British Expats

British Expats (https://britishexpats.com/forum/)
-   The Locker Room (https://britishexpats.com/forum/locker-room-66/)
-   -   The 2020-21 Football Thread (https://britishexpats.com/forum/locker-room-66/2020-21-football-thread-934438/)

DaveLovesDee Jan 21st 2021 3:12 pm

Re: The 2020-21 Football Thread
 

Originally Posted by Boiler (Post 12962298)
If I am reading this right looks like the end of ladies Football in the US.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-...l-orientation/

Which specific section are you getting that idea from?

Garbatellamike Jan 21st 2021 3:12 pm

Re: The 2020-21 Football Thread
 

Originally Posted by Former Lancastrian (Post 12962288)
I watched Dermot Gallagher explain the rule and it is different from what you and most of us are thinking about. IIRC Rodri was offside but being offside isn't a reason to blow the whistle in this case. He explained Ming's shouldn't have touched the ball then the flag would have gone up. Once he touched the ball a new phase of play commenced.

https://www.skysports.com/football/n...table-loophole

Not sure that's different to what I think.... once Mings played the ball Rodri can't be offside - if Rodri challenges before Mings played the ball he is off side... Mings played him onside when he chested the ball so Rodri was then free to tackle him and win the ball as villa had played the ball and it was no a forward pass from Citeh to make it offside. Once defender plays ball he has played you onside - no?

The bottom line is Mings should have headed the ball clear not tried to trap it on his chest and turn away from Rodri - this was the kind of poor judgement that got Stones dropped by Citeh and England a year back...

Apart from that I thought Villa's defence and GK were very good

Garbatellamike Jan 21st 2021 3:16 pm

Re: The 2020-21 Football Thread
 

Originally Posted by Boiler (Post 12962298)
If I am reading this right looks like the end of ladies Football in the US.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-...l-orientation/

you may be over thinking it

DaveLovesDee Jan 21st 2021 3:18 pm

Re: The 2020-21 Football Thread
 

Originally Posted by Garbatellamike (Post 12962317)
Not sure that's different to what I think.... once Mings played the ball Rodri can't be offside - if Rodri challenges before Mings played the ball he is off side... Mings played him onside when he chested the ball so Rodri was then free to tackle him and win the ball as villa had played the ball and it was no a forward pass from Citeh to make it offside. Once defender plays ball he has played you onside - no?

The bottom line is Mings should have headed the ball clear not tried to trap it on his chest and turn away from Rodri - this was the kind of poor judgement that got Stones dropped by Citeh and England a year back...

Apart from that I thought Villa's defence and GK were very good

Sounds like we all agree the same thing, we're just saying it differently.

I know for a while it was offside when the ball was played, but at school, and it seems again these days, it wasn't offside until the ball passed the last defender without a defending player making contact, otherwise the ref would be blowing for offside yet a defending player could still block the pass.

Garbatellamike Jan 21st 2021 3:22 pm

Re: The 2020-21 Football Thread
 

Originally Posted by DaveLovesDee (Post 12962320)
Sounds like we all agree the same thing, we're just saying it differently.

yeah I think you are right Hooky

SpoogleDrummer Jan 21st 2021 3:34 pm

Re: The 2020-21 Football Thread
 

Originally Posted by Garbatellamike (Post 12962259)
so am I the only one amazed that Mings, Rio F and Keown didn't know the offside rule?

I'm sure it was U11s where we were taught about defenders playing you on side

I found that odd when the commentators were saying it was harsh on Villa, Mings wasn't even the last defender so Rodri was back onside before he even got to Mings. We've all seen videos of players coming from behind the goalkeeper to get the ball off him when he's not paying attention so I don't see how this was even remotely likely to be offside.

Garbatellamike Jan 21st 2021 4:01 pm

Re: The 2020-21 Football Thread
 

Originally Posted by SpoogleDrummer (Post 12962333)
I found that odd when the commentators were saying it was harsh on Villa, Mings wasn't even the last defender so Rodri was back onside before he even got to Mings. We've all seen videos of players coming from behind the goalkeeper to get the ball off him when he's not paying attention so I don't see how this was even remotely likely to be offside.

yeah exactly they just showed the Kane penalty after Lovren played him onside for the same reason - this is nothing new

double yeah - Gary Crosby did that to Dibble in the 1990s headed the ball off his hand and scored the only goal of the game

BristolUK Jan 21st 2021 4:45 pm

Re: The 2020-21 Football Thread
 
I'm putting most of what I say in spoiler quotes. You don't need to read it. You can just go to the relevant bit. ;)
Spoiler:

Originally Posted by Garbatellamike (Post 12962259)
so am I the only one amazed that Mings, Rio F and Keown didn't know the offside rule?

I'm sure it was U11s where we were taught about defenders playing you on side

There was a popular misconception about that. Not saying that's what you're saying here, but hear me out as to why I feel differently.

Even in the last couple of years there's the odd co-commentator saying something couldn't have been offside because "it came off the defender" and that is the misconception. Since as long as I can remember people said a deflection played the attacker onside. Now, I don't know if that was ever a rule and then the rule changed but people were unaware of it, I just know that for a long time people said "it came off/deflected so it played the attacker onside. It was wrong.

