it was offside but this has been known about for ages, no sympathy for mings hes poverty actually baffles me he got an England call up. What an idiot he even looks at the players twice and still facks it up lol.
The rules stupid the guys clearly interfering from an offside position as mings is looking over his shoulder twice, this alone should be enough reason to rule it out for offside because its unfair. Clearly distracted the defender helping in him losing the ball and villa conceding a goal from it.
comment by Hansaplast (U1250)
posted 47 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 hours, 7 minutes ago
comment by Bennyville (U8058)
posted 54 seconds ago
I actually think the law is fine in this regard.
He's attempted to control the ball with his chest, messed it up, and Rodri has taken advantage.
Let's say, Mings had chested it like he did, but instead of attempting to play the ball with his foot, he decides to leave the ball alone, ultimately not having full control of the ball, but already attempted to control it with his chest....
Would Rodri not be allowed to take claim of the ball? as Mings has not had full control of it, but has already used his chest to control it.
At what point would you allow Rodri to go for the ball? if it's not straight after Mings attempts to control it with his chest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There has to be some common sense, doesn't there?
In my view, Rodri is challenging for the ball from an offside position, not really any different to challenging for a header.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As soon as Mings controlled the ball with his chest Rodri was onside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 hours, 6 minutes ago
comment by Donny The King van de Beek (U10026)
posted 3 minutes ago
But it’s still one passage of play. The idea that one touch of the ball creates a new passage of play in this particular instance is daft.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s no different in that context to if Mings had headed the ball directly back to Rodri though. It’s Ming’s action that dictates whether Rodri is offside or not, not Rodris. One touch does change the situation.
If he doesn’t touch it and it runs through to Rodri, he’s offside. If he scuffs it back to him by accident, Rodris onside. If he chooses to play the ball which subsequently allows Rodri to get back and challenge him, then he’s given him the opportunity to get back onside too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 16 minutes ago
comment by Hansaplast (U1250)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 hours, 19 minutes ago
comment by Bennyville (U8058)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 8 seconds ago
He hadn’t controlled the ball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He chested the ball down and mis controlled it with his foot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The ball was still on its way down from his chest when Rodri appeared.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As soon as he chested it, he controlled the ball.
You interpret 'controlling' differently than others.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you, certainly.
If you’d like to show me where in the laws you’ve got that definition from, by all means do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
control
verb
gerund or present participle: controlling
1.
determine the behaviour or supervise the running of.
He definitively determined the behaviour of the ball when he took it on his chest.
You argue about this all day long, and you will, but Mings controlled the ball by chesting it.
Hansaplast (U1250)
I can't remember the last time you weren't crying about me on this forum so no, I won't be arguing with you about it at all.
Enjoy.
Under the current laws I think it was the correct decision. The only possible way it wouldn't be would be the argument about the definition of received in this context. Otherwise, Mings deliberately plays the ball which is what matters rather than whether he has it under control
Having said that, I understand the dislike of the ruling when Rodri moved a number of yards towards the ball whilst in an offside position so that he was then able to challenge Mings. If, however, you make moving in the direction of the ball sufficient to be interfering with play then there is a risk that more offsides will occur in the game.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 13 minutes ago
Hansaplast (U1250)
I can't remember the last time you weren't crying about me on this forum so no, I won't be arguing with you about it at all.
Enjoy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am actually having a normal debate for once
But whatever dude, the fact you give up in this manner just tells me you know you got it wrong
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 5 minutes ago
Under the current laws I think it was the correct decision. The only possible way it wouldn't be would be the argument about the definition of received in this context. Otherwise, Mings deliberately plays the ball which is what matters rather than whether he has it under control
Having said that, I understand the dislike of the ruling when Rodri moved a number of yards towards the ball whilst in an offside position so that he was then able to challenge Mings. If, however, you make moving in the direction of the ball sufficient to be interfering with play then there is a risk that more offsides will occur in the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not about 'having it under control', controlling is a different thing.
He controlled the ball therefor Rodri became onside as soon as he chested it
comment by Hansaplast (U1250)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 13 minutes ago
Hansaplast (U1250)
I can't remember the last time you weren't crying about me on this forum so no, I won't be arguing with you about it at all.
Enjoy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am actually having a normal debate for once
But whatever dude, the fact you give up in this manner just tells me you know you got it wrong
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have a read back.
