Ratings & Reactions: Man City v Villa

[TRO]

59 minutes ago, robby b said:

To sum up: Rodri took the ball from Mings, he didn't "receive" the ball from Mings.

Well done Sky and the BBC for not mentioning this at all in any of their post-match analysis. Grrrrrrr.   The verb receive is different from the verb take !

but they are not interested in the answer you and me want.

[Villa94]

anyone still fuming about wednesday night..........i still am ?

[turvontour]

51 minutes ago, Villa94 said:

anyone still fuming about wednesday night..........i still am ?

Haha ye I am.

I still havent worked out in my head why Mings is not allowed to retain possession of the ball when there is a player offside behind him. All of these pundits saying he should just get rid, head it away, put it in row Z. It gives the advantage to Man City when it should be a Villa free kick.

[StefanAVFC]

2 minutes ago, turvontour said:

Haha ye I am.

I still havent worked out in my head why Mings is not allowed to retain possession of the ball when there is a player offside behind him. All of these pundits saying he should just get rid, head it away, put it in row Z. It gives the advantage to Man City when it should be a Villa free kick.

If he heads it away, Rodri is probably called offside which is even more stupid. 

[Villa94]

what i dont get is that they are saying when mings plays the ball it makes rodri not off side........but when he chests it rodri is still behind him in an “offside position” ??? crazy ?

[Five Ken McNaughts]

2 hours ago, Villa94 said:

anyone still fuming about wednesday night..........i still am ?

Yep. Big time. Still simmering here.

In fact, it is one of those situations that is making me think I should really stop caring so much about this stuff and focus on the things I can control in life. But until then...

I don’t think anyone at the Premier League has any idea of the officiating chaos they have just unleashed. The hand grenade they have just lobbed towards amateur refs up and down the country trying to keep control of junior and Sunday League football (when it returns). The PL, PGMOL and all their media mouthpieces may see themselves as demi-gods, but you can’t just redefine “RECEIVING the ball” in Law 11 to include “TAKING the ball” and expect everything to carry on as normal.

I mean, just picture the classic scenario that we have all seen a million times - a striker makes his run too soon, a midfielder plays the through-ball too late, a defender intercepts... Prior to Wednesday, we were able to say exactly what happens next - the striker jogs to a halt, maybe has a whinge at his teammate, and the defender looks up for where to play the pass.

Well, not any more, apparently.

According to the new interpretation... magicked into life for the sole purpose of allowing a dodgy goal then backed up and approved in all official quarters... that totally offside striker can turn around, hook the ball away from the defender, run on and score. W....T....F???? Has everyone taken leave of their senses???

Imagine the reaction to that happening in a packed stadium rather than in front of cavernous empty stands. All hell would break loose! As indeed it will for every poor Sunday League ref no matter what version of the law they now enforce (the one used in every scenario prior to Wednesday or the new “stated case”). Either way, they’ll get it in the neck from one touchline or the other.

In fact, let’s take this to its natural conclusion. There is no need for a striker to EVER come back onside. Literally! Any pacy striker can simply prowl up and down at the defenders’ backs, waiting for anyone to take a touch, then swoop over their shoulder, nick the ball and they’re away. Where’s the offence? Now there is none! The defender has “played the ball” (now meaning controlled) and the striker has “received the ball” (now meaning taken). God almighty,. What fresh madness is this??

As for the argument, if it can even be made, that this nonsense is how the offside law was always meant to be interpreted, well, there are two perfectly simple ripostes to that:

1. Where were all these voices that now agree with the “Rodri interpretation” on the 57 trillion occasions when a player in that situation was flagged offisde? (Answer: Nowhere).

2. Do you really think that a governing body that has made numerous rule tweaks to encourage a passing game (goalies having to play backpasses with their feet, goal kicks allowed to be taken short inside the box...) would want some law that means every defender now has to welly the ball with their first touch to avoid being mugged? (Answer: Nope)

Honestly, we are only at the beginning of this new mayhem. I would go so far as to say that in order to avoid saying “we made a mistake” on Wednesday... (Google translate: “We wanted our global market show ponies to score”)... the football authorities have near enough invented a new sport.

