Jump to content

Other Games - 2020/2021


jamesfp1
 Share

Recommended Posts

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by steve green
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

CCB3FDBE-34A2-4174-AD35-4B5CC968D236.thumb.jpeg.c71201d1130a6ca0daa1008345bc259e.jpeg

Edited by John Boy Saint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

IMG_20210120_195735.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

IMG_20210120_195735.jpg

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Shroppie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

IMG_20210120_195735.jpg

(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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

New trending GIF on Giphy | Dinosaurs tv series, Dinosaurs tv, Best funny  pictures

Edited by Matthew Le God
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

The 1970s called, they wanted their dinosaur back.

New trending GIF on Giphy | Dinosaurs tv series, Dinosaurs tv, Best funny  pictures

 

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-

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 ?'

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...