VAR

[Lastfootstamper]

Still fuming

I'm actually getting angrier. I'd think Rhodri himself had no doubt in his mind that the flag would go straight up the moment he made that challenge. Better to concede a free kick there than let Mings launch a counter with citeh high up the pitch.

[purpletrousers]

Yes Risso. “Challenging for” the ball or “receiving” the ball. It’s really not hard is it. Utter bias in defending the on pitch decision rather than any fair analysis. Surely there needs to be a principle of objectivity enshrined to mitigate for covering each other’s back?

[WassallVillain]

Still fuming

I'm actually getting angrier. I'd think Rhodri himself had no doubt in his mind that the flag would go straight up the moment he made that challenge. Better to concede a free kick there than let Mings launch a counter with citeh high up the pitch.

I think this too. It is the Man City MO. foul as early and as deep as you can get your shape back and there’s very little chance of punishment. All the top teams do it actually. It’s why the possession and territory stats are so good and their foul count so high.  This time, and I would expect for evermore, there was an added bonus.
I can’t imagine it was not on every teams tactics board today. I bet Vardy can hardly sleep with excitement waiting for The next game.

[WassallVillain]

Can anybody tell me how these two statements from the official FA offside rules aren't completely contradictory?

A player IS offside, if:

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
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


A player is not offside if

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.

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.

It’s so they can let favoured teams score dodgy goals with one law and penalise other teams with the other law.

[Ad@m]

Can anybody tell me how these two statements from the official FA offside rules aren't completely contradictory?

A player IS offside, if:

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
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


A player is not offside if

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.

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.

I'm not defending either the rule or the decision, because it was quite clearly wrong, but those two aren't necessarily contradictory.

A player can "challenge" before the opposition player has control. So in last night's example, had Rhodri been close enough to Mings to challenge him for the ball at the point Mings tried to bring it down that would presumably have been called offside.

But as soon as Mings controlled it, they decided he'd "deliberately" played the ball and that put Rhodri onside.

It's clearly bollocks and absolutely not the intention of the rule though.

We'll see more strikers in an offside position from now on, waiting for defenders to control the ball, and no doubt a "clarification" of the rule will follow in due course.

[Des Little]

These convoluted rules are obviously written so that shit refs like Fat Boy Moss can interpret them however they like, depending on their mood, and be proved correct and therefore beyond reproach.  It absolutely stinks.

[Risso]

That's not right though. The law for NOT being offside says that the attacker has to receive the ball from the defender. Nothing there about being onside simply by virture of the defender getting the ball.

[TelfordVilla]

That's not right though. The law for NOT being offside says that the attacker has to receive the ball from the defender. Nothing there about being onside simply by virture of the defender getting the ball.

  Russo is correct. The rules are correct and do not need changing. They have been interpreted wrongly. Rodri challenged for the ball and at that point should have been called for being offside, free kick to mings. It doesnt matter that mings touched the ball, it doesnt matter whether he had it under control or not. Rodri did not receive the ball from mings, he took it and was therefore offside.

[paul_e]

Can anybody tell me how these two statements from the official FA offside rules aren't completely contradictory?

A player IS offside, if:

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
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


A player is not offside if

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.

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.

I'm not defending either the rule or the decision, because it was quite clearly wrong, but those two aren't necessarily contradictory.

A player can "challenge" before the opposition player has control. So in last night's example, had Rhodri been close enough to Mings to challenge him for the ball at the point Mings tried to bring it down that would presumably have been called offside.

But as soon as Mings controlled it, they decided he'd "deliberately" played the ball and that put Rhodri onside.

It's clearly bollocks and absolutely not the intention of the rule though.

We'll see more strikers in an offside position from now on, waiting for defenders to control the ball, and no doubt a "clarification" of the rule will follow in due course.

but how is a player running towards him (and getting close enough to make a tackle before the ball hits the floor from his chest) not considered to be interfering with play? Remember Barkley got pinged for being vaguely near the goalkeeper so interfering so interfering with an opponent can clearly be used for being in someone's eyeline and not doing enough to get out of the way.

He just got it wrong and they've circled the wagons to defend him and cherry-picking part of the offside law to justify it whilst ignoring both the implication of that and the rest of the law which shows that there are a number of judgements Moss could've applied to do the sensible thing and give it as offside, he made a decision to do the one thing that almost everyone KNOWS was the wrong decision even if it can be justified by 1 very specific definition.

