The Footie Thread

[Deleted member 1740]

Just caught the end of the BT sport coverage and they're talking about City's goal not being offside.

I'm confused, maybe our resident ref could explain why he wasn't offside.

For me, The ball is played towards Rodri, Mings controls the ball, Rodri has came from an offside position and made a tackle to win the ball. When the ball was played Rodri was in an offside position. We often see these given when a player is judged to come from an offside position.

Mings shouldve done better though.

 

[Deleted member 1740]

Wow, that was a 'shop window' goal of the highest calibre.

When he scored I thought of you, was you seething because he'd scored or happy because you'd took the lead? ?

 

[Deleted member 21784]

Just caught the end of the BT sport coverage and they're talking about City's goal not being offside.

I'm confused, maybe our resident ref could explain why he wasn't offside.

For me, The ball is played towards Rodri, Mings controls the ball, Rodri has came from an offside position and made a tackle to win the ball. When the ball was played Rodri was in an offside position. We often see these given when a player is judged to come from an offside position.

Mings shouldve done better though.

https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-11---offside

Key points

It is not an offence to be in an offside position

A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent.
A ‘save’ is when a player stops, or attempts to stop, a ball which is going into or very close to the goal with any part of the body except the hands/arms (unless the goalkeeper within the penalty area).

 

[Slime]

When he scored I thought of you, was you seething because he'd scored or happy because you'd took the lead? ?

Oh, I was happy.

 

[Deleted member 1740]

https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-11---offside

Key points

It is not an offence to be in an offside position

A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent.
A ‘save’ is when a player stops, or attempts to stop, a ball which is going into or very close to the goal with any part of the body except the hands/arms (unless the goalkeeper within the penalty area).

There's many different situations that offside covers. It was OK when offside was offside, now there's that many variations of offside is the current rule fair?

For my mind Rhodri has gained an advantage from an offside position.

 

[Deleted member 21784]

There's many different situations that offside covers. It was OK when offside was offside, now there's that many variations of offside is the current rule fair?

For my mind Rhodri has gained an advantage from an offside position.

Ming's passed the ball deliberately (attempted to)

There for he is inside

 

[Deleted member 18588]

Ming's passed the ball deliberately (attempted to)

There for he is inside

When Robbie Keane, playing for Spurs, came from behind the goalkeeper to tackle him (ball on floor) and then knocked the ball into an empty net everyone praised his quick thinking and nobody suggested he should have been given offside.

This IMO is no different and as that aspect of the Law hasn't changed Rhodri was rightly considered onside.

 

[Deleted member 21784]

When Robbie Keane, playing for Spurs, came from behind the goalkeeper to tackle him (ball on floor) and then knocked the ball into an empty net everyone praised his quick thinking and nobody suggested he should have been given offside.

This IMO is no different and as that aspect of the Law hasn't changed Rhodri was rightly considered onside.

It's amazing how many people claim to not know the law (ie their manager) if you are in the game and don't know a basic law like that you shouldn't comment on it..got himself sent off and then still mouthed off

 

[Tashyboy]

There's many different situations that offside covers. It was OK when offside was offside, now there's that many variations of offside is the current rule fair?

For my mind Rhodri has gained an advantage from an offside position.

Starting with Mings, when he has seen Rodri twice, and tries to chest it down I will never know why he did not just head it clear. As soon as he did that the ball is live and Rodri deffo gains an advantage. If that had happened against City I would be spitting feathers. A small lapse of concentration has caused much discussion.
Watching MOTD they were on about the fairness of this rule which has been around for a few years. If they knew about this why not push for it to be changed, or have they. Why wait for an incident like this to highlight it.

That aside, it looked a good game in horrendous Conditions

 

[Tashyboy]

Bugger. Did well enough to stifle United for long parts but some strike from Pogba

Homer last two times Ave seen Fulham they have more than held there own playing good football. Need to stick with the manager.
What surprised me was Fulham playing six players who are on loan. Parker has got them playing well

 

[Orikoru]

Just watched that City goal. I can see why they've not given offside. Firstly I don't think it was an intended pass to Rodri, he just sticks his head on it to intercept the clearance. Rodri's presence has not caused Mings to play the ball when he wouldn't have done otherwise either - since the ball was straight to him. So when Mings takes it down it's a 'new phase of play' as they say?

But also..

Offside offence

A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:
interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or
interfering with an opponent by:
preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
challenging an opponent for the ball or
clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball


If you put the bit in bold together there you could definitely say he was offside. It doesn't say it has to be a deliberate pass to him, I guess that's a bit of a myth. He has come from an offside position and challenged for the ball.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Just watched that City goal. I can see why they've not given offside. Firstly I don't think it was an intended pass to Rodri, he just sticks his head on it to intercept the clearance. Rodri's presence has not caused Mings to play the ball when he wouldn't have done otherwise either - since the ball was straight to him. So when Mings takes it down it's a 'new phase of play' as they say?

But also..

Offside offence

A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:
interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or
interfering with an opponent by:
preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
challenging an opponent for the ball or
clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball


If you put the bit in bold together there you could definitely say he was offside. It doesn't say it has to be a deliberate pass to him, I guess that's a bit of a myth. He has come from an offside position and challenged for the ball.

You’ve answered your own point there.

