General Premier League Thread 2020-21 [Mod notes in OP - Updated 29.01.21]

DM_7

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

but the player playing the ball (mings) cannot be affected by the player coming back from the offside position.

which mings clearly was. if no player behind mings, does he do that, or let the ball go?

It appears to me that Mings first touch of the ball is not impacted by the opponent.. That touch makes the player onside.

It appears logical to allow the goal as the rules stand.

I don't like it that rule at all but he is not interfering with play while offside. When he makes a tackle he is not offside as Mings has played the ball.

y0ssar1an22

DM_7 wrote: »

It appears to me that Mings first touch of the ball is not impacted by the opponent.. That touch makes the player onside.

It appears logical to allow the goal as the rules stand.

I don't like it that rule at all but he is not interfering with play while offside. When he makes a tackle he is not offside as Mings has played the ball.

but would mings have done that if rodri wasn't bearing down on him?

a player (be they offside or not) sprinting at you when you are trying to interact with the ball in any way, interferes with you.

thats pretty clear cut as far as i'm concerned.

if rodri was not there, would mings have acted in the same way? if no, then rodri interfered and should have been deemed offside.

mings had a glance over his shoulder so is aware of an opposition player. that in itself is affecting the play by an offside player.

DM_7

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

but would mings have done that if rodri wasn't bearing down on him?

a player (be they offside or not) sprinting at you when you are trying to interact with the ball in any way, interferes with you.

thats pretty clear cut as far as i'm concerned.

if rodri was not there, would mings have acted in the same way? if no, then rodri interfered and should have been deemed offside.

mings had a glance over his shoulder so is aware of an opposition player. that in itself is affecting the play by an offside player.

It is possible Mings made a choice based on the players decision. If he did it mase bo sense to go backwards as he did or he may have thought a player in an offside position could not tackle him. Either way he was wrong.

In terms of the sequence of play Mings was able to play the ball unopposed, the opponent is still yards away when he first plays it. Once he controls it the opponent cannot be offside.

y0ssar1an22

DM_7 wrote: »

It is possible Mings made a choice based on the players decision. If he did it mase bo sense to go backwards as he did or he may have thought a player in an offside position could not tackle him. Either way he was wrong.

In terms of the sequence of play Mings was able to play the ball unopposed, the opponent is still yards away when he first plays it. Once he controls it the opponent cannot be offside.

it all comes down to...was mings affected at all by rodri? must stress; at all.

i think he was, so therefore an offside IMO.

do you think mings acts differently if rodri aint there?

DM_7

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

it all comes down to...was mings affected at all by rodri? must stress; at all.

i think he was, so therefore an offside IMO.

do you think mings acts differently if rodri aint there?

As Rodri has not obstructed him playing the ball in anyway to start with then Rodri is not interfering with him playing the ball.

Mings did not know the rules himself, so I think he played the ball as he did as he had no idea he was going to be challenged for the ball once he plays it and acted as if Rodri was out of the game.

https://twitter.com/OfficialTM_3/status/1352017981002420229?s=19

y0ssar1an22

DM_7 wrote: »

As Rodri has not obstructed him playing the ball in anyway to start with then Rodri is not interfering with him playing the ball.

Mings did not know the rules himself, so I think he played the ball as he did as he had no idea he was going to be challenged for the ball once he plays it and acted as if Rodri was out of the game.

https://twitter.com/OfficialTM_3/status/1352017981002420229?s=19

mings not knowing the rules is entirely irrelevant.

do you think mings reacts in anyway differently if rodri aint behind him?

gimli2112

I genuinely don't get the furore over City's first. Hasn't this always been a thing? I know some of these were disallowed but don't think it was for offside, more interferring with the keeper

Easy Rod

gimli2112 wrote: »

I genuinely don't get the furore over City's first. Hasn't this always been a thing? I know some of these were disallowed but don't think it was for offside, more interferring with the keeper

Huh? There’s no forward pass in any of those clips. Of course they’re not offside.

JPA

It's completely wrong and won't happen again I guarantee.

AdamD

Yeah utter mental gymnastics to justify this goal that you can guarantee will never be given again

gimli2112

Easy Rod wrote: »

Huh? There’s no forward pass in any of those clips. Of course they’re not offside.

but last night the keeper cleared the ball out and that's when the City player was offide. I don't think he was offside when the ball went forward but even if he was he wouldn't have been interfering with play.
My reading of it was he came from an offside position but that's what the lads in the clip are doing too.
Trust me I've no desire to defend City

Easy Rod

gimli2112 wrote: »

but last night the keeper cleared the ball out and that's when the City player was offide. I don't think he was offside when the ball went forward but even if he was he wouldn't have been interfering with play.
My reading of it was he came from an offside position but that's what the lads in the clip are doing too.
Trust me I've no desire to defend City

I’m not sure what you mean but think you might need to watch it again.