My only consolation is that every gloating Man City fan and controlled ex-ref that has been rubbing Villa’s noses in it for the past 48 hours (for “not knowing” a law that was invented after 78 minutes of Villa’s 16th game of the 20/21 season) has made a massive rod for their own back. It will come back to haunt them. Me, I am happy to be one of those whose position was clear from the outset: That decision is NOT justifiable in the written laws of the game / You cannot tell me words mean the OPPOSITE of what they do when it suits you / It’s all BOL**CKS.   

[kidlewis]

Still livid. 
 

their interpretation is, Mings made a deliberate act towards the ball, a new phase ensued and therefore no offside.

 

now can anyone explain why the following is now NOT onside.

 

Watkins goal hangs offside by miles. McGinn slams the ball at the keeper, he smothers the ball and it spills out to Watkins.

he taps it in.

GOAAAAL. 
 

their interpretation now means the above is now a goal. That right?

[TRO]

1 hour ago, Five Ken McNaughts said:

Yep. Big time. Still simmering here.

In fact, it is one of those situations that is making me think I should really stop caring so much about this stuff and focus on the things I can control in life. But until then...

I don’t think anyone at the Premier League has any idea of the officiating chaos they have just unleashed. The hand grenade they have just lobbed towards amateur refs up and down the country trying to keep control of junior and Sunday League football (when it returns). The PL, PGMOL and all their media mouthpieces may see themselves as demi-gods, but you can’t just redefine “RECEIVING the ball” in Law 11 to include “TAKING the ball” and expect everything to carry on as normal.

I mean, just picture the classic scenario that we have all seen a million times - a striker makes his run too soon, a midfielder plays the through-ball too late, a defender intercepts... Prior to Wednesday, we were able to say exactly what happens next - the striker jogs to a halt, maybe has a whinge at his teammate, and the defender looks up for where to play the pass.

Well, not any more, apparently.

According to the new interpretation... magicked into life for the sole purpose of allowing a dodgy goal then backed up and approved in all official quarters... that totally offside striker can turn around, hook the ball away from the defender, run on and score. W....T....F???? Has everyone taken leave of their senses???

Imagine the reaction to that happening in a packed stadium rather than in front of cavernous empty stands. All hell would break loose! As indeed it will for every poor Sunday League ref no matter what version of the law they now enforce (the one used in every scenario prior to Wednesday or the new “stated case”). Either way, they’ll get it in the neck from one touchline or the other.

In fact, let’s take this to its natural conclusion. There is no need for a striker to EVER come back onside. Literally! Any pacy striker can simply prowl up and down at the defenders’ backs, waiting for anyone to take a touch, then swoop over their shoulder, nick the ball and they’re away. Where’s the offence? Now there is none! The defender has “played the ball” (now meaning controlled) and the striker has “received the ball” (now meaning taken). God almighty,. What fresh madness is this??

As for the argument, if it can even be made, that this nonsense is how the offside law was always meant to be interpreted, well, there are two perfectly simple ripostes to that:

1. Where were all these voices that now agree with the “Rodri interpretation” on the 57 trillion occasions when a player in that situation was flagged offisde? (Answer: Nowhere).

2. Do you really think that a governing body that has made numerous rule tweaks to encourage a passing game (goalies having to play backpasses with their feet, goal kicks allowed to be taken short inside the box...) would want some law that means every defender now has to welly the ball with their first touch to avoid being mugged? (Answer: Nope)

Honestly, we are only at the beginning of this new mayhem. I would go so far as to say that in order to avoid saying “we made a mistake” on Wednesday... (Google translate: “We wanted our global market show ponies to score”)... the football authorities have near enough invented a new sport.

My only consolation is that every gloating Man City fan and controlled ex-ref that has been rubbing Villa’s noses in it for the past 48 hours (for “not knowing” a law that was invented after 78 minutes of Villa’s 16th game of the 20/21 season) has made a massive rod for their own back. It will come back to haunt them. Me, I am happy to be one of those whose position was clear from the outset: That decision is NOT justifiable in the written laws of the game / You cannot tell me words mean the OPPOSITE of what they do when it suits you / It’s all BOL**CKS.   

if the boot was on the other foot, they would call it bringing the game in to disrepute.....they need to take a long and hard look at this rule and the true workable meaning of it.

[PaulC]

Yes the Premier League has become one big joke.  Wondering what the viewing figures are these days as Sky keep offering me deals to come back. 

[sidcow]

On 20/01/2021 at 20:03, JoshVilla said:

Seriously, if that's the way the officials see that rule then surely every team can now just keep their forwards in an offside position right at the defender's back and force them into an error?

