dr winston oboogie Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 An absolute disgrace last night, an offside goal and a very, very dubious dodgy penalty once again favouring the "top six" team...whatever the manager gets fined I am sure he will see it as money well spent. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Archie Hunter Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 14 minutes ago, dr winston oboogie said: An absolute disgrace last night, an offside goal and a very, very dubious dodgy penalty once again favouring the "top six" team...whatever the manager gets fined I am sure he will see it as money well spent. Indeed so, Doctor. I have posted about the 'offside' goal elsewhere, on the PL thread. I was angry about this last night, I am even angrier now this morning, now that I have read what has wrongly been said by so-called experts about the rule in question. One thing of course is certain - if the roles had been reversed last night, and Ollie Watkins had come back from an offside position to dispossess John Stones to allow Jack Grealish to score, the goal would have been disallowed. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Archie Hunter Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 As a further observation, I would suggest that on Saturday at home to Newcastle, Dean Smith should instruct Ollie Watkins to go stand in the opposition penalty box for the first 10 minutes of the game, and only move and seek to get involved when the ball comes near him; and see then how the referee and the opposition react to such a tactic. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jimmy James Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 2 hours ago, dr winston oboogie said: An absolute disgrace last night, an offside goal and a very, very dubious dodgy penalty once again favouring the "top six" team...whatever the manager gets fined I am sure he will see it as money well spent. Hello Doc, you know I'm new to this but all the talking heads yesterday on the channel I watched the match said it was all good. As when Mings played the ball put Rodigo back onside? Is that not the rule? Because if it isn't why would all of them say it is? Just asking not fighting! As far as the handball, his hand was above his head or at least at head level. That's not handball? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Archie Hunter Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 Jimmy, at the point the ball was played forward from midfield by City, Rodri was yards behind Mings and any other Villa defender and in a blatantly offside position, and by the time the ball was coming back down out of the air Rodri had been able to make up ground on Mings waiting for the ball to descend, and then tackle him. Thus, at some point between the ball being played forward and Mings touching the ball the flag should have been raised, as Rodri had been offside throughout, active and seeking (and as it transpired able, wrongly) to gain an advantage by being so. By not raising the flag for offside, by the time Mings was able to touch the ball Rodri was all over him and Mings was able to be immediately dispossessed of the ball. The referee and assistant referee should not have allowed this situation to occur, and immediately it had occurred the referee should have blown for offside. If what you are saying were correct (that MIngs merely touching the ball effectively played Rodri onside) then maybe Mings should just have left the ball alone, and Rodri could not then have touched it. That though would effectively turn Mings into an ad hoc referee, which simply cannot be right. Alternatively, perhaps Mings should have caught the ball, and waived his arm in the air claiming offside; whereupon the linesman may have appreciated the situation and flagged for offside). That also cannot be right. I have seen it said that Mings should not have tried to control the ball, he should have lumped it forward. But why should he have given possession back to City in this way, in circumstances where he knew that the closest City player was offside and unable to get immediately involved, and Villa could come away with the ball? I have also seen it said by some people that Rodri ought not to have been given offside because he received possession from Mings. This is wrong. He did not receive possession from Mings, he took possession from Mings by tackling him (not the same thing). This aspect of the rule (ie allowing an attacking player in an offside position to receive possession from a defending player) is essentially in place in order to allow an attacking player to prevent or intercept a back pass when in an otherwise offside position; not for the sort of situation that occurred last night. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jimmy James Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 Well said! I have to ask is what you said in the rule book? Because an VAR took place and I've seen fingernails being called offside before. I don't know if NBCSN analysts are shit or not, but all said it was good call. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Brown Eyed Boy Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 5 hours ago, dr winston oboogie said: An absolute disgrace last night, an offside goal and a very, very dubious dodgy penalty once again favouring the "top six" team...whatever the manager gets fined I am sure he will see it as money well spent. I thought Villa played well and were unlucky last night. Not sure about the penalty but the offside decision was very, very harsh. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jimmy James Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 hand was above his head! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Archie Hunter Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 2 hours ago, Jimmy James said: Well said! I have to ask is what you said in the rule book? Because an VAR took place and I've seen fingernails being called offside before. I don't know if NBCSN analysts are shit or not, but all said it was good call. Putting it the other way, I don't think there is anything in the rule book that would have justified Rodri not being flagged offside, from the point that the ball was headed forward and to the point that he tackled Mings. And if I may say so, in my view the reason why the authorities and their mouthpieces have subsequently found a provision in the rule book (receiving the ball from an opponent) that might conceivably justify the decision to allow the goal is that they do not have the decency to simply own up, admit that a mistake was made, and apologise. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jimmy James Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 Still lose 1-0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JimCT Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 And in a shocking development, the referees and associations conclude that "new guidance" is needed. Villa hard done by. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-9188433/Premier-League-referees-change-offside-rule-controversial-Bernardo-Silva-goal.html Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jimmy James Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 Did this new rule ever state when Rodri would become back onside? After a pass? After a dribble? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.cf5483d90e65c63a683f85de9d493b78.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.