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!
vimhawk said:
I've just seen that offside on MOTD and I think all this discussion over the laws as now written is a bit of a red herring. It's offside full stop, Rashford is clearly interfering as the defender was trying to play him offside and the keeper thinks he might shoot. Doesn't matter if he touches the ball. The laws aren't the problem *on this occasion* IMHO, it was bad interpretation.
Click to expand...
Interfering is defined in the Laws. He didn't do any of the things defined as interfering.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Diego
PowerSpurs said:
There is no evidence of corruption but the Laws are an absolute mess. As far as I can see no words in the current offside law mean that Rushford should have been penalised which is totally bonkers.
Click to expand...

Very much this. But what I find equally bonkers is that most ppl who are saying Rashford was impeding play are only saying so because the City defenders were busy martialling a player who they knew to be offside (why?) instead of paying attention to the player who was onside. If anything, that can only mean it was their own fault.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Diego
The judgement call on wether you are on or off is down to the officials however in the heat of the game, when your balls deep into it then you will not leave a player free, you will mark him…especially if he is involved in the area of play where the danger is at.

You don’t have time to draw imaginary lines in your head in that second of intense play in order to make that judgement.

Not as though rashford was near the corner flag tying his shoe laces.
 
What I haven't seen mentioned is the fact that the pass was clearly intended for Rashford which means he was involved/interfering with play.

Often , when a player knows they are offside, and there is a chance another player can get the ball, they stop and thus don't interfere. Rashford continued to run and effected play. How can it not be described like that. Do the officials know what the City players are thinking, affecting their positions ?
 
As in previous years , officials favour particular results so that their agenda can be achieved.
It seems this year , They have decided City are not winning the league.
Either United or Woolwich.
@PowerSpurs , No evidence of corruption? Of course there is no clear evidence. Most smart criminals will not leave evidence.
 
Blue and White said:
What I haven't seen mentioned is the fact that the pass was clearly intended for Rashford which means he was involved/interfering with play.

Often , when a player knows they are offside, and there is a chance another player can get the ball, they stop and thus don't interfere. Rashford continued to run and effected play. How can it not be described like that. Do the officials know what the City players are thinking, affecting their positions ?
Click to expand...
But as rule 11 stands, this is all irrelevant.
Had the City defenders been goal side of him and attempted a tackle or had Ederson come rushing out to close him down, then a situation would have arisen where Rashford would be deemed to have obstructed them. But it didn’t happen. By the time either the defenders or ‘keeper were in a position to affect the outcome, Fernandes had already whipped the ball into the net. Rashford didn’t interfere with play (touch the ball) or obstruct or hinder an opponent.
The rule is the problem, not its application yesterday- which was 100% correct.
The offside rule needs to be clear, not ambiguous. There needs to be a clearer definition of when a player who does not receive/touch the ball will be deemed offside, especially when there is potential for him to affect the play.
And the City players didn’t need to do mental gymnastics about was he was or wasn’t he offside. As with all these situations where VAR might intervene to overturn an on field decision, players need to play on and not anticipate the outcome.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PowerSpurs
Blue and White said:
As in previous years , officials favour particular results so that their agenda can be achieved.
It seems this year , They have decided City are not winning the league.
Either United or Woolwich.
@PowerSpurs , No evidence of corruption? Of course there is no clear evidence. Most smart criminals will not leave evidence.
Click to expand...
For it to be corruption you need a secret paid agreement involving dozens of officials. These guys can't even get simple onfield decisions right. It's impossible for them to be secretly implementing a complex plan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BobbyD, Spurlock and remembercolinlee
Blue and White said:
What I haven't seen mentioned is the fact that the pass was clearly intended for Rashford which means he was involved/interfering with play.

Often , when a player knows they are offside, and there is a chance another player can get the ball, they stop and thus don't interfere. Rashford continued to run and effected play. How can it not be described like that. Do the officials know what the City players are thinking, affecting their positions ?
Click to expand...
There is a list of actions in the Laws that define what is meant by interfering with play. Being the intended recipient of a pass isn't one of them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BobbyD and paultheplug
Mudryk confirmed by Chelsea, that’s almost half a £bn spent by Boehly since he took over and somehow they so far look worse off.

Proof that as good as Football Manager is as a game, you shouldn’t try doing it in real life.
 
Dier Hard said:
Mudryk confirmed by Chelsea, that’s almost half a £bn spent by Boehly since he took over and somehow they so far look worse off.

Proof that as good as Football Manager is as a game, you shouldn’t try doing it in real life.
Click to expand...
So you're saying we shouldn't spend £6-10m of our summer transfer budget on an entire backline's worth of 17 year old Greeks...?
 
From Marco Silva's post match comments you might get the idea that the officials were already "understanding" Newcastle's new place in the pecking order. I haven't seen the incidents he's talking about so will wait to make a full judgement. But it wouldn't be surprising would it?
 
vimhawk said:
From Marco Silva's post match comments you might get the idea that the officials were already "understanding" Newcastle's new place in the pecking order. I haven't seen the incidents he's talking about so will wait to make a full judgement. But it wouldn't be surprising would it?
Click to expand...

Trippier was stepped on before the pen tackle, which could have been awarded as a foul, Trippier then fouled the Fulham man and I do think that merited a pen. But the decision in the first place was a weird one and it did need to go to VAR.

Then, Mitrovic scewered the penalty and that resulted in the ball hitting his other foot and going in the net. I read a quote saying that the rules on penalties are quite simple, that doing something like that results in a spot free kick to the opposing team. It just almost never, ever happens, so of course people are up in arms. It's another case in football of the ones being punished doubting and wanting to change the rules.

If Mitrovic moved to early, it would have to be retaken, and that is were the "confusion", better known as bitching, is coming from.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Treble
In retrospect, we should've watched Atalanta's match with Salernitana
You must log in or register to see media
Although it was disappointing how there were only four goals in the second half...

Similar can be said for Monaco slacking off in the second half and only scoring two...
You must log in or register to see media
 
vimhawk said:
From Marco Silva's post match comments you might get the idea that the officials were already "understanding" Newcastle's new place in the pecking order. I haven't seen the incidents he's talking about so will wait to make a full judgement. But it wouldn't be surprising would it?
Click to expand...

Well it would be for you, they don't play in red <laugh>
 
  • Like
Reactions: Diego and vimhawk
Welshie said:
Trippier was stepped on before the pen tackle, which could have been awarded as a foul, Trippier then fouled the Fulham man and I do think that merited a pen. But the decision in the first place was a weird one and it did need to go to VAR.

Then, Mitrovic scewered the penalty and that resulted in the ball hitting his other foot and going in the net. I read a quote saying that the rules on penalties are quite simple, that doing something like that results in a spot free kick to the opposing team. It just almost never, ever happens, so of course people are up in arms. It's another case in football of the ones being punished doubting and wanting to change the rules.

If Mitrovic moved to early, it would have to be retaken, and that is were the "confusion", better known as bitching, is coming from.
Click to expand...
Same thing happened before to Mahrez against City before he joined them:
You must log in or register to see media
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back