Rival watch

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
KingHotspur said:
So they will give offside if you’re a finger nail ahead but you can be miles off if you’re coming from an offside position?

No way would that goal stand if Villa had scored it
Click to expand...
It's just a poor decision. Peter Walton said as much and he never contradicts them.
Miles offside, trots back and tackles Mings, who never has it under complete control. Simple decision.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KingHotspur
The rule probably needs to be changed, but by the letter of the law currently, it was the correct decision to allow the goal.

You must log in or register to see media
 
  • Like
Reactions: Diego
BrunelGunner said:
The rule probably needs to be changed, but by the letter of the law currently, it was the correct decision to allow the goal.

You must log in or register to see media
Click to expand...
Completely agree. It was a deliberate touch by Mings and the City player didn't challenge him for the ball before that. So he doesn't get penalised for being offside.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Diego
He was offside when the ball was played.
This is something I never understand. If that ball is played in for a freekick, the ref goes according to this rule. By the time the ball arrives to the players , there could be a whole load of defenders in front of the attacker, but he is called offside when the ball is played.
The ball was not played by Mings to Silva(?), he tackled him from coming to him from behind. Had he been in front of him, Mings would have played it differently.

It's all down to interpretation
 
Blue and White said:
He was offside when the ball was played.
This is something I never understand. If that ball is played in for a freekick, the ref goes according to this rule. By the time the ball arrives to the players , there could be a whole load of defenders in front of the attacker, but he is called offside when the ball is played.
The ball was not played by Mings to Silva(?), he tackled him from coming to him from behind. Had he been in front of him, Mings would have played it differently.

It's all down to interpretation
Click to expand...
There are now two whole pages of explanations in the Laws on offside. Being Offside isn't an offence. A player receiving a ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball isn't penalised for being offside unless it is a 'save'. Mings chested the ball down and Rodri hadn't challenged him before that so Rodri isn't penalised for being offside. This is crystal clear and not open to interpretation. It is also bonkers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Diego
PowerSpurs said:
There are now two whole pages of explanations in the Laws on offside. Being Offside isn't an offence. A player receiving a ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball isn't penalised for being offside unless it is a 'save'. Mings chested the ball down and Rodri hadn't challenged him before that so Rodri isn't penalised for being offside. This is crystal clear and not open to interpretation. It is also bonkers.
Click to expand...
He challenges him before the ball's even hit the ground. The rules aren't consistently applied in the way that they were here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back