Other Games - 2020/2021

[Lord Duckhunter]

13 minutes ago, Baird of the land said:

Do think the Man City offside goal is one where the laws are just badly devised.

It highlights a major problem with VAR, it’s very nature means it interprets decisions by the letter of the law. I doubt there’s one referee or Lino alive that wouldn’t have given that as offside without VAR. However, once it goes to VAR the rule book kicks in. 

[John Boy Saint]

57 minutes ago, trousers said:

Agree with this. Maybe teams should exploit this 'loophole' by sticking a player up front in an offside position for the entirety of the game in order to put off the defenders, wait for the inevitable mistake, and then poach a goal

Think that's what Shane Long has been basing his game on for the last 3 seasons and beyond...........just forgets not to go to the ball until the oppo player has played it ;-)

[nta786]

Burnley 1-0 up at Anfield thanks to a Barnes penalty!

[adrian lord]

Lol @ Klopp and the dippers! 

[BotleySaint]

5 minutes ago, adrian lord said:

Lol @ Klopp and the dippers! 

And it could get worse if Everton win one of their games in hand. Klopp out! 

Edited 21 January, 2021 by BotleySaint

[igsey]

Liverpool lose, last thing the Sky bloke says before the break is "a barn-storming night for Barnsley". Not that there's any one particular team they will focus on of course

[Saint Pete]

4 minutes ago, adrian lord said:

Lol @ Klopp and the dippers! 

At this rate, they will struggle to make top 4 never mind keeping their title 😀

[Saint Keef]

I don't like Burnley......but I can't stand Liverpool.....so I guess that's a good result.

[S-Clarke]

Liverpool dipped around feb last year and have never recovered. They are a long, long way off of that 'all conquering' side of 2019. This is not a 'blip', they have been throwing in performances like this for a year now. They've returned to their default level of averageness.

[HarvSFC]

Struggling to think of a more overrated/overhyped player than Thiago. When he signed he was made out to be the midfield equivalent of Alisson/Van Dijk, but Diallo took him out of the game against us and in every other match he has not done anything, bar a few stepovers in midfield.

[steve green]

At least we know where all the Trump conspiracy nutters have gone now.

RAWK is rife with talk of the evil refs/FA/VAR/gravity/tv companies who have ganged up to stop the cheeky, lovable scouse scamps from ruling the football world.

So bad, so bad.

Edited 21 January, 2021 by steve green

[BallBoy]

I would really like Burnley to go down. They are just a horrible team. However they brought 4th place within reach again if we can get back to our early season form. We can dream.

[trousers]

11 hours ago, Baird of the land said:

Do think the Man City offside goal is one where the laws are just badly devised.

 

11 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Yes, that was awful. Mings was clearly affected by the presence of an offside player.

 

11 hours ago, trousers said:

Agree with this. Maybe teams should exploit this 'loophole' by sticking a player up front in an offside position for the entirety of the game in order to put off the defenders, wait for the inevitable mistake, and then poach a goal

Ralph was asked about this incident at today's press conference and said that he wasn't aware the rule worked like this and he agreed it opened up the possibility of trying to exploit it...

As per the last question on the video below:

 

[John Boy Saint]

Ever since reading his Programme notes when he was manager at Watford and we beat them at Vicarage road en route back to the Premier League, I’ve liked Sean Dyche, his footie is a bit rough around the edges, but it’s done the job. 
I had hoped it would be us breaking the run - but for the least glamorous side and their decent chap of a manger to pull the rabbit out of the hat, fair play to them. 

Edited 22 January, 2021 by John Boy Saint

[jawillwill]

Are Liverpool still planning on having an open top bus parade to celebrate their league title when Covid restrictions are eased?

Will be gloriously funny if they are no longer champions at that point.

[redkeith]

19 hours ago, trousers said:

Agree with this. Maybe teams should exploit this 'loophole' by sticking a player up front in an offside position for the entirety of the game in order to put off the defenders, wait for the inevitable mistake, and then poach a goal

That has Shane Long all over it 

 

[Shroppie]

On 21/01/2021 at 13:13, Whitey Grandad said:

Yes, that was awful. Mings was clearly affected by the presence of an offside player.

I don't agree. Here's the moment Mings played the ball. The City player is not competing: if he does, he's offside. Once Mings has brought the ball down, it can't be offside - you never can be when the ball was last played deliberately by a defender.

Compare it to a situation where a keeper passes out but it's blocked by a forward standing in from my of him in what would be an offside position if he received the ball from a teammate, but not from the opposition.

The decision looked a bit strange, but was absolutely correct.

[Whitey Grandad]

2 hours ago, Shroppie said:

I don't agree. Here's the moment Mings played the ball. The City player is not competing: if he does, he's offside. Once Mings has brought the ball down, it can't be offside - you never can be when the ball was last played deliberately by a defender.

Compare it to a situation where a keeper passes out but it's blocked by a forward standing in from my of him in what would be an offside position if he received the ball from a teammate, but not from the opposition.

The decision looked a bit strange, but was absolutely correct.

