General Premier League Thread 2020-21 - Mod Notes in 1st post. [Updated 17/12/20]

yourdeadwright

Deleted User wrote: »

They tapped up Van Dijk?

So when you said Liverpool do transfers the right way, you meant..they don't?

Unfortunately it's they way now,
All summer we've been hearing Sancho has agreed personal terms, but Dortmund haven't even accepted a bid so how does that work without tapping up,

Genuinely not even sure if tapping up is a thing anymore

Baggly

Deleted User wrote:

There was one reference to Kewell. Not two

One reference to VVD, one to Kewell.

I have no idea why you are bringing it up but it's clear you were points scoring against Liverpool fans since you brought up two Liverpool transfers. Let it go pal.

Baggly

Baggly wrote: »

One reference to VVD, one to Kewell.

I have no idea why you are bringing it up but it's clear you were points scoring against Liverpool fans since you brought up two Liverpool transfers. Let it go pal.

Swing as you seem intent on misconstruing what happened, and from the "Christ on a bike" and "ffs" it seems you're rather cross, I'll correct you (again).

A Liverpool fan gave a Man Utd fan the whole "we do transfers right, ye do it wrong".

I don't follow either club, and pointed out the obvious nonsense in that claim.

You then waded in, evidently irritated, and started on about grudges and point scoring, as if I followed one of those clubs.

Relax pal.

Baggly

Oh yeah. Evidently. This conversation is worse than the one that prompted it so suggest we agree to disagree and maybe discuss this year's PL?

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

They tapped up Van Dijk?

So when you said Liverpool do transfers the right way, you meant..they don't?

No. They do. He plays for Liverpool now.

That’s how you do it.

Anyone that thinks it works differently hasn’t a clue how the game works.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

No. They do. He plays for Liverpool now.

That’s how you do it.

Anyone that thinks it works differently hasn’t a clue how the game works.

I fully accept that Liverpool, and other clubs, cheat and tap up. I accepted it a few posts ago.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I fully accept that Liverpool, and other clubs, cheat and tap up. I accepted it a few posts ago.

You say ‘other clubs’ but mean ‘all clubs’ right ?

j8wk2feszrnpao

Baggly wrote: »

It was two references. And one of them is from a decade ago.

And I'm a fulham fan ffs.

This tribal point scoring and grudge holding is just boring and has nothing to do with this year's PL.

And he'd be one of those that to claim that Liverpool/Utd fans always make this thread about Liverpool/Utd. Obsessed and can't let it go.

Luckycharms_74

Deleted User wrote: »

Did one reference really irritate you that much?

Sorry.

Happy to stand on the confirmation from Liverpool fans that the current regime taps up. It amounts to the same point really, that it's nonsense to say they go about transfers the right way. All clubs will do what suits them, legal or not, spending months trying every way or moving along quickly.

munstermagic11

munstermagic11 wrote: »

And he'd be one of those that to claim that Liverpool/Utd fans always make this thread about Liverpool/Utd. Obsessed and can't let it go.

I was responding to a Liverpool fan trying to turn it into a Liverpool Man Utd thing, with the nonsense that Liverpool do transfers "the right way".

However, a number of Liverpool fans acknowledged that their club cheats and taps up. They say every club does it, I'm not sure about that but it's not relevant. I think we can all agree we've moved a long way from the doing transfers "the right way" nonsense to some or all cheat and do whatever it takes.

rob316

I've never understood "tapping up", the notion that you would make a bid first without even knowing if the player would move is ridiculous. It seems to be just a term for the selling club to use when they don't like that a move was mooted with their player.

yourdeadwright

Deleted User wrote: »

I was responding to a Liverpool fan trying to turn it into a Liverpool Man Utd thing, with the nonsense that Liverpool do transfers "the right way".

However, a number of Liverpool fans acknowledged that their club cheats and taps up. They say every club does it, I'm not sure about that but it's not relevant. I think we can all agree we've moved a long way from the doing transfers "the right way" nonsense to some or all cheat and do whatever it takes.

By the right way I meant what's best for Liverpool as a club

Recruitment wise I don't think its even debate , Liverpool are miles ahead of United on that front

I’ve seen ex-players in their 70’s (and that was years ago) laughing at the concept of ‘tapping up’ and saying it’s been going on for as long as they can remember.

They said it was just the done thing. The buying club has to know you were interested in the move before they bother bidding for you.

It has been going on for at least 70 years so safe to assume it’s been going on even longer.

