ManUtd fan is glad that "controversial" goal for title rival is given, weird.
Refs & VAR 2020/2021 Discussion
- Thread starter Annihilate Now!
- Start date
ManUtd fan is glad that "controversial" goal for title rival is given, weird.
But the defender thought Rodri was offside so it didnt affect his thought process. Thats a reason why he isnt offside surely? Trying to phrase that as if by knowing he was offside he was interfering with play is just muddying the waters, there could never be a rule that covers that.
If Mings knows Rodri is offside and heads it back to the keeper, instead of chesting it, and underhits it, is it offside?
If Rodri starts his press later, Mings chests it down and takes an age to pick a pass and is tackled, is that offside? There cant be a time limit on the rule imo.
I think it should be offside but the rules seems to allow it. Fans seem to be taking the time from the Chest control feckup to tackle as the timeframe when its really as soon as he goes for it with his head.
The bold part here is your own assumption too, though. You can't possibly referee football matches attempting to get into players' minds in every situation. By definition, to interfere is to make a deliberate action towards an opponent or the ball and Rodri doesn't do this, by current interpretation of the law, until after Mings has touched/played it, which is therefore lawful. Whether Mings has 'control' or not does not matter.
And for the second point, that would depend upon exactly where and when Mings first touches/plays the ball in that scenario, and how close the 'challenge' is. In yesterday's example, Rodri is two or three yards away and not challenging for the ball when it is initially touched/played. It sounds like, in your scenario, the opponent would be much closer spatially, making an offside call more obvious.
Nope.
Fred should have been awarded a pen. It wasn't even reviewed.
Mings have stated that he didn't think Rodri would be able to compete for the ball because of the offside, so that doesn't really stand. That's how I interpret his tweet stating he didn't know of the exact rule.
I would say that isn't offside, as Rodri here would be receiving the ball from Mings' bad pass, where he competed for the ball in the actual incident, imo.
The time limit is a difficult one, as I agree with you on that, but to say that Rodri isn't offside the exact moment the ball touches Mings can't be right? Rodri moves towards the ball the whole time and challenges Mings not more than a second after the ball touches him.
No & No for your first two questions, I thought it would be offside initially, but it was the same when City had that goal disallowed v 'Pool in the CL which should have been given, at least people know the law now, but seriously, Mings knew he was there and as a pro footballer should know the laws for things like that as a defender. I didn't see it but apparently Bernardo knew the law in his post match interview.
Funny you would say that, as this is exactly what Rodri is doing.
So if you run at full speed, but are three yards away when the ball is played by the defender, how long do you think it would take before the attacking player makes a challenge? Rodri was challenging inside of one second, after mowing towards the ball from the instance it was headed towards him.
This is my last post of the day, so I won't be able to continue this discussion today. It's been interesting to hear the different views of this weird situation, I'm curious to see if this situation will provoke a change in the rules.
There was a moment in the game yesterday where Greenwood got tripped up. He tried to stay on his feet but his momentum took him into Anguissa and the ref called a foul against Greenwood 
It's so bad at the moment. The penalty on Fred not given and then the Maguire disallowed goal but that won't alter the perception in the media at all.
It's so bad at the moment. The penalty on Fred not given and then the Maguire disallowed goal but that won't alter the perception in the media at all.Forgot that, surely you give the first foul? You know like the Shaw Cavani thing?There was a moment in the game yesterday where Greenwood got tripped up. He tried to stay on his feet but his momentum took him into Anguissa and the ref called a foul against Greenwood
Clearly not. Even though Greenwood's 'foul' is only because someone tripped him up!
It'd be like if Maguire shoved Lookman into Fred and we got given a free-kick for it.
Yes it was.
Also personally thought it wasn't a pen. Ive seen them given this season admittedly.
Consistency hey.It seems very odd that they can talk about phases of play after that Burnley debacle for sure.
And City benefit from an obscure and unjust law in the same month.
Next up Liverpool will get a penalty for dissent.
With that I agree. The rules have been there for years and years though. How one interprets is a different matter, as we saw yesterday.
Chest the ball, get it down and take a couple of touches yes, but Mings second touch was tackling rodri because he had made an attempt to take the ball.
Couple of touches? he chests it down and Rodri is there immediately.
He is clearly interfering with play from an offside position - that is all that's important.
if Rodri isn't offside then he doesn't get that ball, how can that possibly be legal? Mings clearly doesn't expect him to come and tackle him either hence the hesitation. It's just a mess all round.
The issue is the rules are open to interpretation, they need clarifying ASAP as lets be honest nobody truly knows whether it's correct or not. I'd say 80% don't think it should be allowed though.