I asked you where in the laws it is defined in your way and not mine (spoiler: it isn't).
You came back with a dictionary definition.
You're all over the place and frankly, the many years you've spent trolling on this forum and whining about me mean that you don't deserve any reasonable debate with me.. not that you're actually capable anyway.
So, do enjoy your 'normal debate' - what a novelty it must be for you. It's a shame you're talking out your backside.
comment by Hansaplast (U1250)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 5 minutes ago
Under the current laws I think it was the correct decision. The only possible way it wouldn't be would be the argument about the definition of received in this context. Otherwise, Mings deliberately plays the ball which is what matters rather than whether he has it under control
Having said that, I understand the dislike of the ruling when Rodri moved a number of yards towards the ball whilst in an offside position so that he was then able to challenge Mings. If, however, you make moving in the direction of the ball sufficient to be interfering with play then there is a risk that more offsides will occur in the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not about 'having it under control', controlling is a different thing.
He controlled the ball therefor Rodri became onside as soon as he chested it
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Either way - controlling is also irrelevant. It is about whether the defender deliberately played the ball, which Mings did on this occasion.
welshpoolfan (U7693)
The reason, I think, controlling the ball has come into the discussion is because it's being debated whether one can actually determine that Mings had actually played the ball at that stage.
Rodri became involved before the ball had even reached the floor from Mings' chest, having moved into that position (instead of it just hitting him).
One might argue that is challenging for the first ball and the laws aren't clear in that respect.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 12 minutes ago
welshpoolfan (U7693)
The reason, I think, controlling the ball has come into the discussion is because it's being debated whether one can actually determine that Mings had actually played the ball at that stage.
Rodri became involved before the ball had even reached the floor from Mings' chest, having moved into that position (instead of it just hitting him).
One might argue that is challenging for the first ball and the laws aren't clear in that respect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So I think what you are saying is that it was a poor decision by Mings to play the ball in such a way, as he put himself at risk of being dispossessed by the forward who was now active. And that's what happened.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by Hansaplast (U1250)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 13 minutes ago
Hansaplast (U1250)
I can't remember the last time you weren't crying about me on this forum so no, I won't be arguing with you about it at all.
Enjoy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am actually having a normal debate for once
But whatever dude, the fact you give up in this manner just tells me you know you got it wrong
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have a read back.
I asked you where in the laws it is defined in your way and not mine (spoiler: it isn't).
You came back with a dictionary definition.
You're all over the place and frankly, the many years you've spent trolling on this forum and whining about me mean that you don't deserve any reasonable debate with me.. not that you're actually capable anyway.
So, do enjoy your 'normal debate' - what a novelty it must be for you. It's a shame you're talking out your backside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whatever dude, keep waffling...
Fecking troll
Why is it that If you shoot and its saved and aplayer in an off side position when the shot went in gets the rebound, then he is off side.
But if you pass and it is played by an opposing player (might just even be a single touch, like Mings, on his chest) then that offside player is not deemed to have been offside.
In the case of the shot & save, the attacker gains an advantage of sorts by being closer to the goal and thus able to tap in a rebound IF it comes his way.
In the City/Mings case, surely Rodri gains an advantage because his very presence demands that Mings has to deal with the ball. If Rodri was not there then Mings can let the ball go through. As he knew he was behind him somewhere, he had to deal with it, not knowing if Rodri was offside or not. Advantage Rodri.
Do these 2 interpretations contradict each other? Surely both attackers should be deemed as active if they subsequently get involved in play. Seems to me that if anything Rodri should be deemed offside as the pass was meant for him. In the shot/save scenario, it was a shot and not a pass meant for the scorer, so he's never really active unless he's interfering with eth keepers line of sight.
comment by Osman Sow (U1734)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 12 minutes ago
welshpoolfan (U7693)
The reason, I think, controlling the ball has come into the discussion is because it's being debated whether one can actually determine that Mings had actually played the ball at that stage.
Rodri became involved before the ball had even reached the floor from Mings' chest, having moved into that position (instead of it just hitting him).
