blandy Posted January 22, 2021 Moderator Share Posted January 22, 2021 On 21/01/2021 at 00:11, StefanAVFC said: The amount of people quoting the rule verbatim from PGMOL and not reading what's exactly written To be fair, the words in black and white were used by the officials to "explain" their decision. Their (apparent) interpretation is that "receiving" the ball includes "collecting" it (i.e. nicking it of Tyrone's feet). Most supporters view is that this is not what is intended - that tackling is what he did, and that is not permitted under Law 11. TV and radio and so on have mostly taken the "clarification" from the officials and reported that. Some media have said "that's mad" and others have said "them's the rules". In other words people are reading what is written. The debate is around whether we accept the interpretation (spin) put on it by the officials - particularly around what "receiving" means, or whether we don't. Most of us think the Officials are protecting one of their own, rather than saying - "yeah, hands up, he made a mistake". You will never ever stop humans making mistakes. With refereeing it's really important to own up and accept mistakes and not repeat them. It's really important not to deny it. The lino should have flagged and the Ref should have spotted it regardless. VAR should have looked at it (if it didn't) and it shouldn't have been given (IMO). But, going on the officials statements, then it was a legitimate goal. The issue therefore is the statement is incorrect, not that people aren't reading it. I dunno if that makes sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post StefanAVFC Posted January 22, 2021 Author Popular Post Share Posted January 22, 2021 (edited) 26 minutes ago, blandy said: TV and radio and so on have mostly taken the "clarification" from the officials and reported that. Some media have said "that's mad" and others have said "them's the rules". In other words people are reading what is written. The debate is around whether we accept the interpretation (spin) put on it by the officials - particularly around what "receiving" means, or whether we don't. Most of us think the Officials are protecting one of their own, rather than saying - "yeah, hands up, he made a mistake". I'm sorry Blandy. The word 'receive' means a passive action. You cannot actively receive something. There's no wiggle room, it's black and white. If they wanted receive to also mean collect, get, obtain, whatever, then the rule would contain a word that indicates either activity or passivity. The word receive is delibrately used here, as it explains the only time an offside player is not offside. When he 'receives' the ball via 'deliberate' action ie, a back pass that's awry, or a poor back header. Again, the word deliberate here is key because if it just grazes the defender, the offside player is not offside. You read that rule and it's pretty damn obvious this is the situation that this rule is describing. They **** up during the game. Instead of admitting error (which they never do) they panicked, tried to find something in the rules that sort of passes the eye test and went with it and unfortunately, it's being lapped up. Even read verbatim by the likes of LIneker who never once thought to question that the word receive can never mean an active action. In short, people are not reading what's written. They're deliberately ignoring what's written because the PGMOL said it's ok. It would be like PGMOL saying 'he's not offside because he's wearing red', when he's actually wearing blue and everyone saying 'oh yeah! fair enough!' EDIT: This seems aimed at you. It isn't, I'm just **** irritated by it. The law they quote is completely irrelevant to the situation that occurred on Wednesday and anyone with any common sense could bloody spot that, yet everyone is letting them off. It stinks. Edited January 22, 2021 by StefanAVFC 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andym Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 1 hour ago, ChrisVillan said: It'll happen again this weekend, go the other way like it has the previous billion times it's happened, and nobody will say a word. 100%. It happened last night at the end of the Liverpool/Burnley game Long ball forward towards Chris Wood who is offside. Wood doesn't even actively challenge, lets the defender win the header, and Liverpool pickup possession. Flag goes up. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 1 hour ago, ChrisVillan said: It'll happen again this weekend, go the other way like it has the previous billion times it's happened, and nobody will say a word. 100%. very much this which will then lead to the next bit of bollocks, that he was so far offside that he had no influence on mings, which because of the nature of the slow looping ball isn't actually true, by the time that ball hits mings chest and deemed to be "controlled" which seeing as both his heels were off the floor so that tells you what PGMOL know about football, Rodri is surprisingly close to him, by the time the ball hits the floor its pretty much a 50/50 he's so far offside that he's not offside 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted January 22, 2021 Moderator Share Posted January 22, 2021 34 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said: The word 'receive' means a passive action. You cannot actively receive something. There's no wiggle room, it's black and white. For the sake of conversation, really, this is not right. If I am sent a tracked parcel by, I dunno, Amazon or whoever, and I'm out when the postie knocks on the door, he takes it back to the local post office. I then have to go and "collect" my parcel from them. I do that and then Amazon says I've received the parcel. Or If I buy a computer off ebay, and with the seller we arrange to collect the parcel half way between our two locations, then I recieve it "actively". I mention this because I used the word "collect" in my post in terms of what the refs are saying their interpretation of "receive" is. I'm with you that they're weasel words and 99% of the time the Man City player gets flagged off side (because he was, as soon as he tackled TM). But now they've used these weasel words they're gonna have to all start not flagging similar situations, or look like words removed (more so). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted January 22, 2021 Author Share Posted January 22, 2021 1 minute ago, blandy said: For the sake of conversation, really, this is not right. If I am sent a tracked parcel by, I dunno, Amazon or whoever, and I'm out when the postie knocks on the door, he takes it back to the local post office. I then have to go and "collect" my parcel from them. I do that and then Amazon says I've received the parcel. Or If I buy a computer off ebay, and with the seller we arrange to collect the parcel half way between our two locations, then I recieve it "actively". I mention this because I used the word "collect" in my post in terms of what the refs are saying their interpretation of "receive" is. I'm with you that they're weasel words and 99% of the time the Man City player gets flagged off side (because he was, as soon as he tackled TM). But now they've used these weasel words they're gonna have to all start not flagging similar situations, or look like words removed (more so). No. Example 1: Amazon sent it and you received it. They are active, you are passive. Regardless of the medium in which you collect it. Example 2: The action of the receiving it is a passive action by yourself. You may drive and meet halfway but the seller will give to you in the end. He had it, and he gave it to you. You didn't take it from him against his will. The word receive has to include some some of directional consent from the 'giving' party. Rodri couldn't have received the ball from Mings because Mings made no action towards him deliberately. Otherwise, I could steal a car and say that I received it from the owner and everything is okay. You cannot actively receive anything. it isn't possible. Even if you take any steps in between, the last step will always be passive by yourself. Much in the same way you can't passively give something. Directional language is pretty black and white. This is all very pedantic but the word receive is used in the law pretty deliberately IMO, to indicate an active pass or header or whatever towards the offside player. Not that the offside player can somehow become active and tackle somebody from behind. The fact that this is probably the first example of anything like this proves that point I would say. It isn't 'weasel words'. it's wrong. The law doesn't say what they're saying it says. It's as simple as that. As for the last point, we both know they won't stop flagging these situations. Every other time it's offside, because it's offside. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted January 22, 2021 Author Share Posted January 22, 2021 19 minutes ago, villa4europe said: very much this which will then lead to the next bit of bollocks, that he was so far offside that he had no influence on mings, which because of the nature of the slow looping ball isn't actually true, by the time that ball hits mings chest and deemed to be "controlled" which seeing as both his heels were off the floor so that tells you what PGMOL know about football, Rodri is surprisingly close to him, by the time the ball hits the floor its pretty much a 50/50 he's so far offside that he's not offside Also goes back to the point that people say Mings should have just cleared it because Rodri is near him. Okay, so the offside player is making him change the way he would normally deal with this situation, ergo influencing, ergo offside. The only solution that doesn't give City an advantage is letting it run, but no defender is letting that run. Ever. Farcical. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bannedfromHandV Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, blandy said: For the sake of conversation, really, this is not right. If I am sent a tracked parcel by, I dunno, Amazon or whoever, and I'm out when the postie knocks on the door, he takes it back to the local post office. I then have to go and "collect" my parcel from them. I do that and then Amazon says I've received the parcel. Or If I buy a computer off ebay, and with the seller we arrange to collect the parcel half way between our two locations, then I recieve it "actively". I mention this because I used the word "collect" in my post in terms of what the refs are saying their interpretation of "receive" is. I'm with you that they're weasel words and 99% of the time the Man City player gets flagged off side (because he was, as soon as he tackled TM). But now they've used these weasel words they're gonna have to all start not flagging similar situations, or look like words removed (more so). It’s not even 99% though blandy, it’s 100%. That is why this one is so hard to take (I know you know this and you’ve inadvertently fallen into being the ‘other side’ of this debate). As I’ve said previously, I hope that someone with enough will and time on their hands could go back through this season and select all the similar instances and I can guarantee that each one will have been flagged, whether it’s offside or not is not in debate, or at least shouldn’t be, as you’ve said what they should have done (and, as they have in the past at times) is come out and admitted it was an error. I’d still be pissed off but it would be better than these attempts to normalise what happened. Edited January 22, 2021 by bannedfromHandV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Shomin Geki Posted January 22, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted January 22, 2021 I must say it really pleases me that several individuals, notably Stefan and, i think, Michelsen, are not letting this one go. I whole-heartedly agree that the situation is remarkable, farcical, and ultimately quite depressing. It's almost a surprise that the 'Game is Gone' thread has not risen from its slumber. Because something very obviously wrong is going on here. As Stefan has frequently referenced it's the response to the incident that is more troubling than the incident itself. Although needless to say I was watching the whole thing with zen-like calm because the goal obviously wasn't going to stand, and obviously the silly celebrating faces of the Man City players were soon to be rendered gormless.. If you can spare me a few moments... Firstly, if this is indeed a rule, and always has been (everybody knows!) why has nobody actually seen it happen before? As opposed to the very common sight of the interfering player getting flagged as soon as he exploits his advantage? I know there have been similar incidents, but this is not an especially unique set of circumstances, so where is it? Where are the examples of ingenious strikers attempting to pull this trick, before rallying at the referee for an 'incorrect' call when they're denied? Sincerely, can anyone find footage of an exact replica of this situation? If not, why might that be? To extend this point, and hopefully underline the significance of this call, has there EVER been an example of a clear violation of the rules that has been so uniformly overlooked? Sure there are transgressions like Thierry Henry's handball against Ireland or weird flukes like the Darren Bent beachball incident, but in those instances there was no subsequent counter-factual insistence that All Was As It Should Be. Secondly, if we're truly going to