Offside

[Percy McCarthy]

It's a bollocks law. The Newcastle defender wouldn't have touched it if Watkins hadn't been there. Therefore Watkins has gained an advantage by being offside.

However, Watkins was level with the ball when it was initially crossed so shouldn't have been offside anyway.

Correct. If he was offside (he wasn’t), it should have been ruled out regardless of the defender’s touch.

I mean, apart from all that, the defender’s touch could have been categorised as a deliberate save couldn’t it?

[Clive W]

It's a bollocks law. The Newcastle defender wouldn't have touched it if Watkins hadn't been there. Therefore Watkins has gained an advantage by being offside.

However, Watkins was level with the ball when it was initially crossed so shouldn't have been offside anyway.

Exactly correct in my opinion
Extract from Law. 11 “ any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent”

MOTD got it wrong (deliberately??) by drawing the line from Targett. A line from the ball to Ollie shows that he is not in front of the ball - therefore what happened next is irrelevant. He was onside.

[colin69]

I suppose if the keeper hadn’t got both arms strapped to his sides and had actually tried to make a save we may not even be debating this.

[Risso]

It's a bollocks law. The Newcastle defender wouldn't have touched it if Watkins hadn't been there. Therefore Watkins has gained an advantage by being offside.

However, Watkins was level with the ball when it was initially crossed so shouldn't have been offside anyway.

Correct. If he was offside (he wasn’t), it should have been ruled out regardless of the defender’s touch.

I mean, apart from all that, the defender’s touch could have been categorised as a deliberate save couldn’t it?

No. A save is defined as stopping the ball going into, or very near to the goal. This was a cross that was going nowehere near the goal.

[frank black]

The key word in Law 11 is “receive”

It requires a remarkable contortion of the English language to conclude that Rhodri “received” the ball from Mings. He clearly took it and Mings tried to prevent it.

Exactly. Rodri went and tackled for the ball

[frank black]

Love this debate even though Ollie wasn’t actually offside anyway as he was just behind the ball went it was crossed.

[Risso]

The key word in Law 11 is “receive”

It requires a remarkable contortion of the English language to conclude that Rhodri “received” the ball from Mings. He clearly took it and Mings tried to prevent it.

Exactly. Rodri went and tackled for the ball

Which isn't allowed. It's really galling to see Gallagher on Sky saying that as soon as Mings touched it, Rodri could take part in play again. That absolutely is NOT what the rules say.  They do however, specifically rule out the offside player being able to tackle the defender.

[killeenm]

The key word in Law 11 is “receive”

It requires a remarkable contortion of the English language to conclude that Rhodri “received” the ball from Mings. He clearly took it and Mings tried to prevent it.

Exactly. Rodri went and tackled for the ball

Which isn't allowed. It's really galling to see Gallagher on Sky saying that as soon as Mings touched it, Rodri could take part in play again. That absolutely is NOT what the rules say.  They do however, specifically rule out the offside player being able to tackle the defender.

So at what point can Rodri take part in play again?

[TelfordVilla]

It's like Chinese whispers. Because one idiot got it wrong, other idiots are repeating the mistake as if it is gospel. I think it will need someone of authority in the game to make a statement and declare the man city goal as an error.

[Risso]

The key word in Law 11 is “receive”

It requires a remarkable contortion of the English language to conclude that Rhodri “received” the ball from Mings. He clearly took it and Mings tried to prevent it.

Exactly. Rodri went and tackled for the ball

Which isn't allowed. It's really galling to see Gallagher on Sky saying that as soon as Mings touched it, Rodri could take part in play again. That absolutely is NOT what the rules say.  They do however, specifically rule out the offside player being able to tackle the defender.

So at what point can Rodri take part in play again?

Never.  He has to go off and think about what he's done.

[TelfordVilla]

Lol

[TelfordVilla]

It's a good question. When can rodri get involved. I dont know. I imagine he has to get himself clearly onside first but not get involved in the action too soon.

[Neil Hawkes]

It's a good question. When can rodri get involved. I dont know. I imagine he has to get himself clearly onside first but not get involved in the action too soon.

When the first phase of play has completed, i.e. after Mings chests it down, it has to be passed by him - if he had controlled it and gone a run with the ball, Rodri would still not have been allowed to tackle him & he clearly did tackle after the chesting down; an incorrect decision that the officials are clearly reluctant to admit, (see the Ronaldo touch in another game the following day, much the same situation & offside declared, no-one complained as they knew he was being "cheeky" by nicking it off the defender.

[killeenm]

It's a good question. When can rodri get involved. I dont know. I imagine he has to get himself clearly onside first but not get involved in the action too soon.

He can't be back in an onside position until a Man City player touches the ball.  There needs to be some clarity around this, and what the word 'receives' means.  The current suggestion is that, as long as the offside player makes no obvious movement to challenge before an intentional touch is made, then as soon as that touch is made a challenge can be made.  In my opinion, the suggestion that Watkins could not be offside because Schar touched the ball on is even more farfetched than the Mings incident.

[TelfordVilla]

So what law states 'phase of play' or 'opponent touches the ball' as the time a player can rejoin the game ?