This is it

gimli2112 wrote: »

but last night the keeper cleared the ball out and that's when the City player was offide. I don't think he was offside when the ball went forward but even if he was he wouldn't have been interfering with play.
My reading of it was he came from an offside position but that's what the lads in the clip are doing too.
Trust me I've no desire to defend City

If he wasn't offside when the ball was played forward then he was never offside. He doesn't suddenly become offside when a keeper clears the ball

elefant

Trying to think of ways this rule could be exploited...

At a free kick, could an attacking player stand well offside and to the side of the goal (so as not to be obstructing the goalkeeper's vision), and then immediately follow a shot in, looking to just tap the ball in off a goalkeeper's parry? Once the goalkeeper intentionally pushes the ball away would it be free game? At the very least this could force the defending team to defend deeper at set pieces.

This is it

elefant wrote: »

Trying to think of ways this rule could be exploited...

At a free kick, could an attacking player stand well offside and to the side of the goal (so as not to be obstructing the goalkeeper's vision), and then immediately follow a shot in, looking to just tap the ball in off a goalkeeper's parry? Once the goalkeeper intentionally pushes the ball away would it be free game? At the very least this could force the defending team to defend deeper at set pieces.

Same phase of play so still offside would be my guess

Maybe Villa could prove a point next match
Have Watkins repeatably stay in an offside position during kickouts or when the keeper plays it to a defender
Try and interfere with the defender then

Fitz*

Villa players are certainly not happy anyways. There's been a few players very vocal in how unhappy they are with the dodgy referee decisions gone against them this season against both Man City & Man Utd.

citytillidie

JPA wrote: »

It's completely wrong and won't happen again I guarantee.

Same thing happened a few seasons ago in a Liverpool V Spurs, Kane was standing offside, Lovern miss kicked the ball Kane ran through and dived to win a pen.

5:42 in this

JPA

citytillidie wrote: »

Same thing happened a few seasons ago in a Liverpool V Spurs, Kane was standing offside, Lovern miss kicked the ball Kane ran through and dived to win a pen.

5:42 in this

Was he definitely offside? If VAR existed then it would have given him offside if he was.

yourdeadwright

citytillidie wrote: »

Same thing happened a few seasons ago in a Liverpool V Spurs, Kane was standing offside, Lovern miss kicked the ball Kane ran through and dived to win a pen.

5:42 in this

I was at that game no one knew what was going on ,

Do you know what the worst thing in that whole circus was watching relays the ref was speaking to the linesman who says he is on side if Lovren touched the ball but he did not see the touch

Then you can clearly hear the ref ask the 4th official in his ear piece did Lovren touch the ball , the 4th official had looked at the video reply and say's yes , This was before VAR and was completely against the rules for the 4th official to tell he ref to make a decision based on a tv reply ,

To make it worse he got it wrong as it was dive,

Fitz*

Jon Moss also admitted to not knowing whether Lovren played the ball in that game or not, and just gave the penalty anyways. Even after asking the TV if there was a touch, even though VAR was not around then.

Same referee as last night.

https://twitter.com/laxjeka/status/1351981841071403009

DM_7

elefant wrote: »

Trying to think of ways this rule could be exploited...

At a free kick, could an attacking player stand well offside and to the side of the goal (so as not to be obstructing the goalkeeper's vision), and then immediately follow a shot in, looking to just tap the ball in off a goalkeeper's parry? Once the goalkeeper intentionally pushes the ball away would it be free game? At the very least this could force the defending team to defend deeper at set pieces.

The player would be offside. The offside rule specifies a player who is offside remains offside after an opponent saves the ball or the ball rebounds off an opponent. So effectively the save of a shot does not make a player onside again.

DM_7

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

mings not knowing the rules is entirely irrelevant.

do you think mings reacts in anyway differently if rodri aint behind him?

I think if Mings was at all concerned about Rodri he would have cleared it, not chested it down like he did.

By the rules, it is not an offence to be offside. A player making a decision because they view a player as offside is a mistake. Mings made one here as he did not know playing the ball makes the player onside again and free to challenge.

As mentioned since, the Kane example shows this is not new.

I don't like the rule, as far back as the mid 00s when Ruud Van Nistelrooy would intentionally stand offside at free kicks to upset defenders, lose his marker it looked like a loophole. I think the rule was brought in to remove doubts about when a player becomes active in play again.

