Match of the Day last night supporting the goal, but admitting the law needs changing - but I still feel it was misinterpreted due to the 'receives' definition.if they DON'T make a change, or clarify this, then I don't see how it won't lead to change in the way some forwards play the line. Imagine making a run in behind, but knowing you're offside, so you stop running, the flag stays down, the defender goes to get it, the second he touches it, you can tackle him - perhaps 30 or 40 years further upfield. There will be no penalty for making fake offside runs that force defenders into retreating to get the ball. I can see there being a bit of carnage for a few weeks as wiley forward try to benefit fro this.
On any set piece we should put a player close to the goal. The taker should shoot, a defender will try to block it, thus deliberately playing the ball and any ricochet or deflection can be seized upon.It's bollocks and they know it. Wankers.
The worst thing with us getting fucked over by VAR is the bellends on social media that cant form an opinion of their own claiming its justice for the Sheff Utd goal line technology mistake.
Quote from: LukeJames on January 21, 2021, 12:46:42 PMThe worst thing with us getting fucked over by VAR is the bellends on social media that cant form an opinion of their own claiming its justice for the Sheff Utd goal line technology mistake. This is really winding me up too. It's as if Man City's goal is allowable because of what happened with a failure in technology last season. No mention that we admitted we got away with one then.
Can anybody tell me how these two statements from the official FA offside rules aren't completely contradictory?A player IS offside, if:Offside offenceA 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 orinterfering 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 orchallenging an opponent for the ball orclearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent ormaking an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ballA player is not offside ifA 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. The latter bit, is what the Premier League are saying is the rule that means it was a valid goal.However, what this means is that in last night's situation, Rodri is an offside position when the ball is played. However, if he stays where he is, and in a made up scenario Mings controls the ball, then attempts to play the ball back to the keeper, ie pass it, if Rodri intercepts it then and scores, fair enough it's a valid goal. The first bit I've copied however, says that if a player challenges the defender for the ball, then he IS offside. 'Deliberately plays the ball' from the "not offside" bit, can't then surely mean just controlling the ball like Mings did, because if it did, then the first bit becomes nonsensical as how can the attacker attempt to tackle a player who hasn't got the ball?Utter, utter bollocks.
Quote from: Drummond on January 21, 2021, 12:13:15 PMOn any set piece we should put a player close to the goal. The taker should shoot, a defender will try to block it, thus deliberately playing the ball and any ricochet or deflection can be seized upon.It's bollocks and they know it. Wankers. The law they used excludes a "save", so I would imagine that won't be allowed. I think it's more likely it'll be used by the long ball merchants to gain yards up the pitch. Make run you know is offside, stop - let the defender go and get it and press from the second he touches it. It's a free way to buy yourself 40 yards.