Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
urban.spaceman

Premier League 2020/21 Thread

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Nod.E said:

Nothing wrong with the Man City goal. Mings plays it forward and so from that point it's a new phase of play.

 

Put it this way, you measure offside from the point the ball is played by your own player. The pass is a thing of history by the time Mings controls and takes it forward, so offside cannot be applied. It makes total sense.

 

I thought that was common knowledge, apparently not if Premier League players and managers are up in arms. 

No. He came in from an offside position to effectively contest and stole the ball from Mings, and it was still part of the same play/ball from when the last Villa player hit it forward towards Mings. Therefore, it was offside. If Mings instead took control of the ball, and then pass it back to the keeper or just lost control without interference from the Villa player and the ball was “released” to the Villa player, then no offside.

 

Here, again, the Villa player challenged for the ball that came from his teammate and stole it from Mings as part of the same play. Therefore, offside. This is just like any other play - when a player is offside, they need to stand back and not interfere with play if he wants to avoid being called offside.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Tom12345 said:

No. He came in from an offside position to effectively contest and stole the ball from Mings, and it was still part of the same play/ball from when the last Villa player hit it forward towards Mings. Therefore, it was offside. If Mings instead took control of the ball, and then pass it back to the keeper or just lost control without interference from the Villa player and the ball was “released” to the Villa player, then no offside.

 

Here, again, the Villa player challenged for the ball that came from his teammate and stole it from Mings as part of the same play. Therefore, offside. This is just like any other play - when a player is offside, they need to stand back and not interfere with play if he wants to avoid being called offside.

 

 

Problem is, if that were true, Mings could continue unopposed endlessly without having to ever worry about any pressure from Rodri. Which would be ridiculous.

 

Rodri didn't challenge Mings when Mings was in the process of intercepting the pass. He challenged him afterwards, when Mings then decided to bring the ball out.

 

I mean it's not really up for debate, this is literally the rule.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Football Daily podcast have a Man. United fan/ex women's pro on and she's just talking in cliches, adding little of interest. 

 

Edit: They've complained about the Man City offside decision, looking at how these decisions could cause relegation etc. Yet haven't even touched on Villa being saved by a tech error last season :facepalm:

Edited by UniFox21
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Nod.E said:

Nothing wrong with the Man City goal. Mings plays it forward and so from that point it's a new phase of play.

 

Put it this way, you measure offside from the point the ball is played by your own player. The pass is a thing of history by the time Mings controls and takes it forward, so offside cannot be applied. It makes total sense.

 

I thought that was common knowledge, apparently not if Premier League players and managers are up in arms. 

 

I agree. Mings had like 2 touches. At what point can Rodri then tackle him? 3rd touch? 7th touch? It was a legit goal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Nod.E said:

Problem is, if that were true, Mings could continue unopposed endlessly without having to ever worry about any pressure from Rodri. Which would be ridiculous.

 

Rodri didn't challenge Mings when Mings was in the process of intercepting the pass. He challenged him afterwards, when Mings then decided to bring the ball out.

 

I mean it's not really up for debate, this is literally the rule.

Mings was affected by Rodri's presence. The glance over shoulder proved that.  His decision to play the ball out was  based on Rodri being in an offside position and as.such, Mings had time to faff with the ball

 

By Mings taking that into account, Rodri was indeed affecting.play. And therefore offside. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, The whole world smiles said:

I especially enjoyed Tuesdays football daily, 4 minutes talking about Leicester 23 minutes talking about chelsea and Frank lampard. 

Even then it highlighted how good we were and bad Chelsea were. I can deal with it when the punditry is decent and the discussion is actually worth a listen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You see Vardy come back from offside positions all the time and not close the defender down because he thinks he'll be given offside, at least we know that once the defender has touched it he can tackle them now. If it was given offside noone would have said anything. 

 

It's probably a unique situation, defender usually heads clear or whatever and nothing happens. There is always a bit of grey area with offsides. I don't like it when a striker can stand in a offside position, when another player goes through but then be onside once he's behind the ball. He's gained a massive advantage from being in a offside position initially.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It'll be interesting to see if other players start to exploit what Rodri did. The whole incident looked so weird because he was coming from so far back, but there's as much chance it could happen closer to goal during free kicks etc where players already purposefully stray off-side in order to effect the defensive line. Either way Mings (who played well tbf) should have got the ball away. 

 

Fulham had to take their chances. They had some good openings and played some nice direct passing at times. But you gotta score.

 

What's more important for us imo is beating Chelsea was great, getting points from teams directly around us is really good and keeps us in the fight but we can't waste all that good work when it comes to facing teams like Villa and Fulham again. Putting them to the sword is as important (if not more so) because it's clear that Liverpool, ManC and ManU are doing that side of the job now. 

 

Edited by Hoopla10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Hoopla10 said:

It'll be interesting to see if other players start to exploit what Rodri did. The whole incident looked so weird because he was coming from so far back, but there's as much chance it could happen closer to goal during free kicks etc where players already purposefully stray off-side in order to effect the defensive line. Either way Mings (who played well tbf) should have got the ball away. 

 

Fulham had to take their chances. They had some good openings and played some nice direct passing at times. But you gotta score.

 

What's more important for us imo is beating Chelsea was great, getting points from teams directly around us is really good and keeps us in the fight but we can't waste all that good work when it comes to facing teams like Villa and Fulham again. Putting them to the sword is as important (if not more so) because it's clear that Liverpool, ManC and ManU are doing that side of the job now. 

