey flagged what she saw, with naked eye and without technical assistance, but play continued and we all saw the result. Now, the Sandwell players should've played to the whistle but I do have sympathy with players who see the flag and then adjust their response. If the flag hadn't gone up, would the goal have been scored, would the defenders have made a better fist of defending it? For me it's not a perfectly good goal due to the flag, there are questions marks over it's validity.
Now, without VAR and the old rules being in place, play would've stopped and a free kick would've been given. The TV would take another look, without lines and come to the conclusion that it was close and the assistant probably got it wrong, but the game would quickly move on. As it had for decades without issue.
-
Watched a bit of the milan derby last night. Incident in the box, ref waves play on. Inter player kicks the ball out immediately so the ref has chance to check on the screen. Didnt look like there was a italian stockley park involved. Ref reviews decision and changes his mind.
The tech in this instance just helps the on pitch ref, and the team who are aggrieved have to kick the ball out for it to be reviewed. Interesting approach.
-
I was under the impression that the instruction (to not flag) was only for marginal decisions! Anything obvious, should still be flagged immediately.
Then marginal decisions can be double checked, same for possible fouls. They are all miked up , so a quick word, check for foul/offside etc from lino/ref can be heard by all officials and Stockley Park.
-
Watched a bit of the milan derby last night. Incident in the box, ref waves play on. Inter player kicks the ball out immediately so the ref has chance to check on the screen. Didnt look like there was a italian stockley park involved. Ref reviews decision and changes his mind.
The tech in this instance just helps the on pitch ref, and the team who are aggrieved have to kick the ball out for it to be reviewed. Interesting approach.
That sounds a lot better and less complicated. But our lot won't give up Stockley Park without a fight. I imagine its a fantastic jolly for them.On a match day up to 10 games to oversee. That's at least two people in 10 separate rooms just sitting comfortably watching football with nice food and drink all day provided for free of course and getting paid handsomely.
-
The problem with Stockley Park is that it is full of refs, it shouldn’t be a ‘day off’ task to be the VAR - if you have to have VAR then they should be full time VAR people who are independent from referees- done properly (not played at how it is now) it is a full time role
-
Now they have 'clarified' something which didn't need clarification, IF Watkins was slightly off when Targett crossed, would it have counted cos their guy sliced the ball up in the air trying desperately trying block the cross from reaching him? Their picking and choosing of rules and subsections is a farce.
Certainly didn't deliberately play the ball to him. In my opinion that should be offside all day long. I appreciate its a moot point aas he wasn't offside.
-
Watched a bit of the milan derby last night. Incident in the box, ref waves play on. Inter player kicks the ball out immediately so the ref has chance to check on the screen. Didnt look like there was a italian stockley park involved. Ref reviews decision and changes his mind.
The tech in this instance just helps the on pitch ref, and the team who are aggrieved have to kick the ball out for it to be reviewed. Interesting approach.
That sounds a lot better and less complicated. But our lot won't give up Stockley Park without a fight. I imagine its a fantastic jolly for them.On a match day up to 10 games to oversee. That's at least two people in 10 separate rooms just sitting comfortably watching football with nice food and drink all day provided for free of course and getting paid handsomely.
Warnock et al will love that, booting the ball out every five minutes "thought I saw a foul ref!"
-
Now they have 'clarified' something which didn't need clarification, IF Watkins was slightly off when Targett crossed, would it have counted cos their guy sliced the ball up in the air trying desperately trying block the cross from reaching him? Their picking and choosing of rules and subsections is a farce.
Certainly didn't deliberately play the ball to him. In my opinion that should be offside all day long. I appreciate its a moot point aas he wasn't offside.
Watkins goal would count as a legal goal whether he was offside or not at any point during that passage of play simply because, crucially, he received the ball from the opponent. He made no challenge to get the ball he simply received it and therefore gained no advantage by being in an offside position. He gained an advantage from the defender making a hash of a clearance.
-
I have received this from a professional assistant referee at PGMOL
"Guidance:
Following positive discussions, The IFAB has provided the following clarification emphasising what should be prioritised when interpreting similar situations in the future. The guidance for match officials in interpreting Law 11 will now include the following advice:
Where a player in an offside position immediately impacts on an opponent who has deliberately played the ball, the match officials should prioritise challenging an opponent for the ball, and thus the offside offence of ‘interfering with an opponent by impacting on the opponent’s ability to play the ball’ should be penalised.