I get the issue, that Rodri's position as offside has impacted on Mings ability to 'play' the ball and his decision. Rodri has not done anything to oppose or challenge Mings before Mings chests the ball down.At the point Mings plays it, unopposed, the player is not offside.

DM_7

Deleted User wrote: »

Maybe Villa could prove a point next match
Have Watkins repeatably stay in an offside position during kickouts or when the keeper plays it to a defender
Try and interfere with the defender then

Players can't be offside when the opponent has the ball.

While it is not an offence to be in an offside position, it is an offence to be in the area for a kick out if a player had time to leave the box. Players would be booked if they persisted in going into the box and delaying the restart of play.

DVDM93

I wouldn't be too disappointed if I was an Aston Villa fan, player or manager.

It would be appreciative of the fact that it was a dodgy decision that kept us in the Premier league in the first place.

It's disappointing but in a league of incompetent officials & inconsistent rules, it comes as no surprise.

How many managers, players & pundits have said that they don't understand the rules anymore?!

It won't be long before we're in here again discussing another controversial decision.

El Gato De Negocios

DVDM93 wrote: »

I wouldn't be too disappointed if I was an Aston Villa fan, player or manager.

It would be appreciative of the fact that it was a dodgy decision that kept us in the Premier league in the first place.

It's disappointing but in a league of incompetent officials & inconsistent rules, it comes as no surprise.

How many managers, players & pundits have said that they don't understand the rules anymore?!

It won't be long before we're in here again discussing another controversial decision.

All going well it will be related to a Burnley winner later on this evening.

DVDM93

El Gato De Negocios wrote: »

All going well it will be related to a Burnley winner later on this evening.

A Burnley penalty after the final whistle given for the same reason that Liverpool had a penalty claim turned down earlier in the game.

El Gato De Negocios

DVDM93 wrote: »

A Burnley penalty after the final whistle for the same reason that Liverpool had a penalty claim turned down earlier in the game.

/banderas.gif

jacool

DM_7 wrote: »

I think if Mings was at all concerned about Rodri he would have cleared it, not chested it down like he did.

By the rules, it is not an offence to be offside. A player making a decision because they view a player as offside is a mistake. Mings made one here as he did not know playing the ball makes the player onside again and free to challenge.

As mentioned since, the Kane example shows this is not new.

I don't like the rule, as far back as the mid 00s when Ruud Van Nistelrooy would intentionally stand offside at free kicks to upset defenders, lose his marker it looked like a loophole. I think the rule was brought in to remove doubts about when a player becomes active in play again.

I get the issue, that Rodri's position as offside has impacted on Mings ability to 'play' the ball and his decision. Rodri has not done anything to oppose or challenge Mings before Mings chests the ball down.At the point Mings plays it, unopposed, the player is not offside.

Funny you mention RvN. I recall a game between Leeds and Man Utd where Ruud was about as far offside as Rodri last night. Leeds had all pushed out. Giggs took the ball down the right wing, sprinting past everyone before squaring to, a now onside, and still unmarked, Van Nistelrooy, to fire home.

The law is wrong, but was refereed correctly last night.
Pep, incorrectly referred to VAR, although perhaps they used that to show that Rodri was 3.5m away from Mings when he took his first touch.

As someone else said earlier, it will be interesting to see if teams can hatch a way of using the rule to their benefit like last night. If people do, it may well end up in a new interpretation, rather like the handball rule that has been modified this season already.
Of course, this could mean that Marcus Rashford is already streets ahead of the rest of football, judging by his starting position for most of last weekend's game!

DM_7

DM_7 wrote: »

Players can't be offside when the opponent has the ball.

While it is not an offence to be in an offside position, it is an offence to be in the area for a kick out if a player had time to leave the box. Players would be booked if they persisted in going into the box and delaying the restart of play.

Point 1: Villa defender had the ball, striker was in an offside position
Point 2: Stay outside the box then but still stay offside

jacool

Deleted User wrote: »

Point 1: Villa defender had the ball, striker was in an offside position
Point 2: Stay outside the box then but still stay offside

Point 1 doesn't hold up, if you read this . . . . .

[Offside offence: A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is touched or played by a team-mate 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"
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"
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" ]
. . . . . and agree that the challenge for the ball didn't impact Mings.
Mings took the ball down (badly), and then got tackled by Rodri.

Patser

Here's the same thing in Italy last night, only Ronaldo was given as offside

https://twitter.com/Watch_LFC/status/1352029198513278982

Fitz*

jacool wrote: »

As someone else said earlier, it will be interesting to see if teams can hatch a way of using the rule to their benefit like last night. If people do, it may well end up in a new interpretation, rather like the handball rule that has been modified this season already.

