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!
Citizen Kane. said:
I made a similar point after Brighton's disallowed goal against Arsenal, when Mitoma's offside position actually led to him being at a disadvantage relative to the defender who was closer to the ball but asleep and let it bounce, so the attacker happened to get to it first.

It isn't quite as simple as a blanket rule for all players moving away from goal, but it certainly isn't complicated although basic geometry is probably totally foreign to the PGMOL: If at the moment of play the attacker is moving away from goal and is also further from the ball as a result of starting from an offside position, he clearly hasn't gained an advantage in any way and should therefore be onside, instead of being penalised for superior awareness and athleticism.

I think that's simple enough and covers most if not all scenarios.
Click to expand...

I think i would have to disagree about that.

Mitoma was offside but starting to move back to an onside position before the defender.

I know he has to go further as he starts before the ball but (cant remember this instance) ita not necessarily a disadvantage.

By being in an offside position he is actually creating space for himself. The full back either has to drop to keep goalside (creating space between defensive line and midfield) or know precisely that he is in line with his centre backs and keep him onside.

This not only distracts the defender from other parts of the play (having to keep track where the offside player is) but if he decides to drop, that means hes moving back so a striker moving back up the field will have additional space if played in as the defender is moving towards the goal whereas the striker is now moving away from the goal.

My take on it anyway
 
It is clear from this incident alone that the Offside rule doesn't really work. Just to tell if an offence has been committed the officials have too many things to take into account. The offender has no option other than to be in an offside position when taking the corner. He is almost never going to gain a real advantage by being there. I've never understood how such an arcane rule improves the game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vimhawk, Spurf, Citizen Kane. and 1 other person
BobbyD said:
I think i would have to disagree about that.

Mitoma was offside but starting to move back to an onside position before the defender.

I know he has to go further as he starts before the ball but (cant remember this instance) ita not necessarily a disadvantage.

By being in an offside position he is actually creating space for himself. The full back either has to drop to keep goalside (creating space between defensive line and midfield) or know precisely that he is in line with his centre backs and keep him onside.

This not only distracts the defender from other parts of the play (having to keep track where the offside player is) but if he decides to drop, that means hes moving back so a striker moving back up the field will have additional space if played in as the defender is moving towards the goal whereas the striker is now moving away from the goal.

My take on it anyway
Click to expand...

You make some interesting points Bobby but I think in the Brighton case watching it back it really is as simple as the defender dozing more than anything. They are both looking at the ball but Mitoma is a yard or two further away from it - I can't see how that space gives him an advantage in a scenario where the defender is doing his job properly and is alert to the danger.

As for it being a distraction? Well I doubt it's more distracting for the defender than trying to deal with a ball whipped in from the flank with a 6"4' attacker up his arse with elbows and knees digging in, but if the attacker is a toe's length further back, he is onside, the goal stands and we disregard the defender being distracted. That is probably the key part of a defender's job - keeping calm when rushed and distracted by a dozen things happening at once in a congested area where one wrong move leads to a goal or a penalty.

After the Brighton incident I used an extreme example to illustrate my theory: Imagine Haaland has his back to goal and is 10 yards offside. Grealish balloons a clearance up into the air just over the halfway line. Haaland is now 15 yards away from the ball and moving away from goal. The opposition has 3 defenders closer to play than he is. For whatever reason, they all leave it to eachother to deal with, the ball bounces and spins horribly and in the meantime due to being a freak of nature, Haaland gets to it first, dribbles 45 yards to goal and scores. Goal is disallowed for offside even though being offside handed the defence a 10 yard head start on him. It's absurd.

Overall though the angle of your take that concerns me most is that you quite strongly err on the side of the defender. I think that is precisely the approach that has led to VAR-fuelled offside ruining a game that is meant to be about entertainment, thrills and scoring goals. Instead we get a system that pushes the game closer to 0-0 draws, all while causing lengthy delays during which we get to see which body part is arbitrarily used for Howard Webb's key stage 1 class in basic line drawing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Changing Man
Citizen Kane. said:
You make some interesting points Bobby but I think in the Brighton case watching it back it really is as simple as the defender dozing more than anything. They are both looking at the ball but Mitoma is a yard or two further away from it - I can't see how that space gives him an advantage in a scenario where the defender is doing his job properly and is alert to the danger.