 

Best league in the world, apparently...

I was just thinking it actually ENCOURAGES offside play doesn't it. 

[Five Ken McNaughts]

13 hours ago, kidlewis said:

Still livid. 
 

their interpretation is, Mings made a deliberate act towards the ball, a new phase ensued and therefore no offside.

 

now can anyone explain why the following is now NOT onside.

 

Watkins goal hangs offside by miles. McGinn slams the ball at the keeper, he smothers the ball and it spills out to Watkins.

he taps it in.

GOAAAAL. 
 

their interpretation now means the above is now a goal. That right?

Going by the Offside Law on the official IFAB app (which has actually been really helpful during all this – if only to prove that Rodri was indeed offside) an exception is made for a “save”. Even though it is deliberately playing the ball it does not render the attacking player onside. So that’s comforting, I guess.

On another note, the only update to the offside law in 20/21 is clearly marked by IFAB. It is something to do with how a striker can now be played onside if he receives the ball after a deliberate handball by a defender (obviously irrelevant here). 

Googling the IFAB law changes PDF for 19/20 shows there were no offside changes that season.

Doing the same for 18/19 shows just one clarification (again, irrelevant here – it says the moment a ball is “played” should be determined by the the initial point of contact with the ball, rather than the moment the ball leaves the boot / head etc.).

So, unless I’m missing something here, there has been NO LAW CHANGE in recent years that pertains to the situation on Wednesday. Yet all I am constantly hearing from the media talking heads is this stuff about the goal being allowed because of a new law or a new amendment... What new law? What new amendment?

Going by IFAB’s very own published laws and updates, all that has happened is an on the hoof re-imagining / redefining of an existing and long established law. Nope, as far as I can see this is one big con and we’re all being taken for fools.

Edited January 23, 2021 by Five Ken McNaughts

[kidlewis]

39 minutes ago, Five Ken McNaughts said:

Going by the Offside Law on the official IFAB app (which has actually been really helpful during all this – if only to prove that Rodri was indeed offside) an exception is made for a “save”. Even though it is deliberately playing the ball it does not render the attacking player onside. So that’s comforting, I guess.

On another note, the only update to the offside law in 20/21 is clearly marked by IFAB. It is something to do with how a striker can now be played onside if he receives the ball after a deliberate handball by a defender (obviously irrelevant here). 

Googling the IFAB law changes PDF for 19/20 shows there were no offside changes that season.

Doing the same for 18/19 shows just one clarification (again, irrelevant here – it says the moment a ball is “played” should be determined by the the initial point of contact with the ball, rather than the moment the ball leaves the boot / head etc.).

So, unless I’m missing something here, there has been NO LAW CHANGE in recent years that pertains to the situation on Wednesday. Yet all I am constantly hearing from the media talking heads is this stuff about the goal being allowed because of a new law or a new amendment... What new law? What new amendment?

Going by IFAB’s very own published laws and updates, all that has happened is an on the hoof re-imagining / redefining of an existing and long established law. Nope, as far as I can see this is one big magic eye trick and we’re all being taken for fools.

Thanks for clearing the save thing up.

it’s so annoying everyone has just let this go apart from us. 
 

media just shrug their shoulders and leave it. Is anyone fighting our corner or challenging those in charge at all?

obviously we can’t overturn the result but just like bloody brexit this is a case of “nah we didn’t lie, you’re just not believing in us enough”

 

[Tommo_b]

12 hours ago, Five Ken McNaughts said:

Yep. Big time. Still simmering here.

In fact, it is one of those situations that is making me think I should really stop caring so much about this stuff and focus on the things I can control in life. But until then...

I don’t think anyone at the Premier League has any idea of the officiating chaos they have just unleashed. The hand grenade they have just lobbed towards amateur refs up and down the country trying to keep control of junior and Sunday League football (when it returns). The PL, PGMOL and all their media mouthpieces may see themselves as demi-gods, but you can’t just redefine “RECEIVING the ball” in Law 11 to include “TAKING the ball” and expect everything to carry on as normal.

I mean, just picture the classic scenario that we have all seen a million times - a striker makes his run too soon, a midfielder plays the through-ball too late, a defender intercepts... Prior to Wednesday, we were able to say exactly what happens next - the striker jogs to a halt, maybe has a whinge at his teammate, and the defender looks up for where to play the pass.