The bits in bold would of been used if it was one phase of play, but as Mings is under no pressure and a 'new phase of play' begins, everything you posted after that ie the bits in bold are not relevant to the new phase.

 

[Liverbirdie]

When Robbie Keane, playing for Spurs, came from behind the goalkeeper to tackle him (ball on floor) and then knocked the ball into an empty net everyone praised his quick thinking and nobody suggested he should have been given offside.

This IMO is no different and as that aspect of the Law hasn't changed Rhodri was rightly considered onside.

Totally different.

IIrc, The keeper had control of the ball, then Keane did what he did, and received the ball (as such) from the keeper who is the opponent.

Last nights was a moving ball, the fella come from an offside position, and was also very close to Mings that made it even worse. Unrelated examples.

 

[Orikoru]

You’ve answered your own point there.

The bits in bold would of been used if it was one phase of play, but as Mings is under no pressure and a 'new phase of play' begins, everything you posted after that ie the bits in bold are not relevant to the new phase.

I think the offside is law is poo to be honest, just like the handball one is. It's not black and white, you can read it in a way that suggests he's offside, or read it another way that says he isn't. Too many grey areas IMO. The word 'phase' doesn't feature in the law anywhere, so that might be another myth that's come from pundits trying to understand it - which really confuses incidents like this one.

Ignoring the laws as they're written and just to give my opinion - I think that incident should be offside. The ball was sent towards him by a teammate while he was stood offside, and then he went for the ball. It's only the shoddily written laws that gave him a loophole.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

I think the offside is law is poo to be honest, just like the handball one is. It's not black and white, you can read it in a way that suggests he's offside, or read it another way that says he isn't. Too many grey areas IMO. The word 'phase' doesn't feature in the law anywhere, so that might be another myth that's come from pundits trying to understand it - which really confuses incidents like this one.

Ignoring the laws as they're written and just to give my opinion - I think that incident should be offside. The ball was sent towards him by a teammate while he was stood offside, and then he went for the ball. It's only the shoddily written laws that gave him a loophole.

They are not shoddily written, the problem is you’d never get them correct, look at the Spurs v LPool one a few years ago when Spurs got the benefit after Lovren was adjudged to of intentionally played the ball and Kane (I think) got the advantage.

I think offside could only ever be made simple if you made it irrelevant as to whether a play is offside if active or not.

 

[Orikoru]

They are not shoddily written, the problem is you’d never get them correct, look at the Spurs v LPool one a few years ago when Spurs got the benefit after Lovren was adjudged to of intentionally played the ball and Kane (I think) got the advantage.

I think offside could only ever be made simple if you made it irrelevant as to whether a play is offside if active or not.

Don't remember the incident you're talking about.

As the old saying goes (think it was Clough?) "if he's not interfering with play then why the hell is on the pitch!" Rodri comes from an offside position and tackles the ball so he'd be deemed active surely. You should only be deemed inactive if you're literally standing there doing nothing, like they sometimes to with their arms up in the air making it very clear to everyone that they're not getting involved.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Don't remember the incident you're talking about.

As the old saying goes (think it was Clough?) "if he's not interfering with play then why the hell is on the pitch!" Rodri comes from an offside position and tackles the ball so he'd be deemed active surely. You should only be deemed inactive if you're literally standing there doing nothing, like they sometimes to with their arms up in the air making it very clear to everyone that they're not getting involved.

Again though mate, you can’t use the Clough quote then give an example of a “get out clause” a player is either on or offside if they are on a pitch. Loopholes would be used to seek an advantage.

Lpool v Spurs 2018:
https://www.teamtalk.com/news/match...blundering-over-liverpool-v-spurs-controversy

 

[Orikoru]

Again though mate, you can’t use the Clough quote then give an example of a “get out clause” a player is either on or offside if they are on a pitch. Loopholes would be used to seek an advantage.

Lpool v Spurs 2018:
https://www.teamtalk.com/news/match...blundering-over-liverpool-v-spurs-controversy

I mean as long as he's moving he's involved. If you say they're only inactive if they're standing perfectly still with their arms up, then it removes any grey area, that would be very easy to see.

I only vaguely recall it and can't find a video now - but from a couple of screenshots I've found then yeah morally that should be offside too. That was a very similar incident, they've obviously decided that the defender had opportunity to clear it and the presence of an offside player didn't affect their ability to do so. Seems a bit of a nonsense, that. As I say, if you're offside then you should be offside.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

Totally different.

IIrc, The keeper had control of the ball, then Keane did what he did, and received the ball (as such) from the keeper who is the opponent.

Last nights was a moving ball, the fella come from an offside position, and was also very close to Mings that made it even worse. Unrelated examples.

There's the problem, how do you define control of the ball. Was Mings not in control before the challenge?

Also how long does a player returning from an offside position have to wait before becoming involved?

In any event under the current rules the correct decision was made.

 

[Tashyboy]

There's the problem, how do you define control of the ball. Was Mings not in control before the challenge?

Also how long does a player returning from an offside position have to wait before becoming involved?

In any event under the current rules the correct decision was made.

For me Rodri has come from an " offside" position to be involved. He has gained an advantage from Mings poor decision. For me he is offside. If Bernado had challenged from an onside position and the ball breaks to Rodri who is then onside play on.