One might argue that is challenging for the first ball and the laws aren't clear in that respect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So I think what you are saying is that it was a poor decision by Mings to play the ball in such a way, as he put himself at risk of being dispossessed by the forward who was now active. And that's what happened.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The lack of fairness IMO comes in as Mings had todeal with the ball as Rodri is nearby. Mings cannot judge in that instant if he is offside or not, so has to deal with it. Yes, he should have headed it clear, but Rodri's very presence, which happened to be offside, meant Mings had no option but to play the ball. He could not take the risk of leaving it.
Devonshirespur (U6316)
Indeed.
It doesn't matter about the quality of Mings' touch.
Either way, Rodri was on him and ready to challenge.
"In the City/Mings case, surely Rodri gains an advantage because his very presence demands that Mings has to deal with the ball. If Rodri was not there then Mings can let the ball go through. As he knew he was behind him somewhere, he had to deal with it, not knowing if Rodri was offside or not. Advantage Rodri."
Mings could have just let the ball through though, Rodri would have judged to be offside.
The save analogy, that's explicitly accounted for in the law.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 34 minutes ago
welshpoolfan (U7693)
The reason, I think, controlling the ball has come into the discussion is because it's being debated whether one can actually determine that Mings had actually played the ball at that stage.
Rodri became involved before the ball had even reached the floor from Mings' chest, having moved into that position (instead of it just hitting him).
One might argue that is challenging for the first ball and the laws aren't clear in that respect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmm, I see. I think the laws are much clearer on this respect because chesting the ball down is easier to show as deliberately playing the ball, rather than controlling.
Either way, I think the only possible argument for it being offside under the law is the point you raised previously about the meaning of "received".
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 23 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 34 minutes ago
welshpoolfan (U7693)
The reason, I think, controlling the ball has come into the discussion is because it's being debated whether one can actually determine that Mings had actually played the ball at that stage.
Rodri became involved before the ball had even reached the floor from Mings' chest, having moved into that position (instead of it just hitting him).
One might argue that is challenging for the first ball and the laws aren't clear in that respect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmm, I see. I think the laws are much clearer on this respect because chesting the ball down is easier to show as deliberately playing the ball, rather than controlling.
Either way, I think the only possible argument for it being offside under the law is the point you raised previously about the meaning of "received".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
welshpoolfan (U7693)
Meant to add that the debate about controlling the ball and 'receiving' the ball are one and the same for me.
Ultimately one has to decide whether Rodri challenged for the ball or simply took advantage of Mings poor control.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 25 seconds ago
welshpoolfan (U7693)
Meant to add that the debate about controlling the ball and 'receiving' the ball are one and the same for me.
Ultimately one has to decide whether Rodri challenged for the ball or simply took advantage of Mings poor control.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He was unable to challenge for the first ball as he was too far away. He was only then able to challenge after Mings' deliberate, but poor, recpetion/control/touch which Rodri then had every right to challenge for. This was because Mings failed to deal with it.
It is like if a striker is running in behind in a marginal offside position but the defender cuts the ball out, the attacker is allowed to immediately tackle the defender as he was not the one who received the ball. The defender was. It is exactly the same in the Mings case.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 hour, 29 minutes ago
"In the City/Mings case, surely Rodri gains an advantage because his very presence demands that Mings has to deal with the ball. If Rodri was not there then Mings can let the ball go through. As he knew he was behind him somewhere, he had to deal with it, not knowing if Rodri was offside or not. Advantage Rodri."
Mings could have just let the ball through though, Rodri would have judged to be offside.
The save analogy, that's explicitly accounted for in the law.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But whats the difference.....why does a defender touching the ball start a new phase of play where an offside player can become active, whereas a GK touching the ball does not?
I know what the law is, but why is the law different in these 2 scenarios?
Seems unsatisfactory to me as a defender is expected to judge whether the nearby attacker is offside or not before deciding whether he should play the ball or not, all in the blink of an eye.
The fact that so many managers, players, pundits and viewers had no idea that what Rodri did was within the rules shows that it doesn't happen very often.
My personal view is that a player shouldn't be allowed to gain an advantage from being in an offside position but it happens so rarely that I doubt they'll be a rule change.
Sign in if you want to comment
Was Man City's 1st goal offside?
Page 9 of 10
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
posted on 21/1/21
it was offside but this has been known about for ages, no sympathy for mings hes poverty actually baffles me he got an England call up. What an idiot he even looks at the players twice and still facks it up lol.
