Tyrone Mings

[Keyblade]

4 minutes ago, blandy said:

Then you get into a completely unintended thing - defender hit by a shot, or whatever - advantage to attacker. Defender messes up their control - no advantage to attacker - that seems in some sense the wrong way round. Either you say any touch of any sort by a defender renders the attacker no longer offside (as the ref basically did on wednesday) or you say a touch by a defender does not render the attacker no longer offside, until the defender has the ball under full control and has had the chance to progress play...

Yeah I like the latter for sure. We've always just known unintended ricochets to be onside as a rule instinctively, or at least I have. A player scored and you think to yourself "he's offsi- actually, it hit defender on the way through, so onside". So I guess from that point of view, surely Rodri's onside too. Neither of them seem in the spirit of the game, and I'd be happy to see the back of this awful loophole. 

[StefanAVFC]

It's my understanding that a ricochet is offside, as the law says that the defender must make a deliberate action.

[Keyblade]

3 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

It's my understanding that a ricochet is offside, as the law says that the defender must make a deliberate action.

I could be thinking about scuffed headers or clearances. I guess in that case, West Ham's goal I posted further back was legal, since the header was deliberate. Still a stupid law because he had to make that header because of a player that was in an illegal position. 

[blandy]

6 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

It's my understanding that a ricochet is offside, as the law says that the defender must make a deliberate action.

Yeah - a ricochet that clatters int oa defenders back or whatever - offside. Defender sticks leg out to try and block and it ricochets to a forward - not offside. It's not really (as @Keyblade says) awfully consistent - so many players instinctively react and by doing so they "make a deliberate action" when in reality it's just kind of instinctive - active, not passive as you were saying about something else.

[StefanAVFC]

2 minutes ago, blandy said:

Yeah - a ricochet that clatters int oa defenders back or whatever - offside. Defender sticks leg out to try and block and it ricochets to a forward - not offside. It's not really (as @Keyblade says) awfully consistent - so many players instinctively react and by doing so they "make a deliberate action" when in reality it's just kind of instinctive - active, not passive as you were saying about something else.

But then the 2nd bit is about the offside player receiving the ball. If Mings chests it and it lands at Rodri's feet, it's fine. If Rodri goes and gets the ball, it isn't.

[Tomaszk]

The rule is whatever they want it to be, that's how it's written.

I don't think we will, but I really really want someone like big Sam to start **** with it next week. But they'll all get flagged as soon as they run towards the ball just like Rodri should have.

[blandy]

12 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

But then the 2nd bit is about the offside player receiving the ball. If Mings chests it and it lands at Rodri's feet, it's fine. If Rodri goes and gets the ball, it isn't.

To go back at you from earlier - if it doesn't land at Rodrhi's feet, but he can run and get it, then he's actively "receiving" it - almost always players are active in receiving. Very rarely are they stood still - they're constantly moving to anticipate the path of the ball. , or to follow it and intercept it and receive it that way.

 

[Stevo985]

13 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

But then the 2nd bit is about the offside player receiving the ball. If Mings chests it and it lands at Rodri's feet, it's fine. If Rodri goes and gets the ball, it isn't.

This is the grey area of the rule for me.

If Mings traps the ball and stands there for 5 seconds and then Rodri comes back and tackles him you can't say that was offside.

So how long between controlling the ball does it become onside and stop being offside?

[StefanAVFC]

3 minutes ago, blandy said:

To go back at you from earlier - if it doesn't land at Rodrhi's feet, but he can run and get it, then he's actively "receiving" it - almost always players are active in receiving. Very rarely are they stood still - they're constantly moving to anticipate the path of the ball. , or to follow it and intercept it and receive it that way.

 

Maybe, but what Rodri did is by no definition 'receiving'.

3 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

This is the grey area of the rule for me.

If Mings traps the ball and stands there for 5 seconds and then Rodri comes back and tackles him you can't say that was offside.

So how long between controlling the ball does it become onside and stop being offside?

Sure, there's a grey area but Mings hasn't fully controlled it before an offside player tackles him.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

It's all the law of unintended consequences.

I can remember a game at Maine Road, maybe 25 years ago, where Villa scored first  - a shot from outside the box, or edge of it, and a Villa forward was in an offside position, by maybe 2 or 3 yards, on the edge of the 6 yard box. The ball went nowhere near him and he wasn't obscuring the keeper's view, but the law at that time should have had him flagged as offside. The lino didn't, the goal stood and we ended up drawing 1-1. Uwe Rössler scored later for them.