So while it’s technically forbidden (it’s not illegal) it’s not really enforced, except in very rare circumstances, as it’s such a frequent occurrence.

gimli2112

I prefer the new way. In the old days it seemed to consist of meeting George Graham or Brian Clough in a motorway service station with a paper bag of money.
It's one of those things that's really looks bad when you're caught.

Mushy

rob316 wrote: »

I've never understood "tapping up", the notion that you would make a bid first without even knowing if the player would move is ridiculous. It seems to be just a term for the selling club to use when they don't like that a move was mooted with their player.

Dunno why, but I get the impression the selling club is at the minimum informed by buying club of interest and that if they agree terms, will ye (the selling club) enter negotiations.

So tapping up would just skip the first part and go to the player

Mushy

Mushy wrote: »

Dunno why, but I get the impression the selling club is at the minimum informed by buying club of interest and that if they agree terms, will ye (the selling club) enter negotiations.

So tapping up would just skip the first part and go to the player

I suspect that too, that whole some clubs do it, and historically some managers like Clough did it, I'd say the suggestion that it's part and parcel of every transaction might be wide of the mark. It's not like making an enquiry with the club as to whether a buying club can talk to a players determines the price or the player's interest. I'd say there are lots of clubs where managers pick up the phone and phone the other manager and ask if they'd be interested in offloading x, and it's not agents meeting agents and lawyers in secret meetings. Plus would they want to run the risk of a settled player saying they were contacted by a club?

rob316

Mushy wrote: »

Dunno why, but I get the impression the selling club is at the minimum informed by buying club of interest and that if they agree terms, will ye (the selling club) enter negotiations.

So tapping up would just skip the first part and go to the player

While the player might not directly communicate with the buying club, I'd imagine they are under no restrictions to communicate with him through his agent.
The agent will know what sort of valuation the club have of his player too.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I suspect that too, that whole some clubs do it, and historically some managers like Clough did it, I'd say the suggestion that it's part and parcel of every transaction might be wide of the mark. It's not like making an enquiry with the club as to whether a buying club can talk to a players determines the price or the player's interest. I'd say there are lots of clubs where managers pick up the phone and phone the other manager and ask if they'd be interested in offloading x, and it's not agents meeting agents and lawyers in secret meetings. Plus would they want to run the risk of a settled player saying they were contacted by a club?

Don’t think anyone is suggesting it’s part and parcel of EVERY transaction. Just the majority of them.

You’re coming across as very naive on the subject.

Maybe you should go and read up on it.

Mushy

rob316 wrote: »

While the player might not directly communicate with the buying club, I'd imagine they are under no restrictions to communicate with him through his agent.
The agent will know what sort of valuation the club have of his player too.

I think there may be some restrictions regarding agents, so process I'm going by would include agent as part of player communication with buying club. But would definitely be "unofficial" talks ongoing

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Don’t think anyone is suggesting it’s part and parcel of EVERY transaction. Just the majority of them.

You’re coming across as very naive on the subject.

Maybe you should go and read up on it.

Well I'm learning that Liverpool certainly cheat.

And to defend this, Liverpool fans insist that it's wholesale.

If I'm to read up, what's a good guide?

gimli2112

In trying to understand what a Cork City fan's beef is with Liverpool I learned Cork City once had a player that played with them having won three European Cups.
We also beat them in a friendly in 2015
Investigation is ongoing

amber69

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Well I'm learning that Liverpool certainly cheat.

And to defend this, Liverpool fans insist that it's wholesale.

If I'm to read up, what's a good guide?

I think Steven Gerrard's book mentioned the utd lads asking would he be interested in a move to them at an England meet up.. if my memory serves me.

~Rebel~

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I was responding to a Liverpool fan trying to turn it into a Liverpool Man Utd thing, with the nonsense that Liverpool do transfers "the right way".

However, a number of Liverpool fans acknowledged that their club cheats and taps up. They say every club does it, I'm not sure about that but it's not relevant. I think we can all agree we've moved a long way from the doing transfers "the right way" nonsense to some or all cheat and do whatever it takes.

I think maybe you should go back and read your own original point, as you’ve segued well away from it since.

You initially reacted to a post that was about timing of transfers, with someone saying Utd should move on from Sancho if the price is too high, same way Liverpool moved on from Jamal Lewis.

You brought up the counter of Van Dijk saying that took over a year. The person corrected you that it was more like 6 months, with the initial interest slowed because of getting caught chatting to him in Blackpool, rather than a lack of willingness to pay.