The rules stupid the guys clearly interfering from an offside position as mings is looking over his shoulder twice, this alone should be enough reason to rule it out for offside because its unfair. Clearly distracted the defender helping in him losing the ball and villa conceding a goal from it.
posted on 21/1/21
comment by Hansaplast (U1250)
posted 47 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 hours, 7 minutes ago
comment by Bennyville (U8058)
posted 54 seconds ago
I actually think the law is fine in this regard.
He's attempted to control the ball with his chest, messed it up, and Rodri has taken advantage.
Let's say, Mings had chested it like he did, but instead of attempting to play the ball with his foot, he decides to leave the ball alone, ultimately not having full control of the ball, but already attempted to control it with his chest....
Would Rodri not be allowed to take claim of the ball? as Mings has not had full control of it, but has already used his chest to control it.
At what point would you allow Rodri to go for the ball? if it's not straight after Mings attempts to control it with his chest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There has to be some common sense, doesn't there?
In my view, Rodri is challenging for the ball from an offside position, not really any different to challenging for a header.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As soon as Mings controlled the ball with his chest Rodri was onside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed.
posted on 21/1/21
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 hours, 6 minutes ago
comment by Donny The King van de Beek (U10026)
posted 3 minutes ago
But it’s still one passage of play. The idea that one touch of the ball creates a new passage of play in this particular instance is daft.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s no different in that context to if Mings had headed the ball directly back to Rodri though. It’s Ming’s action that dictates whether Rodri is offside or not, not Rodris. One touch does change the situation.
If he doesn’t touch it and it runs through to Rodri, he’s offside. If he scuffs it back to him by accident, Rodris onside. If he chooses to play the ball which subsequently allows Rodri to get back and challenge him, then he’s given him the opportunity to get back onside too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree
posted on 21/1/21
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 16 minutes ago
comment by Hansaplast (U1250)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 hours, 19 minutes ago
comment by Bennyville (U8058)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 8 seconds ago
He hadn’t controlled the ball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He chested the ball down and mis controlled it with his foot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The ball was still on its way down from his chest when Rodri appeared.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As soon as he chested it, he controlled the ball.
You interpret 'controlling' differently than others.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you, certainly.
If you’d like to show me where in the laws you’ve got that definition from, by all means do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
control
verb
gerund or present participle: controlling
1.
determine the behaviour or supervise the running of.
He definitively determined the behaviour of the ball when he took it on his chest.
You argue about this all day long, and you will, but Mings controlled the ball by chesting it.
posted on 21/1/21
Hansaplast (U1250)
I can't remember the last time you weren't crying about me on this forum so no, I won't be arguing with you about it at all.
Enjoy.
posted on 21/1/21
Under the current laws I think it was the correct decision. The only possible way it wouldn't be would be the argument about the definition of received in this context. Otherwise, Mings deliberately plays the ball which is what matters rather than whether he has it under control
Having said that, I understand the dislike of the ruling when Rodri moved a number of yards towards the ball whilst in an offside position so that he was then able to challenge Mings. If, however, you make moving in the direction of the ball sufficient to be interfering with play then there is a risk that more offsides will occur in the game.
posted on 21/1/21
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 13 minutes ago
Hansaplast (U1250)
I can't remember the last time you weren't crying about me on this forum so no, I won't be arguing with you about it at all.
Enjoy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am actually having a normal debate for once
But whatever dude, the fact you give up in this manner just tells me you know you got it wrong
posted on 21/1/21
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 5 minutes ago
Under the current laws I think it was the correct decision. The only possible way it wouldn't be would be the argument about the definition of received in this context. Otherwise, Mings deliberately plays the ball which is what matters rather than whether he has it under control
Having said that, I understand the dislike of the ruling when Rodri moved a number of yards towards the ball whilst in an offside position so that he was then able to challenge Mings. If, however, you make moving in the direction of the ball sufficient to be interfering with play then there is a risk that more offsides will occur in the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not about 'having it under control', controlling is a different thing.
He controlled the ball therefor Rodri became onside as soon as he chested it
posted on 21/1/21
comment by Hansaplast (U1250)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 13 minutes ago
Hansaplast (U1250)
I can't remember the last time you weren't crying about me on this forum so no, I won't be arguing with you about it at all.
Enjoy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am actually having a normal debate for once
But whatever dude, the fact you give up in this manner just tells me you know you got it wrong
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have a read back.
