VAR

[AlexAlexCropley]

So the precedent is set.I expect all forwards to now goal hang.

[The Edge]

Var or no bloody var the ref just has to give the city player offside when he tackles Mings. And the pen is almost as bad. The ball is headed straight at Cash from point blank range. He's got no chance of avoiding the ball hitting his hand. It's a robbery in plain sight of the watching world.

[Abbeyfealeavfc]

The more I'm seeing of var the more I'm convinced it was brought in to aid the so-called sky 6 (when they need a goal or when they need one chalked off). The way it's being applied does not help itself in convincing people that it's not a corrupt tool!

[aj2k77]

Shit again. Really fed up with the whole process.

[Pat Mustard]

So effectively we’ve changed the laws of the game again tonight. It is fine for a striker to stand offside all game now, and just wait for the defender to touch the ball to come back into play.

The absolute bullshit spouted to justify that goal was ridiculous. Of course Mings deliberately played the ball - if he hadn’t then one of the non- offside players can just run through unchallenged, the fact is the offside player got an advantage from being offside!!!!!!

As per the last game though, I can almost accept these shit decisions if it was just the on field ref making them. The fact someone 100 miles away who can see what has happened just backs it up is untenable.

[Drummond]

That's the biggest pile of shite as an excuse for a wrong decision I've ever heard.

Utter bullshit.

[clash city rocker]

Wrong on ever level. Inept maybe. If that had happened in Russia you would have said Putin was behind it.

[brontebilly]

So effectively we’ve changed the laws of the game again tonight. It is fine for a striker to stand offside all game now, and just wait for the defender to touch the ball to come back into play.

The absolute bullshit spouted to justify that goal was ridiculous. Of course Mings deliberately played the ball - if he hadn’t then one of the non- offside players can just run through unchallenged, the fact is the offside player got an advantage from being offside!!!!!!

As per the last game though, I can almost accept these shit decisions if it was just the on field ref making them. The fact someone 100 miles away who can see what has happened just backs it up is untenable.

If Mings catches the ball then they give the offside? It's mental and I'm sick of those ex refs in the media justifying every wrong decision their former colleagues are making

[Malandro]

How many bad decisions have we had now?

I really don't care if we lose fairly, but this is ridiculous.

[SoccerHQ]

Shit again. Really fed up with the whole process.

Same for me. Look at what actually gets called offside now and what can get given and it's a total nonsense.

[Smithy]

This is the law they've used to allow the goal:

"A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent, who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save), is not considered to have gained an advantage."

So, they're arguing that Rhodri "received" the ball from Mings, rather than "took it" from.  If Tyrone had headed the ball back to Emi and Rhodri had got it and scored, then I can see how this law would apply - but I don't see how you can argue Rhodri "received" the ball from Mings.

I think this is going to lead to some significant changes to how teams approach offside.  No more forwards rushing to get back onside, why not wait for the defender to take a touch and try to steal it?

I predict there will be a clarification in the next couple of weeks, because this interpretation of the laws does not lead to the sort of behaviour it's designed to prevent.

[London Villan]

Its so full of holes. Cross field pass, defender flicks it on to an attacking player... now onside. Its utter bollocks it would never be given.

[Russ aka Big Nose]

This is the law they've used to allow the goal:

"A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent, who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save), is not considered to have gained an advantage."

So, they're arguing that Rhodri "received" the ball from Mings, rather than "took it" from.  If Tyrone had headed the ball back to Emi and Rhodri had got it and scored, then I can see how this law would apply - but I don't see how you can argue Rhodri "received" the ball from Mings.

I think this is going to lead to some significant changes to how teams approach offside.  No more forwards rushing to get back onside, why not wait for the defender to take a touch and try to steal it?

I predict there will be a clarification in the next couple of weeks, because this interpretation of the laws does not lead to the sort of behaviour it's designed to prevent.

Exactly this. The defender (Mings) is tackled, possession is won from him.

It is not like the attacker latches onto a back-pass.

[stevo_st]

What does ‘plays the ball’ mean?

Is it an attempt to head it clear?
Chest it?
Touch it?

[Des Little]

The big question is, would it have stood if it was us that had benefitted?