Ratings & Reactions: Man City v Villa

[StefanAVFC]

Why does he need to head the ball and give the ball back to City?

The fact that Mings needs to apparently change his action from controlling it to heading it away (therefore giving city the advantage) demonstrates exactly why it's offside!

As for 'dwelling on the ball' 

He chests it down without a single legal City player anywhere near him, and his 2nd touch is the tackle by Rodri (who's offside) 

Beggars belief how anyone can pin this on Mings at all

[ThunderPower_14]

What Mings does with the ball is a red herring. 

Rodri is already offside while the ball is still in the air because he's moving towards the ball into a position to tackle Mings. He's put himself in play at that point. The whistle should have already gone by the time the ball reached Mings. 

Worst non-offside call in memory. What the hell was the linesman doing?

[Okonokos]

 

*Start from 13 seconds*

Dear FA/VAR/Premier League,

I see the bull shit you're spouting about the goal standing because it was a new phase of play after Mings touched the ball. Would you then care to explain why this goal was disallowed last season? Surely when the ball was cleared it became a so called "new phase of play" and should have been onside?

Or is that you're just a bunch of inept, clueless, corrupt Representatives for Wellingborough?

Cheers.

[blandy]

46 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Again, bang on 

If it was a case of the phase of play resetting as people are claiming then why isnt it mentioned at all by PGMOL?

Here's the Law from the FA website

Quote

Offside offence

A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:

• interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or
• interfering with an opponent by:
• preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
• challenging an opponent for the ball or
• clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
• making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball...

The attacker was 8 yards or whatever, offside when his team mate hit the ball towards him, and he should have been penalised on becoming actively involved by challenging Mings for the ball. It's there in black and white, Right? That's what I thought, but, well no. Because clarification  for this year says (pdf)

Quote

A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball ...is not considered to have gained an advantage

So them's the (daft) rules.

[turvontour]

45 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Why does he need to head the ball and give the ball back to City?

The fact that Mings needs to apparently change his action from controlling it to heading it away (therefore giving city the advantage) demonstrates exactly why it's offside!

As for 'dwelling on the ball' 

He chests it down without a single legal City player anywhere near him, and his 2nd touch is the tackle by Rodri (who's offside) 

Beggars belief how anyone can pin this on Mings at all

You've just summarised all of the issues perfectly.

[blandy]

38 minutes ago, Okonokos said:

 

*Start from 13 seconds*

Dear FA/VAR/Premier League,

I see the bull shit you're spouting about the goal standing because it was a new phase of play after Mings touched the ball. Would you then care to explain why this goal was disallowed last season? Surely when the ball was cleared it became a so called "new phase of play" and should have been onside?

Or is that you're just a bunch of inept, clueless, corrupt Representatives for Wellingborough?

Cheers.

I can answer that in the build up, the ball was passed to and received by Wesley who was actively offside. The officials missed it. On receiving it in the build up, Wesley committed a foul by being actively offside. VAR saw that and correctly disallowed the goal for a foul (offside) in the build up.

Last night, the laws say that because the City player in an offside position received the ball from an opponent who deliberately played the ball he is not considered to have gained an advantage and so is not offside.

It's a crap rule, but it's true.

[StefanAVFC]

4 minutes ago, blandy said:

Here's the Law from the FA website

The attacker was 8 yards or whatever, offside when his team mate hit the ball towards him, and he should have been penalised on becoming actively involved by challenging Mings for the ball. It's there in black and white, Right? That's what I thought, but, well no. Because clarification  for this year says (pdf)

So them's the (daft) rules.

At which point does Rodri 'receive' the ball from Mings though?

That's making the word receive mean something it doesn't.

Just now, blandy said:

Last night, the laws say that because the City player in an offside position received the ball from an opponent who deliberately played the ball he is not considered to have gained an advantage and so is not offside.

It's a crap rule, but it's true.

Again, just the like the pundits and the media, you're quoting something without actually questioning what it says.

This law quite clearly means situations where the defender passes, heads, whatever's the ball to a player stood offside. Not when the offside player comes back and tackles him. In what way does the word 'receive' cover Rodri's actions here?

I'm sorry to be blunt, but I've seen this exact wording at least a hundred times since yesterday and it's a load of bollocks. It's absolutely the PGMOL pulling the wool over everyone's eyes and people swallowing it without displaying a sliver of critical thought.

Edited January 21, 2021 by StefanAVFC

[Five Ken McNaughts]

Rodri never receives the ball from Tyrone Mings.

He dispossesses him.

[Okonokos]

5 minutes ago, blandy said:

Here's the Law from the FA website

The attacker was 8 yards or whatever, offside when his team mate hit the ball towards him, and he should have been penalised on becoming actively involved by challenging Mings for the ball. It's there in black and white, Right? That's what I thought, but, well no. Because clarification  for this year says (pdf)

So them's the (daft) rules.