I asked you where in the laws it is defined in your way and not mine (spoiler: it isn't).
You came back with a dictionary definition.
You're all over the place and frankly, the many years you've spent trolling on this forum and whining about me mean that you don't deserve any reasonable debate with me.. not that you're actually capable anyway.
So, do enjoy your 'normal debate' - what a novelty it must be for you. It's a shame you're talking out your backside.
posted on 21/1/21
comment by Hansaplast (U1250)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 5 minutes ago
Under the current laws I think it was the correct decision. The only possible way it wouldn't be would be the argument about the definition of received in this context. Otherwise, Mings deliberately plays the ball which is what matters rather than whether he has it under control
Having said that, I understand the dislike of the ruling when Rodri moved a number of yards towards the ball whilst in an offside position so that he was then able to challenge Mings. If, however, you make moving in the direction of the ball sufficient to be interfering with play then there is a risk that more offsides will occur in the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not about 'having it under control', controlling is a different thing.
He controlled the ball therefor Rodri became onside as soon as he chested it
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Either way - controlling is also irrelevant. It is about whether the defender deliberately played the ball, which Mings did on this occasion.
posted on 21/1/21
welshpoolfan (U7693)
The reason, I think, controlling the ball has come into the discussion is because it's being debated whether one can actually determine that Mings had actually played the ball at that stage.
Rodri became involved before the ball had even reached the floor from Mings' chest, having moved into that position (instead of it just hitting him).
One might argue that is challenging for the first ball and the laws aren't clear in that respect.
posted on 21/1/21
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 12 minutes ago
welshpoolfan (U7693)
The reason, I think, controlling the ball has come into the discussion is because it's being debated whether one can actually determine that Mings had actually played the ball at that stage.
Rodri became involved before the ball had even reached the floor from Mings' chest, having moved into that position (instead of it just hitting him).
One might argue that is challenging for the first ball and the laws aren't clear in that respect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So I think what you are saying is that it was a poor decision by Mings to play the ball in such a way, as he put himself at risk of being dispossessed by the forward who was now active. And that's what happened.
posted on 21/1/21
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by Hansaplast (U1250)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 13 minutes ago
Hansaplast (U1250)
I can't remember the last time you weren't crying about me on this forum so no, I won't be arguing with you about it at all.
Enjoy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am actually having a normal debate for once
But whatever dude, the fact you give up in this manner just tells me you know you got it wrong
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have a read back.
I asked you where in the laws it is defined in your way and not mine (spoiler: it isn't).
You came back with a dictionary definition.
You're all over the place and frankly, the many years you've spent trolling on this forum and whining about me mean that you don't deserve any reasonable debate with me.. not that you're actually capable anyway.
So, do enjoy your 'normal debate' - what a novelty it must be for you. It's a shame you're talking out your backside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Whatever dude, keep waffling...
Fecking troll
posted on 21/1/21
Why is it that If you shoot and its saved and aplayer in an off side position when the shot went in gets the rebound, then he is off side.
But if you pass and it is played by an opposing player (might just even be a single touch, like Mings, on his chest) then that offside player is not deemed to have been offside.
In the case of the shot & save, the attacker gains an advantage of sorts by being closer to the goal and thus able to tap in a rebound IF it comes his way.
In the City/Mings case, surely Rodri gains an advantage because his very presence demands that Mings has to deal with the ball. If Rodri was not there then Mings can let the ball go through. As he knew he was behind him somewhere, he had to deal with it, not knowing if Rodri was offside or not. Advantage Rodri.
Do these 2 interpretations contradict each other? Surely both attackers should be deemed as active if they subsequently get involved in play. Seems to me that if anything Rodri should be deemed offside as the pass was meant for him. In the shot/save scenario, it was a shot and not a pass meant for the scorer, so he's never really active unless he's interfering with eth keepers line of sight.
posted on 21/1/21
comment by Osman Sow (U1734)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 12 minutes ago
welshpoolfan (U7693)
The reason, I think, controlling the ball has come into the discussion is because it's being debated whether one can actually determine that Mings had actually played the ball at that stage.
Rodri became involved before the ball had even reached the floor from Mings' chest, having moved into that position (instead of it just hitting him).