[Toronto Villa]

As Dean alluded to I want us to test this now against Newcastle. Where Watkins stays in an offside position and from behind the defender tries to take the ball off him as soon as it is touched from a forward pass. Let's see what happens.

[TelfordVilla]

If he does do that he will be given offside...as the law states. Just because moss  was wrong doesnt mean others will be

[frank black]

That's not right though. The law for NOT being offside says that the attacker has to receive the ball from the defender. Nothing there about being onside simply by virture of the defender getting the ball.

  Russo is correct. The rules are correct and do not need changing. They have been interpreted wrongly. Rodri challenged for the ball and at that point should have been called for being offside, free kick to mings. It doesnt matter that mings touched the ball, it doesnt matter whether he had it under control or not. Rodri did not receive the ball from mings, he took it and was therefore offside.

Absolutely spot on, this was an example of making a monumental cock up (I reckon VAR didn’t even look far enough back on the replay). Then misinterpreting (deliberately) the rule book to justify it. Rather than just putting their hands up and apologising

[The Edge]

That's not right though. The law for NOT being offside says that the attacker has to receive the ball from the defender. Nothing there about being onside simply by virture of the defender getting the ball.

  Russo is correct. The rules are correct and do not need changing. They have been interpreted wrongly. Rodri challenged for the ball and at that point should have been called for being offside, free kick to mings. It doesnt matter that mings touched the ball, it doesnt matter whether he had it under control or not. Rodri did not receive the ball from mings, he took it and was therefore offside.

Absolutely spot on, this was an example of making a monumental cock up (I reckon VAR didn’t even look far enough back on the replay). Then misinterpreting (deliberately) the rule book to justify it. Rather than just putting their hands up and apologising

Yes I agree. Two days on and I'm still seething with these arrogant bastards. It feels like a watershed moment but time will tell. Clubs need to speak out and quickly. The problem is that it's only ever the aggrieved club that is in uproar at any one time. City this week for instance are very quiet on this and there fans are sticking to the line that "it's the rules so shut up whinging Villa" But next week it could be them getting shafted and their opponents laughing because it was their turn to win the VAR lottery. Us football fans have very short and selective memories and only care a jot when our own club is on the receiving end. VAR is stinking out the game. PGMOL have proven beyond doubt that they are incapable of using the technology either fairly or correctly. The clubs need to stick together on this. I'm amazed that Premier League clubs with such vast resources are allowing their interests to be treated so badly by a bunch of self appointed overlords.

[The Edge]

These convoluted rules are obviously written so that shit refs like Fat Boy Moss can interpret them however they like, depending on their mood, and be proved correct and therefore beyond reproach.  It absolutely stinks.

Without doubt the rules are a cop out designed to give the officials plenty of wriggle room. It's the only sport I can think of where the rules are constantly re-written in order to help officials get each other off the hook. Association football has been played since the 1870's and they still haven't settled on a set of rules by which to play the game. It's absolutely ludicrous. The city "goal" the other night shows what an absolute rabbit hole they have got themselves into yet they still feel the need to keep on digging. How about this: when a player is way offside like Rhodri was he's ignored while the game is going upfield giving him time to get back onside. Once the ball is won back by the opponents (city) and a forward ball is played he's instantly flagged as offside. Seems obvious. Oh wait a minute that's exactly how the game has been played for donkeys years until some idiots decided to bloody complicate everything.

[brian green]

Like everybody I am becoming angrier about this.  The offside rule was changed to ensure there were two defenders between the goal and the attacking players.  It was done to outlaw what was known for decades as "goal hanging".  It worked successfully for many years.  But we have seen a whole generation of football administrators riding on technology and especially VAR to convulse the laws with ever more labyrinthine language for one reason only, to buttress their own power.  To use the old, crude but utterly proven, proverb 'Why do dogs lick their bollocks? Because they can'.  What is happening is the destabilizing of the game by increments with knee jerk fiddling on a basis of trial and error.  What happened to us and our manager will be regarded as another dead lab rat in the experiment.  It will never be allowed to happen again but the faces and the finances of the suits will be saved to allow them to tinker on.  The Devil take the hindmost mindset will prevail with the other clubs and the victims not only suffering loss on the field but dismissed as whingers for trying to voice perfectly legitimate protests.