Originally posted by EIM
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
No More Harry - Premier League 2020/21
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Bermuda Iron View PostIf I may attempt to clear up the offside thingy discussed on this thread:- It is not an offence to be in an offside position
- Nowhere in the Laws does it mention 'phases of play' or 'ball has to be played forward'
- If a defender deliberately plays the ball (as Mings did) then an attacker in an offside position when the ball is last played by a teammate can't be penalised
- It is a case of 'deliberate play' vs 'deflection' - so an attacker playing the ball off an opponent (deflection) and the ball then going to another attacker in an offside position constitutes an offence
- If Rodri was stood very close to Mings and challenged for the ball from an offside position then he would be penalised for interfering with an opponent
- VAR/officials decided Rodri was far enough away not to have interfered or impacted Mings' ability to control/play the ball
‘The ball has to be played forward’ is a common mistake. At its root is the situation where two players are behind the defence and one passes to the other to score - people look at that and assume it’s legal because the pass was backwards. But it’s actually OK because the player who receives the pass was behind the ball. The two (recipient behind the ball/a pull-back) happen to align in most cases... but only one is actually relevant.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Janik View PostApropos of nothing, now would be the perfect time to pause top-flight Football. For around six weeks, I reckon.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Janik View PostIt certainly makes it clear why the no offside call was the only outcome in line with the rules.
‘The ball has to be played forward’ is a common mistake. At its root is the situation where two players are behind the defence and one passes to the other to score - people look at that and assume it’s legal because the pass was backwards. But it’s actually OK because the player who receives the pass was behind the ball. The two (recipient behind the ball/a pull-back) happen to align in most cases... but only one is actually relevant.
Comment
-
I still feel Rodri should be given offside as he is moving towards the area of where the ball is going as it is in flight from his team mate. He has gained an advantage by running back close to where Mings is going to deal with it.
Players are flagged offside all the time when they move towards balls in flight that defenders get to first. This should have happened here. He wasnt just hanging around saying, "don't mind me boys," and then Mings activated him, he was active the entire play.
Peter Walton, the referee for BT said he couldn't understand why it wasn't offside then later on read out the rule to clarify. I think they were interpreting the rule to justify the decision.
If this is the alleged rules, would it apply if a keeper dropped a cross ball at the feet of an offside player?
Comment
-
To put the Mings/Rodri situation into some sort of context, I used the clip as a discussion point for a virtual training session I did this week with CONCACAF officials. Out of 58 officials, 57 agreed it was not offside.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
I do not think it is correct. A player in an offside position running to where the ball is about to land is affecting the play and should be deemed offside. I understand that once Mings plays it, he should be allowed to then get after him but Rodri doesn't wait at all, he closes Mings down before he touches it. That action of closing the space has to be deemed as being involved from an offside position. The officials are using the law about receiving it from an opposing player to explain it but not accounting for Rodri closing the space before Mings takes possession.
You could argue that Rodri has to trot back somewhere instead of standing still but if he trots right back to where his teammate has headed it to, he should be flagged.
Those 58 Concacaf officials who viewed it, i am supporting the 1 who said it was offside.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Janik View PostLeicester supporters are quite hard for opposition fans to taunt at the moment.
“You’ll never win it again!”
Well, as if that matters! It never even occurred to anyone that we would win it once (not even the ones who bet on it, which was more performative loyalty than anything else). We are already infinitely up so *shrug*
”It’s impossible for Leicester to win the league!”
You clearly don’t understand the word ‘impossible’. Because, you know, we did. You mean ‘highly improbable’. But...
”Leicester won’t win the league this time around, then!”
What, just like you said we wouldn’t five years ago? Then we did? Forgive me for pointing and laughing at you.
“You’ll f*ck up again, just like you f*cked up Champions League qualification last season“
Yeah, you are right, we blew that one. It was a real pity. We just had to make do with the third highest league finish in 135 years of trying. And runs to the FA Cup quarters and League Cup semis. It was a disaster.
”No one takes you seriously as title contenders”
No, but they can’t just dismiss us as not involved. Because, as the saying goes ‘fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me’
It’s all water off a ducks back at the moment.
Comment
-
Arsenal in FDR's first two, 1933 and 1937. Liverpool in 1969 (Nixon), 1973 (Nixon) and 1977 (Carter). Man U 1993 (Clinton), 2001 (Bush), 2009 (Obama), 2013 (Obama) and would have been 2021 if they'd played a day earlier. Chelsea broke the sequence in 2005 and 2017.
https://www.11v11.com/league-tables/premier-league/19-january-2013/
Sheffield Wednesday were top for the 1913 and 1929 ones. Burnley 1921.Last edited by Satchmo Distel; 25-01-2021, 01:45.
Comment
-
Well, this is going to help calm the situation down.
https://twitter.com/MikeKeegan_DM/status/1354061213416775682
(Is it me or when it comes to VAR Villa have been involved more than most? There was this, a disallowed goal because the ref blew too early and the Sheff Utd "ghost goal".)
Comment
Comment