Accordingly, if a similar situation to the one involving Rodri’s impact on Mings occurred in a future match, then the impact would be penalised for offside.
However, it is important to remember that where a player in an offside position receives the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball (e.g. a mis-placed pass or miskick), including by deliberate handball, the player is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent.
Accordingly, Aston Villa’s first goal against Newcastle United on Saturday 23 January 2021 was correctly not penalised for offside as Watkins received the ball following a deliberate play by Schär and did not impact Schär’s ability to play the ball."
-
Hope you've put him right on the last paragraph.
-
It just makes you want to scream.
-
Exactly, it was always one of the key principles that the position of the ball on initial pass determines offside and level or behind is onside. Why are they so insistent that the debatable rule is the reason he wasn't offside?
-
It's wrong both on that point and on the concept that Scharr would've fucked that up had Ollie not been there.
It's not difficult so I'm struggling to understand why the authorities are tying themselves up in knots so much!
-
Watched a bit of the milan derby last night. Incident in the box, ref waves play on. Inter player kicks the ball out immediately so the ref has chance to check on the screen. Didnt look like there was a italian stockley park involved. Ref reviews decision and changes his mind.
The tech in this instance just helps the on pitch ref, and the team who are aggrieved have to kick the ball out for it to be reviewed. Interesting approach.
That sounds a lot better and less complicated. But our lot won't give up Stockley Park without a fight. I imagine its a fantastic jolly for them.On a match day up to 10 games to oversee. That's at least two people in 10 separate rooms just sitting comfortably watching football with nice food and drink all day provided for free of course and getting paid handsomely.
Warnock et al will love that, booting the ball out every five minutes "thought I saw a foul ref!"
So true lol. Big Sam and Tiny Penis will also be all over that.
-
Now they have 'clarified' something which didn't need clarification, IF Watkins was slightly off when Targett crossed, would it have counted cos their guy sliced the ball up in the air trying desperately trying block the cross from reaching him? Their picking and choosing of rules and subsections is a farce.
Certainly didn't deliberately play the ball to him. In my opinion that should be offside all day long. I appreciate its a moot point aas he wasn't offside.
Surely if Ollie was slightly offside when Targett played the ball he would be off as that offence occured before the defender played it onto him? Which was my original thought but others have pointed out that he was behind the ball and therefore onside. I think.
-
Now they have 'clarified' something which didn't need clarification, IF Watkins was slightly off when Targett crossed, would it have counted cos their guy sliced the ball up in the air trying desperately trying block the cross from reaching him? Their picking and choosing of rules and subsections is a farce.
Certainly didn't deliberately play the ball to him. In my opinion that should be offside all day long. I appreciate its a moot point aas he wasn't offside.
Surely if Ollie was slightly offside when Targett played the ball he would be off as that offence occured before the defender played it onto him? Which was my original thought but others have pointed out that he was behind the ball and therefore onside. I think.
Literally the first part of the rule and ignored by the FA, the refs, PGMOL and most journalists to insist we have now benefited from it as well.
A player is in an offside position if:
any part of the head, body or feet is in the opponents’ half (excluding the halfway line) and
any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent
The hands and arms of all players, including the goalkeepers, are not considered.
The picture below is where someone took the totally wrong MOTD drawn line from the Newcastle defender (white one) and added the correct line from the ball instead (blue).
(https://i.ibb.co/sqYPq8H/image.png) (https://ibb.co/sqYPq8H)
save instagram pictures chrome extension (https://500pxdownload.com/)
-
The use of VAR should be matter of fact, not arbitrary.
And the clarifications given by PGMOL should also be matter of fact - or give clear examples of arbitrary decisions.
Until they do this we will continue to have misinterpretations of the rules by refs, players and so called pundits / tv refs.
-
It's wrong both on that point and on the concept that Scharr would've fucked that up had Ollie not been there.
It's not difficult so I'm struggling to understand why the authorities are tying themselves up in knots so much!
The bold bit is wrong, that's not the point at all. The point is if Watkins is onside or not when the pass was played has no impact on what Schar did, Schar went for the ball and fucked up which gave Watkins the chance, that happens even if Watkins was a foot further back or closer when the cross is played.
-
It's wrong both on that point and on the concept that Scharr would've fucked that up had Ollie not been there.