 

I hope so, and I hope the officials and VAR don't give the goals and show this shit show up. Not because I think theres a conspiracy but because I think that rule is so outrageous that I'm not sure it would be allowed week in, week out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Hoopla10 said:

It'll be interesting to see if other players start to exploit what Rodri did......

 

Vardy strikes me as the perfect player to take advantage of this, if he picks up on it.  He's so sharp and could panic a defender very easily if he was aware that Vardy was lurking behind him and about to pounce.  It will be interesting to see if he tries it as a new tactic, instead of always looking to stay just onside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Nod.E said:

Nothing wrong with the Man City goal. Mings plays it forward and so from that point it's a new phase of play.

 

Put it this way, you measure offside from the point the ball is played by your own player. The pass is a thing of history by the time Mings controls and takes it forward, so offside cannot be applied. It makes total sense.

 

I thought that was common knowledge, apparently not if Premier League players and managers are up in arms. 

I think most had an understanding of the rule, but now and again an incident happens that that highlights a problem with it. I don’t know how anyone could watch that and not have a problem with it. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the law is probably designed more for if a free kick is going into the box and someone is stood offside. If the ball goes into that area but he doesn't touch it, all the players move back level with him. When a defender tries to then clear it, if it falls to that player he shouldn't be offside.

 

This one I guess is technically correct but seems a shit interpretation of the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Babylon said:

I think most had an understanding of the rule, but now and again an incident happens that that highlights a problem with it. I don’t know how anyone could watch that and not have a problem with it. 

People are placing too much significance on the fact he was placed in an offside position. That's not really how it works. You can only call it offside if getting passed to.

 

There are loads of examples of players being in offside positions from free kicks who could be 'affecting play', but after the ball hits someone it becomes a different phase, it falls to them and they score. Nobody seems to question that.

 

It was just a rare goal, so it looked weird. Mings should have known better.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Nod.E said:

Problem is, if that were true, Mings could continue unopposed endlessly without having to ever worry about any pressure from Rodri. Which would be ridiculous.

 

Rodri didn't challenge Mings when Mings was in the process of intercepting the pass. He challenged him afterwards, when Mings then decided to bring the ball out.

 

I mean it's not really up for debate, this is literally the rule.

No. That is not what I was saying. I don’t think the rule says what you suggest. 

 

See below. He clearly committed an offside. This is the rule. It was still within the same play. But once Mings controlled it and the play is reset, then he can challenge so he cannot “continue unopposed endlessly”. 

 

To be more precise:

- he was in offside position at the moment the ball is played by his teammate (tick)

- he interfered with opponent at least by “challenging the opponent for the ball” (tick)

- or he clearly made “an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball” (tick)

 

so prima facie he committed offside offence.

 

The only potential exception was this: “A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball,”, which clearly was not the case. Mings did not pass the ball to him and he did not “receive” it from Mings.

 

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

 

This is partly extracted below, emphasis in bold.

 

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

*The first point of contact of the 'play' or 'touch' of the ball should be used

or

  • gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when it has:
  • rebounded or been deflected off the goalpost, crossbar or an opponent
  • been deliberately saved by any opponent
  • 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).

In situations where:

  • a player moving from, or standing in, an offside position is in the way of an opponent and interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the ball this is an offside offence if it impacts on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball; if the player moves into the way of an opponent and impedes the opponent's progress (e.g blocks the opponent) the offence should be penalised under Law 12
  • a player in an offisde position is moving towards the ball with the intention of playing the ball and is fouled before playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the foul is penalised as it has occurred before the offside offence
  • an offence is committed against a player in an offside position who is already playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the offside offence is penalised as it has occurred before the foul challenge
Edited by Tom12345
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

It seems to me that it's a law with a very unfair loophole in it - I find it hard to believe that they conceived it, hoping that someone (initially) hopelessly offside could somehow be allowed to take advantage of the fact.

It can only really be called a loophole if it can be gamed or taken advantage of though, right? To try to intentionally use this to your advantage you'd have to take players out of the game and place them in 'offside' positions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Nod.E said:

It can only really be called a loophole if it can be gamed or taken advantage of though, right? To try to intentionally use this to your advantage you'd have to take players out of the game and place them in 'offside' positions.

Well, now the precedent has been set, it could very easily be gamed hereafter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

Well, now the precedent has been set, it could very easily be gamed hereafter.

The thing is, I don’t think this is a loophole. The rule does provide this is an offside offence. It was just interpreted incorrectly by the officials I think.

 

Refer to: 

 

 

Edited by Tom12345
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tom12345 said:

The thing is, I don’t think this is a loophole. The rule does provide this is an offside offence. It was just interpreted incorrectly by the officials I think.

 

Refer to: 

 

 

Not going to argue that with you - but my point stands that a precedent has been set, which can only cause problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

Not going to argue that with you - but my point stands that a precedent has been set, which can only cause problems.

A manager would be at a disadvantage 9 times out of 10 by telling players to stand offside. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

People are placing too much significance on the fact he was placed in an offside position. That's not really how it works. You can only call it offside if getting passed to.

 

There are loads of examples of players being in offside positions from free kicks who could be 'affecting play', but after the ball hits someone it becomes a different phase, it falls to them and they score. Nobody seems to question that.

 

It was just a rare goal, so it looked weird. Mings should have known better.

The problem I have is the following:

 

This is the rule: "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."

 

He didn't receive the ball, he went and took the ball. It didn't flick off Ming's head, go behind him and end up at the players foot.

 

So that needs clarifying.

Edited by Babylon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...