As for it being a distraction? Well I doubt it's more distracting for the defender than trying to deal with a ball whipped in from the flank with a 6"4' attacker up his arse with elbows and knees digging in, but if the attacker is a toe's length further back, he is onside, the goal stands and we disregard the defender being distracted. That is probably the key part of a defender's job - keeping calm when rushed and distracted by a dozen things happening at once in a congested area where one wrong move leads to a goal or a penalty.

After the Brighton incident I used an extreme example to illustrate my theory: Imagine Haaland has his back to goal and is 10 yards offside. Grealish balloons a clearance up into the air just over the halfway line. Haaland is now 15 yards away from the ball and moving away from goal. The opposition has 3 defenders closer to play than he is. For whatever reason, they all leave it to eachother to deal with, the ball bounces and spins horribly and in the meantime due to being a freak of nature, Haaland gets to it first, dribbles 45 yards to goal and scores. Goal is disallowed for offside even though being offside handed the defence a 10 yard head start on him. It's absurd.

Overall though the angle of your take that concerns me most is that you quite strongly err on the side of the defender. I think that is precisely the approach that has led to VAR-fuelled offside ruining a game that is meant to be about entertainment, thrills and scoring goals. Instead we get a system that pushes the game closer to 0-0 draws, all while causing lengthy delays during which we get to see which body part is arbitrarily used for Howard Webb's key stage 1 class in basic line drawing.
Click to expand...

Thanks bro. If i remember right the Brighton event didn't make a difference (as i don't remember the arsenal defender dropping back but i only saw it once).

I agree that toes, a foot etc aren't really advantages but there is a line drawn somewhere and they have done it like that.

As for your extreme example, i will throw some out there. Alongside the momentum thing about forcing defenders to drop off to be goalside etc, how much lee way we giving for offside and then coming back onside? 1 toe? 1 foot? 1 body? 1 metre?

Then we have away from goal, you mean direct away from goal? as long as the striker is moving away from goal?

for example:

if he started here and came back onside and slammed it home first time, would you count it because the defender can't see him but he started moving so had the momentum so could get through first and the defender couldn't keep tight enough. He's further away from the ball and the ball got played in front so "further away" from him.

You must log in or register to see images


If not, is it because in this instance its closer to the goal so his advantage is far greater or would it be okay if it was much further out so they can't shoot first time.

Not just that, you then start allowing subjectivity about what constitutes an advantage or not. The less subjectivity the better imo with the refs.

Like wise how about this movement

You must log in or register to see images
 

Attachments

  • upload_2023-1-10_21-37-51.png
    upload_2023-1-10_21-37-51.png
    3.7 KB · Views: 1
BobbyD said:
Thanks bro. If i remember right the Brighton event didn't make a difference (as i don't remember the arsenal defender dropping back but i only saw it once).

I agree that toes, a foot etc aren't really advantages but there is a line drawn somewhere and they have done it like that.

As for your extreme example, i will throw some out there. Alongside the momentum thing about forcing defenders to drop off to be goalside etc, how much lee way we giving for offside and then coming back onside? 1 toe? 1 foot? 1 body? 1 metre?

Then we have away from goal, you mean direct away from goal? as long as the striker is moving away from goal?

for example:

if he started here and came back onside and slammed it home first time, would you count it because the defender can't see him but he started moving so had the momentum so could get through first and the defender couldn't keep tight enough. He's further away from the ball and the ball got played in front so "further away" from him.

You must log in or register to see images


If not, is it because in this instance its closer to the goal so his advantage is far greater or would it be okay if it was much further out so they can't shoot first time.

Not just that, you then start allowing subjectivity about what constitutes an advantage or not. The less subjectivity the better imo with the refs.

Like wise how about this movement

You must log in or register to see images
Click to expand...
It really pisses me off when defenders run away from the area at free kicks knowing full well the ball is going in there but hoping to leave strikers offside.
Who is trying to gain unfair advantage in that situation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Makemstine Roger
BobbyD said:
Thanks bro. If i remember right the Brighton event didn't make a difference (as i don't remember the arsenal defender dropping back but i only saw it once).