It's not difficult so I'm struggling to understand why the authorities are tying themselves up in knots so much!
The bold bit is wrong, that's not the point at all. The point is if Watkins is onside or not when the pass was played has no impact on what Schar did, Schar went for the ball and fucked up which gave Watkins the chance, that happens even if Watkins was a foot further back or closer when the cross is played.
Of course what Ollie did has an impact on Scharr. If Ollie wasn't there Scharr just lets the cross go and there's no issue. The only reason he desperately dives for it is because he knows Ollie's behind him. That's as clear an example of interfering with play as you can get.
The implication in this new interpretation is that in that scenario if the defender can't get the ball cleanly he should just allow the cross to get to the striker he knows is stood behind him and hope he gets flagged offside.
That can't be right.
-
It's wrong both on that point and on the concept that Scharr would've fucked that up had Ollie not been there.
It's not difficult so I'm struggling to understand why the authorities are tying themselves up in knots so much!
The bold bit is wrong, that's not the point at all. The point is if Watkins is onside or not when the pass was played has no impact on what Schar did, Schar went for the ball and fucked up which gave Watkins the chance, that happens even if Watkins was a foot further back or closer when the cross is played.
Would the defender had left it if Watkins wasn't there?
I doubt he would have - I see it more as a forced mistake, rather than a feck up - and think as a result it should be given offside - if Watkins was offside. If it was a goal against us i would have need annoyed, but not livid like the Man City one
-
Now they have 'clarified' something which didn't need clarification, IF Watkins was slightly off when Targett crossed, would it have counted cos their guy sliced the ball up in the air trying desperately trying block the cross from reaching him? Their picking and choosing of rules and subsections is a farce.
Certainly didn't deliberately play the ball to him. In my opinion that should be offside all day long. I appreciate its a moot point aas he wasn't offside.
Surely if Ollie was slightly offside when Targett played the ball he would be off as that offence occured before the defender played it onto him? Which was my original thought but others have pointed out that he was behind the ball and therefore onside. I think.
Spot on, and that whole carnival regarding Scharr touching the ball making Watkins onside etc. was just staggeringly wrong. If Watkins was offside when Targett played the pass, that's it, he's offside. The ball was played to him, and he's offside, Scharr could have picked up the ball with both hands or performed a full-duplex on Watkins and it wouldn't matter a toss, the first offence was the offside.
As it was he was behind the ball anyway.
-
That's was how I saw it. The only reason their guy had made a last ditch lunge (which he made a bit of a hash of) was because he knew Watkins was there for a tap in. If he was off when the ball was played, then that's the reason he would've been there for the tap in.
I think a suplex is a yellow card offence in the re-written rulebook.
-
That's was how I saw it. The only reason their guy had made a last ditch lunge (which he made a bit of a hash of) was because he knew Watkins was there for a tap in. If he was off when the ball was played, then that's the reason he would've been there for the tap in.
I think a suplex is a yellow card offence in the re-written rulebook.
They'd no doubt have to revise the rules once Cavani does it to the opposition keeper and the goal is given by Jon Moss.
-
That's was how I saw it. The only reason their guy had made a last ditch lunge (which he made a bit of a hash of) was because he knew Watkins was there for a tap in. If he was off when the ball was played, then that's the reason he would've been there for the tap in.
I think a suplex is a yellow card offence in the re-written rulebook.
They'd no doubt have to revise the rules once Cavani does it to the opposition keeper and the goal is given by Jon Moss.
Hasn’t Moss got money riding on Man City for the title though? He certainly refs like he has.
-
Would the defender had left it if Watkins wasn't there?
I doubt he would have - I see it more as a forced mistake, rather than a feck up - and think as a result it should be given offside - if Watkins was offside. If it was a goal against us i would have need annoyed, but not livid like the Man City one
Of course what Ollie did has an impact on Scharr. If Ollie wasn't there Scharr just lets the cross go and there's no issue. The only reason he desperately dives for it is because he knows Ollie's behind him. That's as clear an example of interfering with play as you can get.
The implication in this new interpretation is that in that scenario if the defender can't get the ball cleanly he should just allow the cross to get to the striker he knows is stood behind him and hope he gets flagged offside.
That can't be right.
Both misunderstood so let me be clearer.