So maybe it's Karma!

It was actually this game, and it was Flitcroft not Rössler who scored for them.

It's odd to think City have been in the third tier since then. Anyway..

[blandy]

6 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Maybe, but what Rodri did is by no definition 'receiving'.

10 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

I'm talking here about a hypothetical richochet that a forward runs on to or moves to intercept.

[onmeedson]

We used to be told play to the whistle, clear your line's, but all this new coaching these days seems to include risk's.

[Keyblade]

7 minutes ago, onmeedson said:

We used to be told play to the whistle, clear your line's, but all this new coaching these days seems to include risk's.

Because there is more reward.

Also, there is a risk involved in clearing it as well against a team like City.

[StefanAVFC]

You don't clear your lines when there's no danger, otherwise you're just needlessly gifting the ball back to the opposition.

Edited January 22, 2021 by StefanAVFC

[onmeedson]

Only the opposition on the pitch then, Some reward against man citi

[bobzy]

3 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

This is the grey area of the rule for me.

If Mings traps the ball and stands there for 5 seconds and then Rodri comes back and tackles him you can't say that was offside.

So how long between controlling the ball does it become onside and stop being offside?

Personally, that's the element of the rule that is "playing" the ball.  Controlling the ball isn't playing it.  Dribbling with it?  Yes.  Passing the ball?  Yes.  etc.  But if you're just bringing a ball under control, you shouldn't be able to be tackled by someone who is offside - they can't interfere... until you actually deliberately do something with the ball.

I actually think if Mings traps the ball and stands there for 5 seconds, Rodri still shouldn't be allowed to do anything - but that scenario will never happen.

[Stevo985]

24 minutes ago, bobzy said:

Personally, that's the element of the rule that is "playing" the ball.  Controlling the ball isn't playing it.  Dribbling with it?  Yes.  Passing the ball?  Yes.  etc.  But if you're just bringing a ball under control, you shouldn't be able to be tackled by someone who is offside - they can't interfere... until you actually deliberately do something with the ball.

I actually think if Mings traps the ball and stands there for 5 seconds, Rodri still shouldn't be allowed to do anything - but that scenario will never happen.

Yeah I don't agree. I don't agree that if, say, it was the last minute and Mings was running down the clock that he could just stand there and not do anything and Rodri wouldn't be able to tackle him. It doesn't make sense. 

That wasn't the case this time and I think this one should have been called offside. I'm just saying there's a grey area in terms of how long passes before a ball is under control.

[Keener window-cleaner]

4 hours ago, blandy said:

It was actually this game, and it was Flitcroft not Rössler who scored for them.

It's odd to think City have been in the third tier since then. Anyway..

Proper team we had there!

[WooJung]

1 hour ago, Stevo985 said:

Yeah I don't agree. I don't agree that if, say, it was the last minute and Mings was running down the clock that he could just stand there and not do anything and Rodri wouldn't be able to tackle him. It doesn't make sense. 

That wasn't the case this time and I think this one should have been called offside. I'm just saying there's a grey area in terms of how long passes before a ball is under control.

There are many Grey areas unfortunately, in many cases establishing weather there is enough contact for it to be a foul, weather that foul is a yellow or not, or weather it's a yellow or a red, ecc. 

In some cases it's, for lack of a better expression, clear and obvious. In others it's going to have to be arbitrary. 

I wish there was more consistency to this, referees could have meetings in which they analise several "Grey area" scenarios and reasoned together and tried to come to some consensus,because the inconsistency is staggering. It'll never be perfect, but it could be a lot better 

[bobzy]

8 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

Yeah I don't agree. I don't agree that if, say, it was the last minute and Mings was running down the clock that he could just stand there and not do anything and Rodri wouldn't be able to tackle him. It doesn't make sense. 

That wasn't the case this time and I think this one should have been called offside. I'm just saying there's a grey area in terms of how long passes before a ball is under control.

You’re talking as if “Rodri” would be the only player on the pitch though - someone else would close Mings down if he just stood there. “Rodri” couldn’t do so as he gained positional advantage by being offside.

As with deliberate handballs, I think it’s actually pretty easy to implement an offside rule properly. Unfortunately, they’ve just royally **** both rules up.