or to join or start a new Discussion

92 Comments
Article Rating 2.33 Stars

City's goal was 'illegal'

Following City's controversial goal scored against Villa last week, the PGMOL has decided to tell us a week later that the goal was actually offside and shouldn't have counted. Fabulous work there lads.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Esqj1OJXYAA5-vH?format=png&name=small

posted on 26/1/21

Wow, City with another controversial goal

posted on 26/1/21

Now we have goals being scored while players have stopped because the flag is up.

Need to sort out this crap.

posted on 26/1/21

comment by Geoff Tipps (U1449)
posted 1 minute ago
Wow, City with another controversial goal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They have an exemption certificate now

posted on 26/1/21

comment by Geoff Tipps (U1449)
posted 4 minutes ago
Wow, City with another controversial goal
----------------------------------------------------------------------

What was controversial about it?

posted on 26/1/21

comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Geoff Tipps (U1449)
posted 4 minutes ago
Wow, City with another controversial goal
----------------------------------------------------------------------

What was controversial about it?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The lineswoman had flagged for offside and the WBA players stopped

posted on 26/1/21

comment by Geoff Tipps (U1449)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Geoff Tipps (U1449)
posted 4 minutes ago
Wow, City with another controversial goal
----------------------------------------------------------------------

What was controversial about it?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The lineswoman had flagged for offside and the WBA players stopped
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s not controversial though, that’s just them being stupid.

posted on 26/1/21

comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Geoff Tipps (U1449)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Geoff Tipps (U1449)
posted 4 minutes ago
Wow, City with another controversial goal
----------------------------------------------------------------------

What was controversial about it?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The lineswoman had flagged for offside and the WBA players stopped
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s not controversial though, that’s just them being stupid.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep... Players have been told to play to the whistle

posted on 26/1/21

Most of your penalties are illegal

posted 1 week, 2 days ago

comment by Vorsprung durch Tuchel (U1641)
posted on 26/1/21
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 hour, 34 minutes ago
comment by Stretchy Mendy (U1641)
posted 1 hour, 2 minutes ago
Mings had enough time to clear first time, he had enough time to pass with the ball on his second touch.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In a situation where a player in an offisde position taps in a rebound from a keepers save, your argument would be the equivalent to saying "the goal should count as the keeper could have caught the ball"

The ball was passed forward to Rodri, it was intercepted and Rodir then immediatley challanged the player. If you arguement is that Mings should have cleared it, then that action is only made necessary by Rodri, who is offside. If Rodri wasnt there Mings could let the ball run, or drop or whatever. Rodri's presence forces him into action and Rodri was offside, so advantaged gained by him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is different with the ‘keeper example because the ‘keeper hasn’t attempted to play the ball, it’s a difference in the intricacies of the phase of play. If the two are equivalent then this also means if Mings had played a pass to Rodri while Rodri was offside than that should also not count. The fact that Mings plays the ball and brings it into possession means that there has to be a point when a player who was offside as the ball was played is allowed to challenge Mings. That makes sense. It, at least in my mind, also makes sense that of course there will be some pressure on Mings at some point to do something with the ball. Obviously he couldn’t just chest it down with absolutely no pressure from Rodri just because Rodri was offside from the original ball that was played, that doesn’t make sense in my mind. So yes, you have to surely accept there can be *some* sort of pressure from Rodri.

If Rodri intercepted the ball the millisecond Mings touched it, that’s unfair in my mind. But that wasn’t the case. At least to me. I can see others and even of course the site that posted the rule change think it was an immediate challenge. But Mings could have cleared in the first instance, he could have easily passed the ball to the free man 10 yards in front on his second touch. He could have turned away from Rodri on his second touch (towards the direction of the touchline) rather than into him which made the tackle easier. Mings knew he was there before he recieved the ball. I really don’t think it’s that ‘unfair’ a situation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Our goal today made me think of this situation. I am interested if fans on here think Giroud’s goal ‘should be’ offside or not: https://streamable.com/u0gvb7

posted 1 week, 1 day ago

comment by Vorsprung durch Tuchel (U1641)
posted 13 hours, 32 minutes ago
comment by Vorsprung durch Tuchel (U1641)
posted on 26/1/21
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 hour, 34 minutes ago
comment by Stretchy Mendy (U1641)
posted 1 hour, 2 minutes ago
Mings had enough time to clear first time, he had enough time to pass with the ball on his second touch.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In a situation where a player in an offisde position taps in a rebound from a keepers save, your argument would be the equivalent to saying "the goal should count as the keeper could have caught the ball"

The ball was passed forward to Rodri, it was intercepted and Rodir then immediatley challanged the player. If you arguement is that Mings should have cleared it, then that action is only made necessary by Rodri, who is offside. If Rodri wasnt there Mings could let the ball run, or drop or whatever. Rodri's presence forces him into action and Rodri was offside, so advantaged gained by him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is different with the ‘keeper example because the ‘keeper hasn’t attempted to play the ball, it’s a difference in the intricacies of the phase of play. If the two are equivalent then this also means if Mings had played a pass to Rodri while Rodri was offside than that should also not count. The fact that Mings plays the ball and brings it into possession means that there has to be a point when a player who was offside as the ball was played is allowed to challenge Mings. That makes sense. It, at least in my mind, also makes sense that of course there will be some pressure on Mings at some point to do something with the ball. Obviously he couldn’t just chest it down with absolutely no pressure from Rodri just because Rodri was offside from the original ball that was played, that doesn’t make sense in my mind. So yes, you have to surely accept there can be *some* sort of pressure from Rodri.

If Rodri intercepted the ball the millisecond Mings touched it, that’s unfair in my mind. But that wasn’t the case. At least to me. I can see others and even of course the site that posted the rule change think it was an immediate challenge. But Mings could have cleared in the first instance, he could have easily passed the ball to the free man 10 yards in front on his second touch. He could have turned away from Rodri on his second touch (towards the direction of the touchline) rather than into him which made the tackle easier. Mings knew he was there before he recieved the ball. I really don’t think it’s that ‘unfair’ a situation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Our goal today made me think of this situation. I am interested if fans on here think Giroud’s goal ‘should be’ offside or not: https://streamable.com/u0gvb7
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Legit goal according to the rules

Sign in if you want to comment
RATE THIS ARTICLE
Rate Breakdown
5
1 Vote
4
0 Votes
3
0 Votes
2
0 Votes
1
2 Votes

Average Rating: 2.33 from 3 votes

ARTICLE STATS
Day
Article RankingNot Ranked
Article ViewsNot Available
Average Time(mins)Not Available
Total Time(mins)Not Available
Month
Article RankingNot Ranked
Article ViewsNot Available
Average Time(mins)Not Available
Total Time(mins)Not Available