Look at the image with the blue line, if Watkins knee is slightly over the line schar would still play the ball in the same way and the ball would still be there for Watkins to head in, therefore whether Watkins was ahead or behind the ball or not had no impact on what Schar did. If Watkins stops on the edge of the box and does nothing (the scenario both of you seem to think I'm suggesting), meaning he's not there to score, then the debate is meaningless.
It's not whether Watkins is there or not, it's whether him being onside or offside has an impact on how the situation plays out and the actions the defender takes. The clarification seems to be that in a circumstance like our one you cannot say with any certainty that it had an impact, Schar would've needed to play the ball either way because he couldn't be sure it was 'safe' to let the ball go through. With the Rodri one there's a clear impact from his positioning because if he'd been onside (or even significantly closer to Mings) then how Mings played the ball would almost certainly have been different. Put the 'offending' player in an offside and see if it changes what the defender is goign to do, if it would then it's offside if it wouldn't then it isn't.
I'm not saying i agree with it, just pointing out how the advice now seems to be.
-
Spot on, and that whole carnival regarding Scharr touching the ball making Watkins onside etc. was just staggeringly wrong. If Watkins was offside when Targett played the pass, that's it, he's offside. The ball was played to him, and he's offside, Scharr could have picked up the ball with both hands or performed a full-duplex on Watkins and it wouldn't matter a toss, the first offence was the offside.
As it was he was behind the ball anyway.
I'f I'm understanding what you're trying to say, then it's not right sorry. A player can be in an offside position as often as he likes, but as the rules are written, he's only penalised for it if he gets an advantage. The gaining of an advantage is very specifically described, and what Ollie did isn't one of them. He didn't try to tackle the player, and wasn't in the defender or the goalie's eyeline. The defender played the ball, and it ended up some distance away with Ollie for a header, which the rules, as written, say that he is then no longer offside. A completely different scenaio to the Man City incident, where the simple act of challenging for the ball meant their player should have been penalised.
The rules are rubbish, because if Schär had just let the ball sail past him, it would have been offside (ignoring any ambiguity in Ollie's starting position) if Ollie had then headed it. Any rule which means that a defender is better off not trying to intercept the ball is a load of rubbish. But that IS how it's written, and as a result that's why Schär touching the ball made Ollie onside.
-
Now they have 'clarified' something which didn't need clarification, IF Watkins was slightly off when Targett crossed, would it have counted cos their guy sliced the ball up in the air trying desperately trying block the cross from reaching him? Their picking and choosing of rules and subsections is a farce.
Certainly didn't deliberately play the ball to him. In my opinion that should be offside all day long. I appreciate its a moot point aas he wasn't offside.
Surely if Ollie was slightly offside when Targett played the ball he would be off as that offence occured before the defender played it onto him? Which was my original thought but others have pointed out that he was behind the ball and therefore onside. I think.
Literally the first part of the rule and ignored by the FA, the refs, PGMOL and most journalists to insist we have now benefited from it as well.
A player is in an offside position if:
any part of the head, body or feet is in the opponents’ half (excluding the halfway line) and
any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent
The hands and arms of all players, including the goalkeepers, are not considered.
The picture below is where someone took the totally wrong MOTD drawn line from the Newcastle defender (white one) and added the correct line from the ball instead (blue).
Even more onside if the lines were parallel with the pitch markings
-
Would the defender had left it if Watkins wasn't there?
I doubt he would have - I see it more as a forced mistake, rather than a feck up - and think as a result it should be given offside - if Watkins was offside. If it was a goal against us i would have need annoyed, but not livid like the Man City one
Of course what Ollie did has an impact on Scharr. If Ollie wasn't there Scharr just lets the cross go and there's no issue. The only reason he desperately dives for it is because he knows Ollie's behind him. That's as clear an example of interfering with play as you can get.
The implication in this new interpretation is that in that scenario if the defender can't get the ball cleanly he should just allow the cross to get to the striker he knows is stood behind him and hope he gets flagged offside.
That can't be right.
Both misunderstood so let me be clearer.
Look at the image with the blue line, if Watkins knee is slightly over the line schar would still play the ball in the same way and the ball would still be there for Watkins to head in, therefore whether Watkins was ahead or behind the ball or not had no impact on what Schar did. If Watkins stops on the edge of the box and does nothing (the scenario both of you seem to think I'm suggesting), meaning he's not there to score, then the debate is meaningless.
