SATA
Full Member
That miss when Becker mispassed, he really should be burying that into the empty net. Instead he sort of lost his composure and hurriedly took the shot
It is yet another example. Don't bother press Alison and the chance wouldn't have materialised. Should have dragged the marker and heeled it into Rashford's path clearly.The times I saw cavani for PSG, he did seem to miss some sitters, but it would be glossed over due to the number of chances created.
He wasnt the reason we lost (his miss was at 0-0 right and we still took the lead)
Fans in the stadium deserved that too.Shame this poorly coached team couldn't get him a win. That goal would have deserved it.
Fans in the stadium deserved that too.
The fact that he was wasted at PSG last year is nothing less than a crime. Could have joined some other team or us. Anyways something better than nothing. A fit and firing cavani next season is what we fans need.Gave the fans something special on their return. He hit it with such finesse and made it look easy
He wasn’t wasted, he was constantly injured, self-inflicted injuries as well, which is never a good sign for an aging player. That being said, I’m really glad people here get to see just how great of a person and player he is. I hope he manages to stay healthy, he’s one of my favorite person in football.The fact that he was wasted at PSG last year is nothing less than a crime. Could have joined some other team or us. Anyways something better than nothing. A fit and firing cavani next season is what we fans need.
He is fecking brilliant. I wish we signed him 5 years ago.
But the assist was given to Bruno, so he wasn’t.Ok, his goal was probably offside but what a way to introduce yourself to the home fans.
Ok, his goal was probably offside but what a way to introduce yourself to the home fans.
It wouldn't have been offside whether he touched it or not anyway. The simple act of Fernandes attempting to play the ball makes him active, and the start of a new phase of play.But the assist was given to Bruno, so he wasn’t.
It wouldn't have been offside whether he touched it or not anyway. The simple act of Fernandes attempting to play the ball makes him active, and the start of a new phase of play.
If it was the other way and Cavani started onside, then ran offside and the 'flick/dummy' happened they'd say he's interefering with play and distracting the defenders.
Nope. If a player in an offside position runs towards the ball and pretends to kick it but doesn't he'll be deemed offside for interfering with play.thats Just not correct. He has to touch it to be onside.
Apart from the rules.Nope. If a player in an offside position runs towards the ball and pretends to kick it but doesn't he'll be deemed offside for interfering with play.
What's the difference there between Fernandes glancing the ball but not deviating it, or what he ended up doing? nothing at all.
Show me where it says that? cheers.Apart from the rules.
As nonchalant as you likeThe way he struck that was just class. It's like he knew 100% that it was going in before he even struck it. Didn't even look phased when he hit it, kinda just a chill vibe when he hit it.
https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-11---offside#:~:text=A player is in an,and the second-last opponentShow me where it says that? cheers.
Eh? Bruno himself is onside so the rules make no difference for him. It's Cavani that is offside. The moment Bruno attempts to play the ball (which he does attempt by moving towards the ball and flicking at it) makes him active. This resets the phase of play and then makes Cavani onside from that moment.https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-11---offside#:~:text=A player is in an,and the second-last opponent
'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:
*The first point of contact of the 'play' or 'touch' of the ball should be used'
- 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
You are offside from the moment the ball is touched either intentionally or accidentally. Bruno waving his foot near it does not constitute him now being 'active'. Being 'active' only refers to a player in an offside position.
You're right in that there's no real difference, but unfortunately the rules don't reflect that.
We've seen VAR decisions before where a goal was called offside and then it deemed that the ball didn't come off the attacker and the original ball was played when the scorer was in an onside position. Under your rules if Bruno sent in a cross and say Cavani goes to head it but just misses it and then it comes to Greenwood who finishes it, Greenwood could be offside if he had run into an 'offside' position when Cavani tried to head it as Cavani 'was attempting to play the ball, thereby making him active and starting a new phase of play'. When in reality Greenwood was onside when Bruno sent in the cross and ran behind the defenders to meet it.
Eh? Bruno himself is onside so the rules make no difference for him. It's Cavani that is offside. The moment Bruno attempts to play the ball (which he does attempt by moving towards the ball and flicking at it) makes him active. This resets the phase of play and then makes Cavani onside from that moment.
You could also argue that by Bruno moving towards the ball and attempting the flick, he stops the opponent receiving the ball. Look at 7 seconds in the below video. He is now active and interfering with play. Bruno not touching the ball by the tiniest margins makes no difference as it's his actions that deceive the defenders rather than the flick itself. That's point 3 in the rules you posted. Either way it's a perfectly legal goal.
You can play the ball without touching it. You can't be offside and dummy over the ball can you?But he doesn't touch it. It doesn't matter if he's active or not active. All players in onside positions are active. Active and inactive only refers to players in offside positions as a way to denote whether them being offside had any effect on the game and therefore constitutes a free kick being given.
Point 3 in the rules I posted are referring specifically to players in offside positions. The operative rule being a payer is deemed offside from the 'The first point of contact of the 'play' or 'touch' of the ball should be used' . Contact being the important rule here. Bruno didn't make contact. The first point of contact was made by De Gea. CONTACT.
'The moment Bruno attempts to play the ball (which he does attempt by moving towards the ball and flicking at it) makes him active. This resets the phase of play and then makes Cavani onside from that moment.' What you are saying here is just you using words you've heard used in an incorrect context.
Bruno not touching the ball makes no difference in a real sense, yes. But in regards to the rules they make all the difference. The issue with interpreting the rules as you do is it's down to subjectivity, there's a an area of grey. How close to getting the ball would Bruno have to be? As the rules currently are its a binary decision. Where was the first point of contact made before the player received the ball?
You can 'play the ball' without touching it, true. But the rules for offside explicitly state that they make the decision based on the first point of CONTACT. Maybe you're struggling with the word:You can play the ball without touching it. You can't be offside and dummy over the ball can you?
How about when standing in front of a goalkeeper and blocking their vision?
He's onside, it's a goal.