Of course the ball didn't 'come off' Mings, he played it deliberately.

But this difference - playing the ball or having it come off - was about an attacker in an offside position (not an offence in itself) and it subsequently not counting as offside if a defender deliberately played the ball to him or into his path.
Think also of the pass back to a goalkeeper - or to a defender who actually isn't there (oops) - and an attacker who would otherwise be offside isn't because the defending player deliberately played the ball back.

But this was part of the old offside rule where the pass going towards an 'offside' player was enough for it to be offside. Nowadays, that's not enough. The 'offside' player can let the ball go and a team mate (from on onside position) can get it.

Under the current rule, the player in the offside position has to become involved in some way - and these ways are very strictly defined to the point that by any normal definition of 'being active' or 'interfering with play' we all see an attacker doing something from an offside position that really means he should be given offside but according the law he's not.

The best example of this is the player who is clearly offside and the defender knows he's there, but playing to the whistle, he cuts out the pass "at the expense of a corner." This happens almost every game; the attacker has clearly impacted on the defender's action but according to the way the law is written it's not offside and the attacking team gets a corner.

Anyone still with me? :lol:

Mings did not play the ball to Rodri in any way or cause the ball to go to Rodri in the way I have been describing and I think that's an important difference.

Now let's turn to IFAB


Originally Posted by Former Lancastrian (Post 12962288)
I watched Dermot Gallagher explain the rule and it is different from what you and most of us are thinking about. IIRC Rodri was offside but being offside isn't a reason to blow the whistle in this case. He explained Ming's shouldn't have touched the ball then the flag would have gone up. Once he touched the ball a new phase of play commenced

Yes, I saw this. In the live broadcast, Gallagher said (something like) "Once Mings took control of the situation Rodri was onside."
But that's nonsense because at no time did Mings have control. Chesting the ball is no more being in control than a goalkeeper having a hand on the ball. How can he have control when he's being tackled at the moment the ball falls to the ground? It's before he has any element of control.

Now I'll pause here and say that if anyone can find me a specific FIFA/FA/IFAB source that says once a defender has touched the ball any player who was previously offside is now onside I shall change my mind.

In FL's link, Gallagher says "once Mings takes ownership of the situation, there is nothing the referee can do about it" but how did he take ownership? By that single touch with his chest? No chance. That ball was still anybody's and, indeed, it was when Rodri was t he next one to touch it. His presence caused Mings to fail to complete his attempt at taking control.

Gallagher blamed IFAB with its wording or loophole.

Now let's go back to the idea about defender's playing attackers onside as Mike mentions. That was way back wasn't it. Decades ago.

So if that was the reason for it being legit, then it would be nothing to do with IFAB's recent tinkering.

If IFAB is genuinely to blame, then someone should be able to find the reference to a mere touch of the ball - deliberately or accidentally - resetting anyone being in an offside position.

So...I'm thinking that the consideration with this decision is not about a defender playing the ball to an opponent who was in an offside position but about whether the player in an offside position became active.

From the FA website on Offside

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

So at the time the ball was headed forward Rodri was offside and then he did those following actions.

It goes on to say


  • A player in an offside position receiving the ball (my emphasis) from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage
This is what's being quoted as relevant.
He didn't receive the ball. He went to challenge for it. Had he not made that challenge he would not have received it.

He became active.

It's fortunate that City were going to win so at least there was no injustice.




BristolUK Jan 21st 2021 4:51 pm

Re: The 2020-21 Football Thread
 

Originally Posted by SpoogleDrummer (Post 12962333)
I found that odd when the commentators were saying it was harsh on Villa, Mings wasn't even the last defender so Rodri was back onside before he even got to Mings. We've all seen videos of players coming from behind the goalkeeper to get the ball off him when he's not paying attention so I don't see how this was even remotely likely to be offside.

But that's always been considered a new phase (or a re-set) with the keeper having control of the situation. There was no new phase here and no control of the situation. Rodri was first to touch the ball with his foot.


SpoogleDrummer Jan 21st 2021 5:02 pm

Re: The 2020-21 Football Thread
 

Originally Posted by BristolUK (Post 12962379)
A player in an offside position receiving the ball (my emphasis) from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage
This is what's being quoted as relevant.
He didn't receive the ball. He went to challenge for it. Had he not made that challenge he would not have received it.

He became active.

It's fortunate that City were going to win so at least there was no injustice.

He wasn't in an offside position when he challenged for the ball though, Cash was playing him on as he was further back.
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/british...81d472155.jpeg


BristolUK Jan 21st 2021 6:17 pm

Re: The 2020-21 Football Thread
 

Originally Posted by SpoogleDrummer (Post 12962390)
He wasn't in an offside position when he challenged for the ball though, Cash was playing him on as he was further back.

I quoted the offside law
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

So having been offside at the point of contact (when the ball was played by a team mate) and then becoming active, the relevant point at which it is judged is the team mate's header.

What you're describing is no different to coming back from an offside position and that's penalised when a player becomes active - playing the ball - in exactly the same way Rodri became active by tackling.