Probably not.

When incidents like this happen, it's usually only one team that benefits from it as everyone is aware of it from then on and referees and more clued in to what is happening.

You see the same with other incidents like soft penalties given, the only one of the type that gets given is the first. Controversy ensues and that type of incident won't happen again for a long time.

Another example is when Pogba scored for Man Utd after the ball had gone out of play but VAR didn't have cameras with the proper angle to show it had gone out of play. That won't happen again as there will now be cameras in place for it.

y0ssar1an22

aguero tests positive for corona

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11679/12194587/sergio-aguero-man-city-striker-tests-positive-for-coronavirus

adaminho

Patser wrote: »

Here's the same thing in Italy last night, only Ronaldo was given as offside

https://twitter.com/Watch_LFC/status/1352029198513278982

But the defender didn't have control of the ball. He attempted a clearance which is different.

DVDM93

Get well soon Sergio Leonel Agüero del Castillo, colloquially known as Kun Agüero.

He has no luck between covid & injuries.

I hope we get to see more of him before his time in the Premier League is up.

Whatever happens he'll never be forgotten for this incredible moment.

"AAAAAGGGGGUUUUUEEEEERRRRROOOOO!!!!!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1fhiP2fjYc

Patser

adaminho wrote: »

But the defender didn't have control of the ball. He attempted a clearance which is different.

He attempted to control it, and had a poor touch.

Mings attempted to control it and had a poor touch and was tackled before ball even hit ground, he was in no way in control of it

Mitch Connor

Super League talk rearing its head again.

https://twitter.com/martynziegler/status/1352278661370695680

Along with this, today, Fifa the confederations have said any player from a breakaway club would not be elligible to play in World Cup, Euros or similar competitions.

From the tweet above....

20 teams in total.
2 10 team leagues with home and away fixtures.
top 4 in each then into 2 leg quarters and semi-finals, followed by a final.
So finalist would play a total of 23 matches in this.
While it also states the clubs would play in Domestic competitions too (replacement for Uefa CL/EL)
so.... the United for example would play minimum 58 matches in a season... potentially 70? Suppose the club/players wouldn't need to worry about International weeks but still!

This seems INSANE.

Also, of the 20 clubs, 15 would be permenant and 5 qualify annually. Don't know how the fook you could work that one out - the 5 qualifiers have no financial security in this and I could see Uefa telling them to fook off in seaosns they don't qualify (but would then be ok for the CL?).

I don't know what United and Real Madrid are thinking with this, other than get more money out of Uefa (which United will only get every other season..... maybe). I can't see the SL thing happening at all. Too many massive questions over how or why anyone not in the 15 super Super clubs would entertain this at all.

jayo26

Strong enough pool team, can see Burnley sitting back and inviting them on to them.

Burnley win would be nice but when you see pool resting forwards and able call on champioms league final scoring attackers it shows the strength in dept they have.

ShamoBuc

jayo26 wrote: »

Strong enough pool team, can see Burnley sitting back and inviting them on to them.

Burnley win would be nice but when you see pool resting forwards and able call on champioms league final scoring attackers it shows the strength in dept they have.

Thanks for reminding me, it really was a great night.


It will be interesting to see how Ox and Thiago get on. Shaqiri and Origi as well,.

Good to see Klopp make changes, Hendo has a niggly injury apparently and hopefully a comfortable home win ensues. Or any kind of a home win really will do, not too fussy.

jayo26

ShamoBuc wrote: »

Thanks for reminding me, it really was a great night.


It will be interesting to see how Ox and Thiago get on. Shaqiri and Origi as well,.

Good to see Klopp make changes, Hendo has a niggly injury apparently and hopefully a comfortable home win ensues. Or any kind of a home win really will do, not too fussy.

A wins a win at this stage of season and looking to turn around results it dont matter how its got.

This is it

Liverpool badly in need of a result tonight

ShamoBuc

This is it wrote: »

Liverpool badly in need of a result tonight

Well they are guaranteed a result.

This is it

ShamoBuc wrote: »

Well they are guaranteed a result.

Abandoned due to Covid

ShamoBuc

This is it wrote: »

Abandoned due to Covid

That is so last year.

jayo26

How do you miss that...
Burnley been decent all half that was one mistake.

This is it

Ah come on, that's so poor. Origi has to score there

PhilipsR

How on earth did Tarkowski not get a free kick when Mane blatantly shoved him in the back? Burnley robbed here if Liverpool score from the free :pac:

jayo26

Ahhh manager losing the cool and the players acting on it again.

jayo26

Lucky not to be a man down with that kick out.