Rodri took the ball from Mings. He didn't receive it.

[blandy]

1 minute ago, StefanAVFC said:

At which point does Rodri 'receive' the ball from Mings though?

That's making the word receive mean something it doesn't.

He "receives" it when he takes it from his toes (in the eyes of the officials).

[Tommo_b]

56 minutes ago, onmeedson said:

Maybe the tight margin is decision making if mings just heads the ball we do not enter the ref's world, do the simple things, two years ago this would be john stones dwelling on the ball.

Didn’t dwell on it in the slightest, have you watched the replays?

[StefanAVFC]

Just now, blandy said:

He "receives" it when he takes it from his toes (in the eyes of the officials).

Come off it mate. You're an intelligent person, the word receive cannot be extended in any capacity to a tackle.

[blandy]

1 minute ago, Okonokos said:

Rodri took the ball from Mings. He didn't receive it.

That might be your (and my) interpretation, the refs apparently have a different interpretation. I'd suggest they wrote the clarification to the laws a couple of years or so back, to cover where a through ball is glanced by a defender (deliberately trying to clear it) and it still ends up at the feet of an attacker, and they didn't consider the situation that actually arose last night when they did that. 

[Tommo_b]

6 minutes ago, blandy said:

I can answer that in the build up, the ball was passed to and received by Wesley who was actively offside. The officials missed it. On receiving it in the build up, Wesley committed a foul by being actively offside. VAR saw that and correctly disallowed the goal for a foul (offside) in the build up.

Last night, the laws say that because the City player in an offside position received the ball from an opponent who deliberately played the ball he is not considered to have gained an advantage and so is not offside.

It's a crap rule, but it's true.

He didn’t receive it tho, tackled him!

[StefanAVFC]

At the end of the day, if the lino flags, it's offside and never spoken of again. He chooses not to flag and there's a mighty shitstorm.

That shows, in isolation, that something went truly wrong.

[blandy]

2 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Come off it mate. You're an intelligent person, the word receive cannot be extended in any capacity to a tackle.

I'm trying to put across what the Refs/PGMOL are using as their justification, and quoting from the FA's laws etc. As I posted above, I think it's daft (I'm obviously biased towards "it should have been disallowed", though had the decision gone for us if the roles were reversed, I'd maybe argue that it was all OK )

. 

[StefanAVFC]

1 minute ago, blandy said:

I'm trying to put across what the Refs/PGMOL are using as their justification, and quoting from the FA's laws etc. As I posted above, I think it's daft (I'm obviously biased towards "it should have been disallowed", though had the decision gone for us if the roles were reversed, I'd maybe argue that it was all OK )

. 

I'd be pissing myself if that was given for us and we scored, because it's so blatantly offside and I'd be just as pissed off that the PGMOL are rewriting the English dictionary to defend one of their poorest refs.

It's flat out Trumpian Blandy.

[Okonokos]

4 minutes ago, blandy said:

That might be your (and my) interpretation, the refs apparently have a different interpretation. I'd suggest they wrote the clarification to the laws a couple of years or so back, to cover where a through ball is glanced by a defender (deliberately trying to clear it) and it still ends up at the feet of an attacker, and they didn't consider the situation that actually arose last night when they did that. 

Basically, in summary they're either completely and utterly inept or corrupt then.

[tom_avfc]

Just now, blandy said:

I'm trying to put across what the Refs/PGMOL are using as their justification, and quoting from the FA's laws etc. As I posted above, I think it's daft (I'm obviously biased towards "it should have been disallowed", though had the decision gone for us if the roles were reversed, I'd maybe argue that it was all OK )

. 

To be fair its pretty ridiculous that anybody is even discussing the ins and outs of this. Its offside and it always has been. There's absolutely no way of spinning the rules to suggest that the goal should stand. How can you interpret the word receive to mean something completely different to what it actually means?

I heard Dermot Gallagher refer to it as a loophole in the rules on Sky today. Are we seriously happy with loopholes being found in rules rather than applying the smallest bit of common sense. In reality the decision is dreadful and everybody knows it. The PGMOL are the ones looking for any potential loopholes in the rules to justify the decision and to be honest the one that they have found doesn't really hold up.

With regards to arguing that it was OK if the roles were reversed I think that is a major issue of all of this. How would anybody (even the most ardent of Man City fans) be happy with this inaccurate interpretation of the rules of the game? It felt wrong to everybody watching at the time because it is wrong. We see these offsides given every time including one in the Juventus game on the very same evening.

[John]

Ally McCoist sounded like many of us felt after the game on Alan Brazil's show, on Talksport this morning (07.25 - 08.37 below):

https://talksport.com/radio/listen-again/1611208800/

They spoke again about the incident and about the sending off, with ex-ref Mark Halsey (05.20-15.15):

https://talksport.com/radio/listen-again/1611208800/1611210600/

Talksport - Talking sense for once!