Of course the City player is competing. He’s running flat out towards Mings.

He was well offside when the ball was kicked and there’s no such thing as ‘played on’. 

I would consider that he was “making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball“.

Whatever. It’s a ridiculous interpretation of the law which if it continues will lead to ‘goalhangers’ hovering a few yards upfield of the defenders.

[Shroppie]

2 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

He was well offside when the ball was kicked and there’s no such thing as ‘played on’. 

Being played on is the out-of-date expression describing when a ball just touches a defender, which no longer stops offside. But this was a clear deliberate chesting down before the challenge. Mings has his back to the City player.

All the analysis after the game correctly quoted the rule. It wasn't offside.

And it's not a question of interpretation. It's the rule, clear and simple.

Edited 22 January, 2021 by Shroppie

[Saint Garrett]

Stupid decision, it was 100% offside.

[Shroppie]

17 minutes ago, Saint Garrett said:

Stupid decision, it was 100% offside.

As you don't understand the rule, I give up.

[ChrisPY]

6 hours ago, Shroppie said:

I don't agree. Here's the moment Mings played the ball. The City player is not competing: if he does, he's offside. Once Mings has brought the ball down, it can't be offside - you never can be when the ball was last played deliberately by a defender.

Compare it to a situation where a keeper passes out but it's blocked by a forward standing in from my of him in what would be an offside position if he received the ball from a teammate, but not from the opposition.

The decision looked a bit strange, but was absolutely correct.

(1b)                     (2)        (2)

                           (2)        (2)        (2)

          (0)            (2a)        (2)        (2)      (1a)

                            (2)        (2)

 

So ‘1a’ plays the ball to space ‘0’. ‘2a’ drops back and controls the ball, looking up for options. ‘1b’ sneaks up on ‘2a’, steals the ball and scores.

Technically a correct decision but clearly against the spirit of the rule and for every sane football fan, it’s ridiculous.

[Whitey Grandad]

1 hour ago, Shroppie said:

Being played on is the out-of-date expression describing when a ball just touches a defender, which no longer stops offside. But this was a clear deliberate chesting down before the challenge. Mings has his back to the City player.

All the analysis after the game correctly quoted the rule. It wasn't offside.

And it's not a question of interpretation. It's the rule, clear and simple.

At the time Peter Walton couldn’t understand the decision and thought it was wrong. He admitted next morning that according to the interpretation of The Laws it was correct.

It isn’t a question of not understanding the implementation, it’s a question of not agreeing with it.

I remember the old days of being ‘played on’. Don’t forget that I have been playing, refereeing and watching football for well over fifty years and my father before me played in the Isthmian League and for the RAF team during the war. He used to tell me of all sorts of obscure rules such as being allowed to charge the goalkeeper. As a full back it was his job at corners to stand in front of the keeper and protect him from being barged into the net.

There was none of this modern bollocks about ‘interfering with play’. If you were offside it was an indirect free kick.

[Shroppie]

3 minutes ago, ChrisPY said:

(1b)                     (2)        (2)

                           (2)        (2)        (2)

          (0)            (2a)        (2)        (2)      (1a)

                            (2)        (2)

 

So ‘1a’ plays the ball to space ‘0’. ‘2a’ drops back and controls the ball, looking up for options. ‘1b’ sneaks up on ‘2a’, steals the ball and scores.

Technically a correct decision but clearly against the spirit of the rule and for every sane football fan, it’s ridiculous.

It's not against the spirit of the laws. It's totally correct according to the Laws of the Game, which is what matters. You simply don't seem to understand that once a defender has deliberately played the ball, it's a new phase of play, so not offside.

[badgerx16]

As Bill Shankly once said "If a player is not interfering with play or seeking to gain an advantage, he should be".

[Shroppie]

6 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

At the time Peter Walton couldn’t understand the decision and thought it was wrong. He admitted next morning that according to the interpretation of The Laws it was correct.

It isn’t a question of not understanding the implementation, it’s a question of not agreeing with it.

I remember the old days of being ‘played on’. Don’t forget that I have been playing, refereeing and watching football for well over fifty years and my father before me played in the Isthmian League and for the RAF team during the war. He used to tell me of all sorts of obscure rules such as being allowed to charge the goalkeeper. As a full back it was his job at corners to stand in front of the keeper and protect him from being barged into the net.

There was none of this modern bollocks about ‘interfering with play’. If you were offside it was an indirect free kick.

We're of a similar vintage and I respect your experience. I too think many modern interpretations of laws are incomprehensible. But in this case I think it's clear cut and you don't. Best we agree to differ 

[Whitey Grandad]

18 minutes ago, Shroppie said:

We're of a similar vintage and I respect your experience. I too think many modern interpretations of laws are incomprehensible. But in this case I think it's clear cut and you don't. Best we agree to differ 

Fair enough. I don’t think any of us are saying the Law was necessarily incorrectly applied, just that it’s a bad interpretation. Now that it has been publicised we can expect to see more incidents of a similar type.