Well, not any more, apparently.

According to the new interpretation... magicked into life for the sole purpose of allowing a dodgy goal then backed up and approved in all official quarters... that totally offside striker can turn around, hook the ball away from the defender, run on and score. W....T....F???? Has everyone taken leave of their senses???

Imagine the reaction to that happening in a packed stadium rather than in front of cavernous empty stands. All hell would break loose! As indeed it will for every poor Sunday League ref no matter what version of the law they now enforce (the one used in every scenario prior to Wednesday or the new “stated case”). Either way, they’ll get it in the neck from one touchline or the other.

In fact, let’s take this to its natural conclusion. There is no need for a striker to EVER come back onside. Literally! Any pacy striker can simply prowl up and down at the defenders’ backs, waiting for anyone to take a touch, then swoop over their shoulder, nick the ball and they’re away. Where’s the offence? Now there is none! The defender has “played the ball” (now meaning controlled) and the striker has “received the ball” (now meaning taken). God almighty,. What fresh madness is this??

As for the argument, if it can even be made, that this nonsense is how the offside law was always meant to be interpreted, well, there are two perfectly simple ripostes to that:

1. Where were all these voices that now agree with the “Rodri interpretation” on the 57 trillion occasions when a player in that situation was flagged offisde? (Answer: Nowhere).

2. Do you really think that a governing body that has made numerous rule tweaks to encourage a passing game (goalies having to play backpasses with their feet, goal kicks allowed to be taken short inside the box...) would want some law that means every defender now has to welly the ball with their first touch to avoid being mugged? (Answer: Nope)

Honestly, we are only at the beginning of this new mayhem. I would go so far as to say that in order to avoid saying “we made a mistake” on Wednesday... (Google translate: “We wanted our global market show ponies to score”)... the football authorities have near enough invented a new sport.

My only consolation is that every gloating Man City fan and controlled ex-ref that has been rubbing Villa’s noses in it for the past 48 hours (for “not knowing” a law that was invented after 78 minutes of Villa’s 16th game of the 20/21 season) has made a massive rod for their own back. It will come back to haunt them. Me, I am happy to be one of those whose position was clear from the outset: That decision is NOT justifiable in the written laws of the game / You cannot tell me words mean the OPPOSITE of what they do when it suits you / It’s all BOL**CKS.   

Well this needs to be sent to the football associations and refereeing bodies, how spot on was that!

[Phil Silvers]

9 hours ago, Five Ken McNaughts said:

Going by the Offside Law on the official IFAB app (which has actually been really helpful during all this – if only to prove that Rodri was indeed offside) an exception is made for a “save”. Even though it is deliberately playing the ball it does not render the attacking player onside. So that’s comforting, I guess.

On another note, the only update to the offside law in 20/21 is clearly marked by IFAB. It is something to do with how a striker can now be played onside if he receives the ball after a deliberate handball by a defender (obviously irrelevant here). 

Googling the IFAB law changes PDF for 19/20 shows there were no offside changes that season.

Doing the same for 18/19 shows just one clarification (again, irrelevant here – it says the moment a ball is “played” should be determined by the the initial point of contact with the ball, rather than the moment the ball leaves the boot / head etc.).

So, unless I’m missing something here, there has been NO LAW CHANGE in recent years that pertains to the situation on Wednesday. Yet all I am constantly hearing from the media talking heads is this stuff about the goal being allowed because of a new law or a new amendment... What new law? What new amendment?

Going by IFAB’s very own published laws and updates, all that has happened is an on the hoof re-imagining / redefining of an existing and long established law. Nope, as far as I can see this is one big con and we’re all being taken for fools.

Very well said Sir

[Five Ken McNaughts]

Thanks for indulging all my howling at the moon, @kidlewis, @Tommo_b and @Phil Silvers. You have helped me get my blood pressure down a bit (in time for the Newcastle game...).

Anyway, just to put the tin lid on this campaign of misinformation that the PL and media have been running since Wednesday, I thought I would post one more time (I promise). It’s about this supposed law amendment. Some change of wording that is meant to be the official explanation for the goal. We’ve all seen it wheeled out all over the place: BT, MOTD, Sky Sports, social media...

”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.”

Now, like I said in a previous post, a quick check of IFAB updates was enough to tell me there has been no such “amendment” in recent years.

But here’s where the con gets REALLY cunning...