I agree that toes, a foot etc aren't really advantages but there is a line drawn somewhere and they have done it like that.

As for your extreme example, i will throw some out there. Alongside the momentum thing about forcing defenders to drop off to be goalside etc, how much lee way we giving for offside and then coming back onside? 1 toe? 1 foot? 1 body? 1 metre?

Then we have away from goal, you mean direct away from goal? as long as the striker is moving away from goal?

for example:

if he started here and came back onside and slammed it home first time, would you count it because the defender can't see him but he started moving so had the momentum so could get through first and the defender couldn't keep tight enough. He's further away from the ball and the ball got played in front so "further away" from him.

You must log in or register to see images


If not, is it because in this instance its closer to the goal so his advantage is far greater or would it be okay if it was much further out so they can't shoot first time.

Not just that, you then start allowing subjectivity about what constitutes an advantage or not. The less subjectivity the better imo with the refs.

Like wise how about this movement

You must log in or register to see images
Click to expand...

You drew me a picture!!

Bobby I had no idea you felt this way <smooch>
 
  • Like
Reactions: PleaseNotPoll, Left on the Shelf and BobbyD
Bad news for clubs with terrible owners: Steve Bruce has NOT retired.
He's taking a break and will assess any offers, though he's aware he may not get any.
 
I'm not sure if this is fact but I read that Real Madrid are interested in Harry Kane. Good luck to him I say. Pick up a few trophies before we run you to death!
 
Dammit. This increases Man United’s chances of winning a trophy. Not good. Their fans are already insufferable enough as it is. Plus it means City have less competitions to focus on.

Useless bastards.

Newcastle/Southampton/Forest, please upset the odds and do us all a favour…
 
I’m seeing City fans whinging about their lack of activity or expected incomings in the market this month…

Their team tonight included:

£60m Joao Cancelo
£50m Kyle Walker
£57m Aymeric Laporte
£45m Kalvin Phillips
£100m Jack Grealish

They also started serial winner and England international Phil Foden, one of the most seasoned and highly decorated midfielders Ilkay Gundogan, and World Cup winner Julian Alvarez.

Let’s not forget bringing on subs that included one of the hottest strikers in the world (Haaland), one of the Premier League all-time hall of fame midfielders (de Bruyne), £45m Nathan Ake, and £63m Rodri.

But sure, a lack of transfer activity is the issue and not your manager’s tinkering and constant chopping and changing…
 
  • Like
Reactions: humanbeingincroydon and Citizen Kane.
BrunelGunner said:
I’m seeing City fans whinging about their lack of activity or expected incomings in the market this month…

Their team tonight included:

£60m Joao Cancelo
£50m Kyle Walker
£57m Aymeric Laporte
£45m Kalvin Phillips
£100m Jack Grealish

They also started serial winner and England international Phil Foden, one of the most seasoned and highly decorated midfielders Ilkay Gundogan, and World Cup winner Julian Alvarez.

Let’s not forget bringing on subs that included one of the hottest strikers in the world (Haaland), one of the Premier League all-time hall of fame midfielders (de Bruyne), £45m Nathan Ake, and £63m Rodri.

But sure, a lack of transfer activity is the issue and not your manager’s tinkering and constant chopping and changing…
Click to expand...

Playing Kyle Walker as a makeshift CB when he had Ake and Akanji on the bench is precisely the sort of nonsense shenanigans Pep tries every time they lose in the latter stages of the CL. It's like he's determined to beat a 'system' already massively rigged in his favour.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PleaseNotPoll, Spurlock, The Changing Man and 2 others
Spurlock said:
This is the thing that bothers me regarding the ‘get Poch back’ brigade

they seem to totally ignore the flaws in his man management and transfer window activity.

easy to ignore now because it’s all forgotten about
Click to expand...
I genuinely think something broke in him during the summer of 2017, as the combination of Walker getting tapped-up and Rose mouthing off to The Sun that summer not only undermined his authority, but also seems to have created this siege mentality where he'd only use his most loyal players and everybody outside of that group had to make do with the scraps they may have got
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spurlock and remembercolinlee
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back