It’s only since then you’ve turned your whole argument in a completely different direction from what you’d actually been talking about to tackle the morality of tapping up that absolutely nobody is saying didn’t happen.

Honestly, it reads like you just want to argue about Liverpool, regardless of subject matter.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Well I'm learning that Liverpool certainly cheat.

And to defend this, Liverpool fans insist that it's wholesale.

If I'm to read up, what's a good guide?

I’m not defending anything as a liverpool fan. I’m not sure what it has to do with supporting a team. I’m pointing out it’s been very common practice for over 70 years.

It’s all about what you consider cheating. I think most people, in the game, accept ‘tapping up’ as part of the game even though it’s forbidden. There’s a logic to it.

Then you have the whole Leeds and Bielsa spy cheating scandal that’s wasn’t forbidden or illegal but many people considered that to be immoral.

Bielsa paying someone to spy on opponents was widely considered to be one of the more unscrupulous behaviours exhibited in football and they have rightly introduced laws to now deal with such cheating.

Comparing the two is interesting because some people judge the tapping up to be worse and those people are guided by the fact that it is forbidden.

Whereas the other side would claim the spying of your opponents tactics and training, prior to a match, was much more akin to actual cheating and didn’t need laws for them to understand that.

Maybe you are the type of person that needs the law for you to understand right from wrong ?

Do you consider ‘tapping up’ or spying on your opponents to be the most blatant example of cheating ?

Wikipedia has a very simple piece on tapping up

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tapping_up

and coincidentally The Athletic did a piece on it yesterday

https://theathletic.co.uk/2087716/2020/10/01/transfer-window-deal-medicals-whatsapp-bids-wages-agent-fees/

~Rebel~

~Rebel~ wrote: »

I think maybe you should go back and read your own original point, as you’ve segued well away from it since.

You initially reacted to a post that was about timing of transfers, with someone saying Utd should move on from Sancho if the price is too high, same way Liverpool moved on from Jamal Lewis.

You brought up the counter of Van Dijk saying that took over a year. The person corrected you that it was more like 6 months, with the initial interest slowed because of getting caught chatting to him in Blackpool, rather than a lack of willingness to pay.

It’s only since then you’ve turned your whole argument in a completely different direction from what you’d actually been talking about to tackle the morality of tapping up that absolutely nobody is saying didn’t happen.

Honestly, it reads like you just want to argue about Liverpool, regardless of subject matter.

Not really, because once you break the rules you don't really get to say "but the speed was great". That's like saying I cheated in exams, but handed in the paper within the time.

It might be because eg. a club wrongly acquires information that they use in forming a decision.

Franky, the entire topic is getting a little bit flogged to death. It's not particularly Liverpool, had a Man City or Chelsea fan patted themselves on the back about how their club conducts transfers, I'd point out that they are on no better ground either.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Maybe you are the type of person that needs the law for you to understand right from wrong ?

Thanks, but I'll decline the morality lecture from someone whose entire position was cheating isn't cheating if others are doing it...:D

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Thanks, but I'll decline the morality lecture from someone whose entire position was cheating isn't cheating if others are doing it...:D

Interesting position from someone who claims to work in law iirc.

You’re showing yourself up at this stage and your ‘entire position was cheating isn't cheating if others are doing it’ comment show either a lack of ability to understand my position or an unwillingness to do so. I’m guessing it’s the latter.

I’m not surprised you failed to answer my question. I’m sure it was quite the quandary for you.

Harry Palmr

This argument is only missing Quarryman at this stage!

y0ssar1an22

tapping up...part of the game.

shur utd must of done it if they've agreed terms with sancho while making no offer.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Interesting position from someone who claims to work in law iirc.

You’re showing yourself up at this stage and your ‘entire position was cheating isn't cheating if others are doing it’ comment show either a lack of ability to understand my position or an unwillingness to do so. I’m guessing it’s the latter.

I’m not surprised you failed to answer my question. I’m sure it was quite the quandary for you.

Now you've moved away from the issue altogether and just want to analyse me...:D

3 posts ago it was my naivety.

2 posts ago my morality.

Now it's something about my job and a quandary!

We'll agree to draw a line under it at that...

marklazarcovic

Offside is one of the laws of association football, codified in Law 11 of the Laws of the Game. The law states that a player is in an offside position if any of their body parts, except the hands and arms, are in the opponents' half of the pitch, and closer to the opponents' goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent (the last opponent is usually, but not necessarily, the goalkeeper).[1]

Being in an offside position is not an offence in itself, but a player so positioned when the ball is played by a teammate can be judged guilty of an offside offence if they become "involved in active play", "interfere with an opponent", or "gain an advantage" by being in that position.