That phrase is part of a paragraph that CONTAINS AN UNRELATED AMENDMENT for this season. The phrase itself is not an amendment at all! And yet we are being sold the phrase as the amendment itself (AND being told the very same by every ex-ref willing to sell his integrity to the highest bidder). Amazing!

Here is a screenshot from the IFAB app to demonstrate (I tried to figure out Flickr in order to embed it here so hopefully it works):

You see? As so many people suspected, there simply is no “new” law / amendment whatever relating to the Rodri situation. None.

So if the phrase being trotted out is actually nothing new, just how long has that exact phrase (about receiving the ball / deliberately plays) been a part of Law 11? 

Well, doing nothing more complex than typing it word for word into Google, I see it in 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014... I’m sure it would carry on if I kept looking.

So there you have it. Everything we have been told since Wednesday night is nothing but a botched cover-up using the very worst of post-truth tactics. What a disgrace.

[Phil Silvers]

27 minutes ago, Five Ken McNaughts said:

Thanks for indulging all my howling at the moon, @kidlewis, @Tommo_b and @Phil Silvers. You have helped me get my blood pressure down a bit (in time for the Newcastle game...).

Anyway, just to put the tin lid on this campaign of misinformation that the PL and media have been running since Wednesday, I thought I would post one more time (I promise). It’s about this supposed law amendment. Some change of wording that is meant to be the official explanation for the goal. We’ve all seen it wheeled out all over the place: BT, MOTD, Sky Sports, social media...

”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.”

Now, like I said in a previous post, a quick check of IFAB updates was enough to tell me there has been no such “amendment” in recent years.

But here’s where the con gets REALLY cunning...

That phrase is part of a paragraph that CONTAINS AN UNRELATED AMENDMENT for this season. The phrase itself is not an amendment at all! And yet we are being sold the phrase as the amendment itself (AND being told the very same by every ex-ref willing to sell his integrity to the highest bidder). Amazing!

Here is a screenshot from the IFAB app to demonstrate (I tried to figure out Flickr in order to embed it here so hopefully it works):

You see? As so many people suspected, there simply is no “new” law / amendment whatever relating to the Rodri situation. None.

So if the phrase being trotted out is actually nothing new, just how long has that exact phrase (about receiving the ball / deliberately plays) been a part of Law 11? 

Well, doing nothing more complex than typing it word for word into Google, I see it in 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014... I’m sure it would carry on if I kept looking.

So there you have it. Everything we have been told since Wednesday night is nothing but a botched cover-up using the very worst of post-truth tactics. What a disgrace.

Games gone, I posted a while back that if the rules, regs, var etc etc can be made complicated and vague, then someone somewhere could be in a position to be able to manipulate results, which all sounds very much like conspiracy theory nonsense but it does seem very much like something isn't right.

[Tommo_b]

Thing is they are just hoping we all give up caring, accept the injustice and forget it ever happened and then they hope it never happens again, farcical, just wish someone in authority would call them out on this BS, Prince William... do you read this forum? 

[TRO]

13 hours ago, sidcow said:

I was just thinking it actually ENCOURAGES offside play doesn't it. 

of course it does.

[TRO]

1 hour ago, Phil Silvers said:

Games gone, I posted a while back that if the rules, regs, var etc etc can be made complicated and vague, then someone somewhere could be in a position to be able to manipulate results, which all sounds very much like conspiracy theory nonsense but it does seem very much like something isn't right.

anyone would be forgiven for thinking that.

they should apply K.I.S.S......(keep it simple, stupid.)

The rules should be simple, the game is not rocket science......There is no rational reason why they should be complicated, unless dark forces are at work.

Edited January 23, 2021 by TRO

[Phil Silvers]

15 minutes ago, TRO said:

anyone would be forgiven for thinking that.

they should apply K.I.S.S......(keep it simple, stupid.)

The rules should be simple, the game is not rocket science......There is no rational reason why they should be complicated, unless dark forces are at work.

TRO knows.

A couple of people on here this week mentioned that the big 6 (spit) meet privately, possibly with reps from media, the prem, the refs etc and that it had been arranged that some of the 6 would alternate winning honours, makes you think.

I do know one thing 100%, goals are being given by the width of a hair and that if you get a free kick the ref, whether he be 6ft 6 or 5.4, takes 10 paces ( well, 10 big ones for the 6 and 10 small ones for the rest), but seriously, the games been ruined.