One might argue that is challenging for the first ball and the laws aren't clear in that respect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So I think what you are saying is that it was a poor decision by Mings to play the ball in such a way, as he put himself at risk of being dispossessed by the forward who was now active. And that's what happened.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The lack of fairness IMO comes in as Mings had todeal with the ball as Rodri is nearby. Mings cannot judge in that instant if he is offside or not, so has to deal with it. Yes, he should have headed it clear, but Rodri's very presence, which happened to be offside, meant Mings had no option but to play the ball. He could not take the risk of leaving it.
posted on 21/1/21
Devonshirespur (U6316)
Indeed.
It doesn't matter about the quality of Mings' touch.
Either way, Rodri was on him and ready to challenge.
posted on 21/1/21
"In the City/Mings case, surely Rodri gains an advantage because his very presence demands that Mings has to deal with the ball. If Rodri was not there then Mings can let the ball go through. As he knew he was behind him somewhere, he had to deal with it, not knowing if Rodri was offside or not. Advantage Rodri."
Mings could have just let the ball through though, Rodri would have judged to be offside.
The save analogy, that's explicitly accounted for in the law.
posted on 21/1/21
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 34 minutes ago
welshpoolfan (U7693)
The reason, I think, controlling the ball has come into the discussion is because it's being debated whether one can actually determine that Mings had actually played the ball at that stage.
Rodri became involved before the ball had even reached the floor from Mings' chest, having moved into that position (instead of it just hitting him).
One might argue that is challenging for the first ball and the laws aren't clear in that respect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmm, I see. I think the laws are much clearer on this respect because chesting the ball down is easier to show as deliberately playing the ball, rather than controlling.
Either way, I think the only possible argument for it being offside under the law is the point you raised previously about the meaning of "received".
posted on 21/1/21
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 23 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 34 minutes ago
welshpoolfan (U7693)
The reason, I think, controlling the ball has come into the discussion is because it's being debated whether one can actually determine that Mings had actually played the ball at that stage.
Rodri became involved before the ball had even reached the floor from Mings' chest, having moved into that position (instead of it just hitting him).
One might argue that is challenging for the first ball and the laws aren't clear in that respect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmm, I see. I think the laws are much clearer on this respect because chesting the ball down is easier to show as deliberately playing the ball, rather than controlling.
Either way, I think the only possible argument for it being offside under the law is the point you raised previously about the meaning of "received".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 21/1/21
welshpoolfan (U7693)
Meant to add that the debate about controlling the ball and 'receiving' the ball are one and the same for me.
Ultimately one has to decide whether Rodri challenged for the ball or simply took advantage of Mings poor control.
posted on 21/1/21
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 25 seconds ago
welshpoolfan (U7693)
Meant to add that the debate about controlling the ball and 'receiving' the ball are one and the same for me.
Ultimately one has to decide whether Rodri challenged for the ball or simply took advantage of Mings poor control.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He was unable to challenge for the first ball as he was too far away. He was only then able to challenge after Mings' deliberate, but poor, recpetion/control/touch which Rodri then had every right to challenge for. This was because Mings failed to deal with it.
posted on 21/1/21
It is like if a striker is running in behind in a marginal offside position but the defender cuts the ball out, the attacker is allowed to immediately tackle the defender as he was not the one who received the ball. The defender was. It is exactly the same in the Mings case.
posted on 21/1/21
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 hour, 29 minutes ago
"In the City/Mings case, surely Rodri gains an advantage because his very presence demands that Mings has to deal with the ball. If Rodri was not there then Mings can let the ball go through. As he knew he was behind him somewhere, he had to deal with it, not knowing if Rodri was offside or not. Advantage Rodri."
Mings could have just let the ball through though, Rodri would have judged to be offside.
The save analogy, that's explicitly accounted for in the law.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But whats the difference.....why does a defender touching the ball start a new phase of play where an offside player can become active, whereas a GK touching the ball does not?
I know what the law is, but why is the law different in these 2 scenarios?
posted on 21/1/21
Seems unsatisfactory to me as a defender is expected to judge whether the nearby attacker is offside or not before deciding whether he should play the ball or not, all in the blink of an eye.
posted on 21/1/21
The fact that so many managers, players, pundits and viewers had no idea that what Rodri did was within the rules shows that it doesn't happen very often.
My personal view is that a player shouldn't be allowed to gain an advantage from being in an offside position but it happens so rarely that I doubt they'll be a rule change.
Page 9 of 10
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10