SpoogleDrummer Jan 21st 2021 6:47 pm

Re: The 2020-21 Football Thread
 
So at what point are you saying a player can challenge once they've come back onside? Could Mings have just stood there with the ball at his feet and Rodri be expected to run back to his own half and defend? I'd argue that by attempting to control the ball Mings started a completely new phase of play and his lack of awareness cost him.

Garbatellamike Jan 21st 2021 7:10 pm

Re: The 2020-21 Football Thread
 

Originally Posted by BristolUK (Post 12962379)
I'm putting most of what I say in spoiler quotes. You don't need to read it. You can just go to the relevant bit. ;)
Spoiler:

There was a popular misconception about that. Not saying that's what you're saying here, but hear me out as to why I feel differently.

Even in the last couple of years there's the odd co-commentator saying something couldn't have been offside because "it came off the defender" and that is the misconception. Since as long as I can remember people said a deflection played the attacker onside. Now, I don't know if that was ever a rule and then the rule changed but people were unaware of it, I just know that for a long time people said "it came off/deflected so it played the attacker onside. It was wrong.

Of course the ball didn't 'come off' Mings, he played it deliberately.

But this difference - playing the ball or having it come off - was about an attacker in an offside position (not an offence in itself) and it subsequently not counting as offside if a defender deliberately played the ball to him or into his path.
Think also of the pass back to a goalkeeper - or to a defender who actually isn't there (oops) - and an attacker who would otherwise be offside isn't because the defending player deliberately played the ball back.

But this was part of the old offside rule where the pass going towards an 'offside' player was enough for it to be offside. Nowadays, that's not enough. The 'offside' player can let the ball go and a team mate (from on onside position) can get it.

Under the current rule, the player in the offside position has to become involved in some way - and these ways are very strictly defined to the point that by any normal definition of 'being active' or 'interfering with play' we all see an attacker doing something from an offside position that really means he should be given offside but according the law he's not.

The best example of this is the player who is clearly offside and the defender knows he's there, but playing to the whistle, he cuts out the pass "at the expense of a corner." This happens almost every game; the attacker has clearly impacted on the defender's action but according to the way the law is written it's not offside and the attacking team gets a corner.

Anyone still with me? :lol:

Mings did not play the ball to Rodri in any way or cause the ball to go to Rodri in the way I have been describing and I think that's an important difference.

Now let's turn to IFAB


Yes, I saw this. In the live broadcast, Gallagher said (something like) "Once Mings took control of the situation Rodri was onside."
But that's nonsense because at no time did Mings have control. Chesting the ball is no more being in control than a goalkeeper having a hand on the ball. How can he have control when he's being tackled at the moment the ball falls to the ground? It's before he has any element of control.

Now I'll pause here and say that if anyone can find me a specific FIFA/FA/IFAB source that says once a defender has touched the ball any player who was previously offside is now onside I shall change my mind.

In FL's link, Gallagher says "once Mings takes ownership of the situation, there is nothing the referee can do about it" but how did he take ownership? By that single touch with his chest? No chance. That ball was still anybody's and, indeed, it was when Rodri was t he next one to touch it. His presence caused Mings to fail to complete his attempt at taking control.

Gallagher blamed IFAB with its wording or loophole.

Now let's go back to the idea about defender's playing attackers onside as Mike mentions. That was way back wasn't it. Decades ago.

So if that was the reason for it being legit, then it would be nothing to do with IFAB's recent tinkering.

If IFAB is genuinely to blame, then someone should be able to find the reference to a mere touch of the ball - deliberately or accidentally - resetting anyone being in an offside position.

So...I'm thinking that the consideration with this decision is not about a defender playing the ball to an opponent who was in an offside position but about whether the player in an offside position became active.

From the FA website on Offside

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

So at the time the ball was headed forward Rodri was offside and then he did those following actions.

It goes on to say



  • A player in an offside position receiving the ball (my emphasis) from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage
This is what's being quoted as relevant.
He didn't receive the ball. He went to challenge for it. Had he not made that challenge he would not have received it.

He became active.

It's fortunate that City were going to win so at least there was no injustice.

He didn't actually receive the ball in an offside position - watch it again

Apart from that i agree with much of what's in your spoiler

Rodri returned from an offside position and was played on side when Mings chests the ball it then drops to the ground and Rodri nicks it away having returned to in a fully onside position and plays it to an onside Bernado who still has 4 defenders and a GK playing him onside - the argument was Rodri was returning from an offside position to gain an advantage; however this offside was, quite rightly, negated once Mings plays the ball and then we go to the tackle and Bernado's brilliant goal.

Mings made a bad error not the Ref or the Lawmakers....






Garbatellamike Jan 21st 2021 7:57 pm

Re: The 2020-21 Football Thread
 

Originally Posted by SpoogleDrummer (Post 12962390)
He wasn't in an offside position when he challenged for the ball though, Cash was playing him on as he was further back.
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/british...81d472155.jpeg

spot on

Garbatellamike Jan 21st 2021 7:58 pm

Re: The 2020-21 Football Thread
 
well moving back to the false 9 concept...

Does Origi count as a false 9 after that miss?


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:51 am.

Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.