Still fuming
Quote from: stevo_st on January 21, 2021, 07:33:02 PMStill fumingI'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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Risso on January 21, 2021, 01:21:27 PMCan 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.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.
Quote from: Risso on January 21, 2021, 11:25:46 PMThat'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.
Quote from: TelfordVilla on January 21, 2021, 11:43:34 PMQuote from: Risso on January 21, 2021, 11:25:46 PMThat'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
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.