What I find interesting is how May professionals in the game were surprised by this. The offside law has got ridiculously complicated with too many subjective elements in my opinion. Many of the interpretations originate from the IFAB and if you’re getting really desperate for something to read you might want to look at these examples. One of them involves Saints.

https://www.pcsasoccer.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/ifab-law-11-illustrations.pdf

[ChrisPY]

8 hours ago, Shroppie said:

It's not against the spirit of the laws. It's totally correct according to the Laws of the Game, which is what matters. You simply don't seem to understand that once a defender has deliberately played the ball, it's a new phase of play, so not offside.

Agree with you that the decision was technically correct according to the laws of the game.

I don’t think that means it was applied within the spirit of the law. You have to look at why the law was written. If the defender had played a sloppy back pass towards the goalkeeper then I’d agree it’s a new phase of play but for the attacker to be able to pounce from an offside position as soon as the defender takes a deliberate touch encourages play that the offside law was brought in to stop. 
 

 

[Shroppie]

I'll accept that, if there is any element of interpretation, it's whether Mings had started a new phase of play as he brought the ball down.

I think he did, as it was a deliberate movement - the ball didn't just flick off him - and, albeit briefly, he had the ball.

[Whitey Grandad]

2 hours ago, Shroppie said:

I'll accept that, if there is any element of interpretation, it's whether Mings had started a new phase of play as he brought the ball down.

I think he did, as it was a deliberate movement - the ball didn't just flick off him - and, albeit briefly, he had the ball.

The Offside Law is the gift that keeps on giving

Carrying on from our discussion yesterday, isn’t this interpretation just a continuation of the old ‘played-on’ consideration? If the moment Mings touches the ball any opponent is free to compete for it despite running back from being well offside doesn’t that amount to the same thing?

The ball wasn’t even under his control before he got tackled.

 

[Sunglasses Ron]

Pompey get battered 4-0 at home...

[badgerx16]

My wife has just said that "You know you are getting old when you are watching the grandson of 2 of your childhood heroes playing for your team". Tommy Doyle, grandson of Mick Doyle and Glyn Pardoe, is playing for City at Cheltenham.

[East Kent Saint]

Benitez leaves Chinese club , available for Chelsea ?

[Lighthouse]

Don’t know what Grealish is throwing a tantrum for, being subbed off in the 88th minute with his team cruising, 2-0 up.

[steve green]

11 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

Don’t know what Grealish is throwing a tantrum for, being subbed off in the 88th minute with his team cruising, 2-0 up.

He's Grealish

[alehouseboys]

16 hours ago, Sunglasses Ron said:

Pompey get battered 4-0 at home...

Tbh I don’t take much notice of what goes on in the third division but that must be a mistake surely, I mean, they don’t get beat 4-nothing in their own back yard.....oh, hang on...........

[Lighthouse]

I can’t listen to Carney’s voice for 90 minutes.

[John Boy Saint]

How much did Chelsea pay for Kepa? Wow the bloke looked like he was made of........Snow!

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 hour ago, Lighthouse said:

I can’t listen to Carney’s voice for 90 minutes.

She’s woeful. She was on that BT Soccer Saturday type thing yesterday and was just embarrassing herself, it’s like me trying to discuss child birth with a midwife....

[Matthew Le God]

41 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

She’s woeful. She was on that BT Soccer Saturday type thing yesterday and was just embarrassing herself, it’s like me trying to discuss child birth with a midwife....

The 1970s called, they wanted their dinosaur back.

Edited 24 January, 2021 by Matthew Le God

[Useful Idiot]

58 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

The 1970s called, they wanted their dinosaur back.

 

Comments:

Although the text in your post was correct, you didn't do sufficient research to complete your post's presentation.

 

That GIF is from a show that aired in the 90's. You should have used an image from something like "Valley of the Dinosaurs" (circa 1974) to make the whole piece work together more effectively.

 

Overall Grade: B-

[East Kent Saint]

1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

She’s woeful. She was on that BT Soccer Saturday type thing yesterday and was just embarrassing herself, it’s like me trying to discuss child birth with a midwife....

I have got used to her now and I find Gabby OK as well . Perhaps it is the thought of a strong woman ?'

 

[cloggy saint]

3 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

I can’t listen to Carney’s voice for 90 minutes.

Ok, then don't.

[waylander]

JRod scores for Burnley

[Badger]

2 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

She’s woeful. She was on that BT Soccer Saturday type thing yesterday and was just embarrassing herself, it’s like me trying to discuss child birth with a midwife....

Didn't see that so can't comment but in her defence I've read some of her comments on the BBC Live Text during our matches and have been reasonably impressed taht sh'e provided reasonable summaries of our games, and Saints. She seems to have a better grasp than Danny Murphy for example.

[HKsaint]

23 minutes ago, waylander said:

JRod scores for Burnley

Cork assists

[East Kent Saint]

And Long scores for Burnley!

[St. Neil]

Carney saying Chelsea will be happy with the 3 points today.

[Lighthouse]

Lindelof making crop circles there.

[egg]

All this calling Alexander-Arnold by first name is nauseating.