Offside is judged at the moment the ball is last touched by the most recent teammate to touch the ball. Being in an offside position is not an offence in itself. A player who was in an offside position at the moment the ball was last touched or played by a teammate must then become involved in active play, in the opinion of the referee, in order for an offence to occur. When the offside offence occurs, the referee stops play, and awards an indirect free kick to the defending team from the place where the offending player became involved in active play.[1]

The offside offence is neither a foul nor misconduct as it does not belong to Law 12. Like fouls, however, any play (such as the scoring of a goal) that occurs after an offence has taken place, but before the referee is able to stop the play, is nullified.[2] The only time an offence related to offside is cautionable is if a defender deliberately leaves the field in order to deceive their opponents regarding a player's offside position, or if a forward, having left the field, returns and gains an advantage. In neither of these cases is the player being penalised for being offside; they are being cautioned for acts of unsporting behaviour.[1]

An attacker who is able to receive the ball behind the opposition defenders is often in a good position to score. The offside rule limits attackers' ability to do this, requiring that they be onside when the ball is played forward. Though restricted, well-timed passes and fast running allow an attacker to move into such a situation after the ball is kicked forward without committing the offence. Officiating decisions regarding offside, which can often be a matter of only centimeters or inches, can be critical in games, as they may determine whether a promising attack can continue, or even if a goal is allowed to stand.

One of the main duties of the assistant referees is to assist the referee in adjudicating offside[3] — their position on the sidelines giving a more useful view sideways across the pitch. Assistant referees communicate that an offside offence has occurred by raising a signal flag.[4] :191 However, as with all officiating decisions in the game, adjudicating offside is ultimately up to the referee, who can overrule the advice of their assistants if they see fit.[5]

now that the mods aren't reading, stfu lads please

A player is in an 'offside position' if they are in the opposing team's half of the field and also "nearer to the opponents' goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent."[1] The 2005 edition of the Laws of the Game included a new IFAB decision that stated, "In the definition of offside position, 'nearer to his opponents' goal line' means that any part of their head, body or feet is nearer to their opponents' goal line than both the ball and the second last opponent. The arms are not included in this definition".[6] By 2017, the wording had changed to say that, in judging offside position, "The hands and arms of all players, including the goalkeepers, are not considered."[1] In other words, a player is in an offside position if two conditions are met:

Any part of the player's head, body or feet is in the opponents' half of the field (excluding the half-way line).
Any part of the player's head, body or feet is closer to the opponents' goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent.[1]
The goalkeeper counts as an opponent in the second condition, but it is not necessary that the last opponent be the goalkeeper.

Offside offence
A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is touched or played by a teammate is only penalised for committing an offside offence if, in the opinion of the referee, they become involved in active play by:

Interfering with play
"playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a team-mate"[1]
Interfering with an opponent
"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 to them 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"[1]
Gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when it has
"- rebounded or been deflected off the goalpost, crossbar, match official or an opponent
- been deliberately saved by any opponent"[1]
In addition to the above criteria, in the 2017–18 edition of the Laws of the Game, the IFAB made a further clarification that, "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."[1]

There is no offside offence if a player receives the ball directly from a goal kick, a corner kick, or a throw-in. It is also not an offence if the ball was last deliberately played by an opponent (except for a deliberate save). In this context, according to the IFAB, "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)."[1]

An offside offence may occur if a player receives the ball directly from either a direct free kick, indirect free kick, or dropped-ball.

Since offside is judged at the time the ball is touched or played by a teammate, not when the player receives the ball, it is possible for a player to receive the ball significantly past the second-to-last opponent, or even the last opponent, without committing an offence.

Determining whether a player is "involved in active play" can be complex. The quote, "If he's not interfering with play, what's he doing on the pitch?" has been attributed to Bill Nicholson[7] and Danny Blanchflower.[8] In an effort to avoid such criticisms, which were based on the fact that phrases such as "interfering with play", "interfering with an opponent", and "gaining an advantage" were not clearly defined, FIFA issued new guidelines for interpreting the offside law in 2003; and these were incorporated into Law 11 in July 2005.[6] The new wording sought to define the three cases more precisely, but a number of football associations and confederations continued to request more information about what movements a player in an offside position could make without interfering with an opponent. In response to these requests, IFAB circular 3 was issued in 2015 to provide additional guidance on the criteria for interfering with an opponent. This additional guidance is now included in the main body of the law, and forms the last 3 conditions under the heading "Interfering with an opponent" as shown above. The circular also contained additional guidance on the meaning of a save, in the context of a ball that has "been deliberately saved by any opponent."[9]




hope that clears things up

eigrod

The power of the hidden message

DM_7

eigrod wrote: »

The power of the hidden message

Mod: things have moved on now thankfully

The offside rule is interesting alright hard to disagree with the details as presented. It is the case that it is often better for 'defenders' to let a 'player' be offside than to engage with them and actually help them be onside which disrupts everything. Especially where 'VAR' is available to be called upon to find the 'offside' afterwards.