I was saying a chest and couple of touches then rodri tackling him would be ok
I see.
Yeah if he made an attempt to get onside and then tried to close him down then fair enough, but to come from his blindspot and give him no chance to react is just not right.
If city had any morals they would have given that goal back.
In fairness, I don’t think that is the issue at all. The laws are pretty clear that it’s not offside. The issue is that most of us aren’t comfortable with that being the law and would prefer it changed.
I’m also not necessarily sure it was ever in the spirit of how the law was meant to be written, but rather a by product of needing to define offside phases. Perhaps a rugby style offside rule where a player is always offside if they challenge for the ball from beyond the second to last defender could solve it, but I can already think of issues that would cause.
Not when Mings first plays the ball, on his chest. Rodri still isn't close enough to have challenged/be considered interfering by law at that point.
Bein post match discussion about the goal
No, linesman would have flagged that in years gone by, the new rule is not to raise your flag untill play finishes isn’t it?
Where in the current offside law is this particular situation clearly onside? Please show me.
Not even being talked about it.
It’s absolutely nonsense to say once he’s chested that it’s a new phase of play and he’s in control of the ball, the ball just about touches the floor while Rodri is still coming from offside and then challenges for it. Utterly bizarre how people can say hes not interfering with play from offside position with a straight face
even Dermot Gallagher, for once, contradicted the refs decision and said it was a pen.
Some saying Klopp effect but really, Martin Atkinson effect. Very consistent with his application of rules involving United.
Depends, for obvious offside the flag goes up immediately. But the linesman has to make a decision. The linesman doesn't keep the flag down because of VAR, he keeps it down because he doesn't believe it's offside. If he thought he was he would have flagged it
It's been posted about 47 times in this thread already, just read back.
Yeah ive changed my mind over this. This isnt offside if you are only offside if you touch the ball.
Rodri chasing the ball from an offside position is no different than the millions of offsides players have been flagged for by chasing a through ball 20 yards in front of them. Even begin to run after it and theyre flagged
Last edited:
As far as I understand the rule/law, it mentions ‘gaining an advantage’. Well if feeding the ball to a player who then scores is not an advantage, I don’t know what is. So now we will have forwards standing offside waiting for a defender to receive a pass from the keeper, which is deemed as a deliberate action, and then tackling them. Typical City, not even embarrassed by it and don’t get me going on the penalty. Remember Aquero heading a winning goal in the FA Cup from an offside position? No VAR, Guardiola said they did want to win like that but took it anyway.
Wow, well another subjective call goes against us
The Mings incident makes me realise that goalhanging is now allowed. You just got to let the defender take the first touch and then on to him like a rabid dog.
Unless the defender has a touch like Ronaldinho, you're quids in everytime.
Unless the defender has a touch like Ronaldinho, you're quids in everytime.
Well if the linesman would have been the same person who was looking at it in the VAR room then he would have probably decided the same way.
It's just another layer of refs, sort of. (Whether we agree with the decision or not.)It was a shocking decision tbh.
It is perfectly obvious that the officials are making it up as they go.
Offside and hand ball rules should be relatively simple to understand and implement. Especially for the watching supporters.
But they are becoming ever more obscure and lacking in reason and unfit for purpose.
Spoiling the beautiful game for no reason.
This is a good question. Why is this different here to, for example, the penalty we got vs City when VAR went back and spotted that Rashford was offside. Why can’t VAR or of course the rules, allow for this goal to be disallowed due to the player being offside when the initial ball was played, but can for the Rashford penalty? At some point in the buildup a ball was played and the player was offside. One team benefits another doesn’t. Makes no sense
It’ll be great if Jose latches onto it and literally plays Kane in such a way as to take advantage every game.
Where’s the definition of “receives” in the rules? In ordinary English language, “receives” most definitely does not mean “takes from”.
I’m not disagreeing with you by the way that, on the way the rules seem to be being interpreted (at least in England - maybe not in Italy), the goal appears to have been correctly given. My point was that you can’t just say the rules make clear he wasn’t offside. The rules aren’t that clear and, just based on the wording, it’s equally (if not more) arguable that he didn’t receive the ball - he took it.
It’s the interpretation being applied to those rules which has led to him being found onside. I’d argue that interpretation is wrong and not in keeping with what this rule was probably intended to cover.
I also think so, but I’m a little bit in doubt. That’s why I also understand why VAR didn’t intervened.
Even though VAR didn’t stop the play I’m sure they assessed the situation and very fast concluded it wasn’t an obvious or clear fault.
The 'clear and obvious error' idea makes no sense anyway, if the referee fails to award a penalty for a foul in the box then it's a clear and obvious error.