It's not whether Watkins is there or not, it's whether him being onside or offside has an impact on how the situation plays out and the actions the defender takes. The clarification seems to be that in a circumstance like our one you cannot say with any certainty that it had an impact, Schar would've needed to play the ball either way because he couldn't be sure it was 'safe' to let the ball go through. With the Rodri one there's a clear impact from his positioning because if he'd been onside (or even significantly closer to Mings) then how Mings played the ball would almost certainly have been different. Put the 'offending' player in an offside and see if it changes what the defender is goign to do, if it would then it's offside if it wouldn't then it isn't.
I'm not saying i agree with it, just pointing out how the advice now seems to be.
Yeah - I agree Paul that the PGMOL have clarified based on how you just explained it through their interpretation of the rule.
Just I don't believe they should because it then becomes subjective and introduced ambiguity - how close would Ollie need to be before he deems to have been challenging for the ball etc.
The response from PGMOL seems to be two steps forward, one step back and a missed opportunity to improve the ability to referee the game at all levels.
-
Spot on, and that whole carnival regarding Scharr touching the ball making Watkins onside etc. was just staggeringly wrong. If Watkins was offside when Targett played the pass, that's it, he's offside. The ball was played to him, and he's offside, Scharr could have picked up the ball with both hands or performed a full-duplex on Watkins and it wouldn't matter a toss, the first offence was the offside.
As it was he was behind the ball anyway.
I'f I'm understanding what you're trying to say, then it's not right sorry. A player can be in an offside position as often as he likes, but as the rules are written, he's only penalised for it if he gets an advantage. The gaining of an advantage is very specifically described, and what Ollie did isn't one of them. He didn't try to tackle the player, and wasn't in the defender or the goalie's eyeline. The defender played the ball, and it ended up some distance away with Ollie for a header, which the rules, as written, say that he is then no longer offside. A completely different scenaio to the Man City incident, where the simple act of challenging for the ball meant their player should have been penalised.
The rules are rubbish, because if Schär had just let the ball sail past him, it would have been offside (ignoring any ambiguity in Ollie's starting position) if Ollie had then headed it. Any rule which means that a defender is better off not trying to intercept the ball is a load of rubbish. But that IS how it's written, and as a result that's why Schär touching the ball made Ollie onside.
Oh just fuck off, not you pal but these fucking laws.
If the Lino was using his flag, like they’ve been doing for donkeys years, not of this is an issue, he’s either on or off when Targett strikes the ball.
-
Now they have 'clarified' something which didn't need clarification, IF Watkins was slightly off when Targett crossed, would it have counted cos their guy sliced the ball up in the air trying desperately trying block the cross from reaching him? Their picking and choosing of rules and subsections is a farce.
Certainly didn't deliberately play the ball to him. In my opinion that should be offside all day long. I appreciate its a moot point aas he wasn't offside.
Surely if Ollie was slightly offside when Targett played the ball he would be off as that offence occured before the defender played it onto him? Which was my original thought but others have pointed out that he was behind the ball and therefore onside. I think.
Literally the first part of the rule and ignored by the FA, the refs, PGMOL and most journalists to insist we have now benefited from it as well.
A player is in an offside position if:
any part of the head, body or feet is in the opponents’ half (excluding the halfway line) and
any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent
The hands and arms of all players, including the goalkeepers, are not considered.
The picture below is where someone took the totally wrong MOTD drawn line from the Newcastle defender (white one) and added the correct line from the ball instead (blue).
Even more onside if the lines were parallel with the pitch markings
The slight angles between the box and the white line used by MOTD might be a parallax effect as I suspect they have the ability to draw lines better then someone on an iphone. They just don't understand the very basics of the offside law.
-
I think Risso has it spot on - merely being in an offside position is not penalisable in itself. In my view, in a case where a player in Targett's position is obviously trying to cross or pass to a player in an offside position (Watson if he wasn't behind the ball), then it should be called offside as soon as the pass is made, and he defender's interventions become irrelevant. But the law simply does not say that - whether you agree that it should or not is a different argument.
As it happens the call was correct because Watson was behind the ball amyway -but would have been correct anyway because of Schar's deliberate touch and the shitness of the law.
-
Was was worse you had all the smug fuckers sitting back in their chairs (Savage) spouting absolute guff, acting like they knew exactly what they talking about.