be exactingly semantic about matters at hand then the Laws of the Game are absolutely jam-packed with subjective interpretation. A casual glance at the rules regarding 'Fouls and Misconduct' is replete with the likes of 'excessive force' and 'abusive gestures' that are both obviously inexact and loosely applied. What counts as a 'gesture'? What is 'excessive'? I can pretty easily imagine situations where such terminology could be used to justify ANY decision after the fact. Does the act of exerting oneself in a suddenly perilous situation, the likes of which football regularly throws up, necessitate the possibility of the players response being 'excessive'? Contrary to that, could it be argued that certain players are more deliberate and elegant and therefore less prone to 'excessive' force? Obviously there are greyer areas than others, but the principle for me is the same: The precise 'laws' of the game are a necessary, forensic detailing of very general principles. The prohibition of 'abusive gestures' refers to the importance of the good and clean spirit of the game being upheld, and the adoption of a code of responsibility of football as a mass social convention. The spectre of 'excessive force' is invoked in order to prevent injuries and to optimise elite performance. The game would be worse off if players could legally favour brute strength over technical skill, and so on. The principle stands when it comes to offside. There are forbidden spaces on the pitch one cannot gain an advantage from. A player precisely in being offside is penalised by his temporary removal from significance on the field of play. One action necessitates the other. To suggest one can take 'advantage' of a situation where one's offside placement necessarily DEMANDS you're 'disadvantaged' by being momentarily eliminated from the consequential field of play is... well, it's a nonsense. I hope that made sense. There can be no real excelling within football if the laws designed to promote excellence have no gravity. If the rules are not taken seriously it figures therefore that excellence isn't either. And excellence is how one wins games and how one achieves that most elusive of superlatives in football: glory. If such isn't a priority we have to really think about why we're here and why we care so much in the first place. So, ultimately what I find most troubling about the response is, as is unfortunately the case in much of the modern world, in the short-sighted passivity of the game's observers. One shouldn't forget the clamouring for VAR on matters such as offsides and the handball rule, before its eventual implementation. Sighs of disbelief would frequently accompany demands to 'sort out this issue once and for all'. But, as we have seen, this is not how things work. The game evolves constantly, as do the players and the world the game takes place in, and rules exist to best articulate the optimum mode of that expression. In drably regurgitating the official line and foregoing any real sense of inquisitiveness or discussion, those who are in many ways guardians of the game have chosen, contrary to their postures and platitudes, to recuse themselves of any serious involvement in holding the game to account, of offering a space for constructive debate, and in the pursuit of conscientious involvement with the development of the game. Let the Big Boys sort it out. A responsible and keen engagement from 'the football community' carefully sculpts the game towards more progressive horizons. That applies to ethics, to money, to technical matters, to the wellbeing of players and fans alike and so on. These are all vital considerations for the future rude health of the game and their effective dismissal should be a real cause for concern. TLDR: This is why we can't have pretty things. 7 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyblade Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Silvers Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 18 minutes ago, Keyblade said: Ha, just came on to post same, you literally cannot make it up, its becoming blatant too, games gone. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
penguin Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 The partisan nature of football fans are a huge reason of why they will continue to get away with not being held up to any real scrutiny imo. People only real care is when it negatively effects their side and when it happens in your favour or even neutrally there’s always an air of “yeah well we’ve had x happen” or “that evens it up from x” - And Im sure us collectively are just as guilty of this. Something needs to change but it feels a little like trying to put the genie back in the bottle now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 That is literally what the law is for He can't be offside because it was the city player passing it back 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkyvilla Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 Even the fact they didn't bother checking our first goal tonight because the defender tried to clear it is ridiculous, what's he supposed to do, have eyes in the back of his head to judge whether Watkins is offside and so decide not to go for it? He would look a right idiot if he just left it and Watkins turned out to be onside anyway. They've truly **** this up like everything else. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 If Watkins was behind the ball then it's a no brainer If they're saying no offside because schar played the ball then hand on heart that's genuinely worse than our decision vs Man City 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted January 23, 2021 Author Share Posted January 23, 2021 Yeah I would have given our first goal offside tbh. watkins was offside and influences Schar who makes a mess of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hornso Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 It wasn’t offside because Watkins was behind the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted January 23, 2021 Author Share Posted January 23, 2021 1 minute ago, Hornso said: It wasn’t offside because Watkins was behind the ball. I really dont think he was. Also they said they didnt even check it because Schar played it. So whether he was or not is irrelevant based on their reinvention of the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkyvilla Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 2 minutes ago, Hornso said: It wasn’t offside because Watkins was behind the ball. Even if he was offside the goal would have counted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 Schar has to play it because of Watkins That's the easiest decision imaginable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts