They are CORRECT decisions... the rule is stupid (which I've sad already) but the decisions are correct implementation of said rule.
Refs & VAR 2020/2021 Discussion
- Thread starter Annihilate Now!
- Start date
They are CORRECT decisions... the rule is stupid (which I've sad already) but the decisions are correct implementation of said rule.
Did Mings take down the ball? If yes, then he deliberately played the ball and Rodri wasn't offside, its not rocket science the rule was right there on the screen. Stupid rule? Yes, correct decision? Yes.
He made a deliberate attempt to control the ball. That's what matters.
Can you quote the rule ?
yeah that obscure MLS goal was definitely the one you had in mind when you said tons.
I googled it, I'm sure theres tons more. So have you anyway to back up him being offside because I pretty clearly showed why he was on, if you watch the video the law comes up on screen just before the highlight. Maybe read it and get back to me with which part of it makes Rodri offside!
But Rodri is there trying to tackle him as the ball is falling to the floor.
Maybe the rule needs looking at? I dunno, anyway gonna watch the game now and not worry about Man City. You enjoy arguing.
Should also be offside
What
That's hilarious really and I don't mean its solely done to benefit City, the referees are just incompetent. It just happened that City benefited tonight. Could be anyone.
VAR can spot:
1) Mane's armpit being offside vs Everton (wtf lol)
2) A player's finger making him offside in a frame by frame analysis
3) Shaw fouling someone on one end and calling the play back after a counter attack and possible red card for the other team
But they can't spot:
1) A player coming back from an offside position, not only coming back but actively tackling the guy who is trying to control the ball in the same phase of play
They just make it up.
This season we had a McGinn 20 yard ruled out at Arsenal because Barkley was stood infront of the keeper yet I've seen goals in recent weeks given in identical situaitons.
We also have that goal at West Ham ruled out due to Watkins shoulder being offside because the West Ham defender pretty much had him in a headlock and was pushing him forward.
They'll be many examples of offside being called for what wasn't given tonight because it is the right decision.
So opposing teams could now have players hang offside, let their teammates hoof it upfield, then immediately tackle the defender once he touches and "controls" it? Daft rule.
Because Mings has touched the ball and is no longer offside.
You could use google but here it is.
A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent deliberately playing the ball (except from a deliberate save by any opponent) is not considered to have gained an advantage.
The defender tries to intercept a pass,.it goes to a player in an offside position who gains a clear advantage from being offside.What
It should also be given offside
Fair play on being honest. Its a shitty rule but it is the rule.
We have seen tonnes of offsides not given for this reason. They just tend to involve much more obvious plays of the ball.
If this interpretation was the norm then it would mean that players coming back from offside positions could tackle their opponent almost as soon as they've tried to control the ball. That certainly isn't how the rule has generally been interpreted up to now. In fact we've seen a lot more obvious plays of the ball be ignored in the past.
If this interpretation was the norm then it would mean that players coming back from offside positions could tackle their opponent almost as soon as they've tried to control the ball. That certainly isn't how the rule has generally been interpreted up to now. In fact we've seen a lot more obvious plays of the ball be ignored in the past.
No because its a deflection but if a defender tries to pass a ball he's intercepting then yes because he played the ball under his control. The second Mings chest control was at his feet and under his control, Mings had played the ball, Rodri was onside.
According to you (which I agree with) but thats not the rule. As I said like the handballs, its a correct implementation of a stupid rule.
CAN YOU QUOTE THE feckING RULE ?
Yeah, blocking a shot is surely a "deliberate act of playing the ball" as well, but that doesn't count.
Not even that, the second he makes a deliberate attempt to control the ball he plays Rodri onside.
The rule has been in place for a couple of years now. It just needed a sufficiently high enough profile incident to demonstrate how silly it is before IFAB revisit the crock of shit they’ve concocted.
I sent you the fecking rule literally replied to you with a quote and its there, its like 6 minutes ago. Not hard to find either.
And that's a blatant penalty.
Just get rid of it, we're not getting anymore decisions right than we were before.
Just get rid of it, we're not getting anymore decisions right than we were before.
Who is laughing at Klopp now? Master stroke.
So why do you struggle so badly to understand it ?
It's literally the same as the Welbeck v Liverpool one. 100% penalty.
What makes you think that ?
Klopp fecked us over. We will only get penalties for breaking someone's leg now
Every time same rubbish from you. What part do I not understand Einstein? Gonna be impressed by this from a man who can't follow a simple timeline without making shit up and twisting things for conspiracy theories.
And what about if a player is stood offside in the six yard box and the keeper spills a shot from another player and the offside player taps it in, is that onside too? Since the keeper made a “deliberate act of playing the ball.”
The rules.
Why does he need to clear it? The player in question is miles offside. As far as Mings is concerned he has time to chest and control it as Rodri shouldn't even interfere with that phase of play. Or he can, but it should be flagged offside.
Kicked Fred's foot. A clear pen. "Not enough contact" is never a defence either, it'd be a freekick all day long.
Apparently saves are judged differently.
If you look at the rule
Look at the clip you sent
and don't understand why it's offside
then what's the point of trying to explain it further ?
I mean, which part of deliberately don't you understand ?
Can you quote them and explain ?
Already been posted mate.