Offside

[manic-road]

Absolute farce.

 I don't think the rule has changed, only the interpretation.

[paul_e]

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.

[London Villan]

Don’t let the fact that even without that point we’d have stayed up in goals scored... some idiots out there.

[ktvillan]

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.

[trinityoap]

Wouldn't it be lovely if just for once they could say "Sorry lads, we fucked it up"?

[Drummond]

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?

[baddowvillans]

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.

[WassallVillain]

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.

[baddowvillans]

Just like it's always sorted it for us eh.......

[Abbeyfealeavfc]

...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 Edge]

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.

[The Edge]

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.

[paul_e]

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).

[London Villan]

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!

[Clive W]

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