Anyway let's get back to talking about the premier league

yourdeadwright

Sadio Mane tested positive for Covid out of the next game at least

Shanotheslayer

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Sadio Mane tested positive for Covid out of the next game at least

I suppose that rules him out for the internationals as well? I assume Senegal have one?

Gbear

He'll almost certainly miss the Merseyside Derby on the 17th as well. Beyond that, it'll depend on how he recovers.

Liamalone

Gbear wrote: »

He'll almost certainly miss the Merseyside Derby on the 17th as well. Beyond that, it'll depend on how he recovers.

Not being the torch bearer about Covid but, max 14 days isolation, unless he's actually affected and not just asymptomatic, ready and roaring for the derby. If he's actually infected and is asymptomatic, he'll still be fine. I think.

I hope that his family and he are well and are 'just' asymptomatic. Stay home lad.

Hope all You lot are taking this seriously too. It's not killing me nor you. It's killing our relatives. Take that bit more care, for them.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Liamalone wrote: »

Not being the torch bearer about Covid but, max 14 days isolation, unless he's actually affected and not just asymptomatic, ready and roaring for the derby. If he's actually infected and is asymptomatic, he'll still be fine. I think.

I hope that his family and he are well and are 'just' asymptomatic. Stay home lad.

Hope all You lot are taking this seriously too. It's not killing me nor you. It's killing our relatives. Take that bit more care, for them.

Yeah, but he won't have trained in those 14 days.

Liamalone

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Yeah, but he won't have trained in those 14 days.

Shirley could he not do a bit in the wee house he lives in lol. Being asymptomatic of course. The man's a machine, Covid hasn't a chance!

8-10

Liamalone wrote: »

Shirley could he not do a bit in the wee house he lives in lol. Being asymptomatic of course. The man's a machine, Covid hasn't a chance!

He said he's not experiencing "heavy symptons" in his statement

That doesn't suggest to me that he's completely asymptomatic

Pauliedragon

Covid doesn't care about fitness and it can tear people's lungs to shreds. There's several stories about hyper fit people still struggling months later. There was an ultra marathon runner in oz who's lungs were still a mess 6 months later. I'd guess Mane will recover quickly but it's not a given.

TitianGerm

Pauliedragon wrote: »

Covid doesn't care about fitness and it can tear people's lungs to shreds. There's several stories about hyper fit people still struggling months later. There was an ultra marathon runner in oz who's lungs were still a mess 6 months later. I'd guess Mane will recover quickly but it's not a given.

Look at Pogba the first two games. Barely moving around the pitch at all.

He's only back after Covid.

Fitz*

TitianGerm wrote: »

Look at Pogba the first two games. Barely moving around the pitch at all.

He's only back after Covid.

Is that because of COVID or because of Pogba though? That level of performance is very regular for him.

Mahrez also had it and he scored a cracker of a goal last week.

I think we need a bigger sample size.

Ikozma

I'd be surprised if the football isn't cancelled again tbh

Drumpot

TitianGerm wrote: »

Look at Pogba the first two games. Barely moving around the pitch at all.

He's only back after Covid.

Maybe he got COVID 4 years ago because that’s Pogba 95% of the time. Had he got a peno or an assist It would be considered one of his good performances.

DVDM93

If Covid can catch Mane then it can catch anyone.

Bar Karius of course, who can't catch anything.

kowloonkev

Have the authorities said anything about the handball situation or are we in for the latest round of sh*tshows this weekend?

eh i dunno

DVDM93 wrote: »

If Covid can catch Mane then it can catch anyone.

Bar Karius of course, who can't catch anything.

Pickford safe enough too so

Mushy

Dont think we'll ever understand what Sakho was doing there

chips1234

no allan or gomes for everton today, and they have to trot out sigurdsson and tom davies again, brighton looked very good v chelsea and united and were unlucky to lose both games. brighton to win 2-1 if they can put away their chances.