Today’s Football 2020/21 Season

[PaulPowersTash]

I understand where some people come from and I've listened to the natural phase crap but Mings isn't even in control.

High ball, chests it down, then he's tackled just as it hits the ground. How that can be interpreted as under control is beyond me.

Its the defination of 'under control'.
Once he chests the ball down (a controlling action with a part of his body that is legal) it is deemed
that the ball is under control. He also took a touch with his foot.
If Rodri had not approached or tackled him he would walked or played the ball out - fully in control.
It's not like the ball bounced off him accidentally.

 

[Brisan123]

No I agree with you. I said in my original post 'I think' because i'm fully aware that it's not an indisputable fact, I just believe that the wording of the law allows this situation. I think you'd be surprised at how many players don't know the intricacies of the laws, they know the basic outlines of what you can and can't do but they don't sit there studying the rulebook, why would they? You still get pundits, players and managers giving it the 'he got the ball' or 'intentional handball' shouts even those things are completely irrelevant in the laws, it's the same thing. Again, those things come down to interpretation, what constitutes an 'unnatural position' for handball, what constitutes 'excessive force' etc. That's why we debate whether penalties, red cards etc are right literally every single week. Very few laws just have a straightforward single interpretation, they're all subjective.

All the in game laws start with " If in the opinion of the referee "

 

[Tubey]

I don't know what you're not understanding here. This situation is different because the attacker is playing the original ball. Thats the key that keeps being pointed out. The foot race is the important thing, they are racing towards the ball. In this instance the attacker is clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent, so it's offside. In last night's situation Rodri was NOT clearly attempting to play a ball which is close. He only attempted to play the ball AFTER Mings touched it, and so it's a totally different situation.

Check the Harry Kane /Liverpool example in the video above.

 

[Old Blue 2]

You havent addressed the basic point. Ive just watched it again.

He is offside as the ball is coming down from the clearance toward mings. He closes down mings at that point before mings has touched the ball. It is at that point he is offside.

When mings takes his first touch rodri is a foot away, because he saw where the ball is going and closed down (from an offside position). Before mings touches the ball.

I've addressed everything in severalposts in this thread - perhaps you haven't read them all.

It's not about the ball in the air heading towards Mings. It's about Mings controlling the ball and moving on - that is then another phase of play. At that point, Rodri is onside and quite justified in involving himself in play once again.

Mings was NOT closed down from an offside position by Rodri. I've posted this up a couple of time before, but I'll post it up again here for you.
Take a look at the position of the two full backs. The reference point is the cut of the grass just infront of Mings and Rodri. The two full backs are clearly closer to their own goal line than Rodri. Therefore Rodri is onside and able to become involved in play again. The linesman/referee's assistant is perfectly positioned to see it all, also. Perfectly valid goal.

 

[catcherintherye]

Yep, but you still need to be switched on - if you have the time find Palace's winner at OT last season, that's the flip side of pogba

But attacking players often aren't switched on defensively are they? Does anybody critically engage with Pablo Aimars defensive contribution? If he was 5 ft 7 and diminutive, he probably gets a pass.

 

[number4.]

But attacking players often aren't switched on defensively are they? Does anybody critically engage with Pablo Aimars defensive contribution? If he was 5 ft 7 and diminutive, he probably gets a pass.

possibly - but he's not; you're going to excuse duncan ferguson if he switches off defending at a corner because he is a striker.

 

[Lanolin]

Check the Harry Kane /Liverpool example in the video above.

Ok, but what point are we taking from that? I think there's an argument Kane isn't actually playing the ball there and so the decision is correct (again it's subjective but there's an argument for it) but other than that what exactly is it proving? I might be being dense but I don't really see the relevance? I'm watching it without sound so apologies if the video explains why it's relevant.

 

[Nymzee]

If you're chesting it in that position and place you're in control of the ball.

Err no, you're attempting to control the ball, a ball on your chest is not in control.

Guessing you've never actually kicked a ball in real life.

 

[Nymzee]

Its the defination of 'under control'.
Once he chests the ball down (a controlling action with a part of his body that is legal) it is deemed
that the ball is under control. He also took a touch with his foot.
If Rodri had not approached or tackled him he would walked or played the ball out - fully in control.
It's not like the ball bounced off him accidentally.

I don't believe I said that. He doesn't take a touch at all - as soon as the ball drops from the chest to his foot Rodri tackles him.

The funniest part of it all is that if that was called for offside absolutely no one would complain about it.

 

[Tubey]

Ok, but what point are we taking from that? I think there's an argument Kane isn't actually playing the ball there and so the decision is correct (again it's subjective but there's an argument for it) but other than that what exactly is it proving? I might be being dense but I don't really see the relevance? I'm watching it without sound so apologies if the video explains why it's relevant.

The point is the lunacy of it. He's offside when the ball is played, so if Lovren doesn't try to clear, the decision is offside. When he does and makes an error, he's onside.

So any defender attempting to stop a ball now is running the risk of playing an offside striker onside if they touch the ball and get it wrong.

That, as Gallagher himself says, is a "loophole" due to an incorrect interpretation of the rule. It's bonkers, clearly utterly bonkers.

 

[Tubey]

Err no, you're attempting to control the ball, a ball on your chest is not in control.

Guessing you've never actually kicked a ball in real life.

It's actually an interception. Same as clearing the ball outright would have been.

So again, if Mings heads that ball, gets it wrong and the ball goes to Rodri, according to this insane interpretation of the rule then Rodri is onside because Mings "played" it.

 

[Nymzee]

It's actually an interception. Same as clearing the ball outright would have been.

So again, if Mings heads that ball, gets it wrong and the ball goes to Rodri, according to this insane interpretation of the rule then Rodri is onside because Mings "played" it.

See to me thought if Mings heads that accidentally backwards and Rodri collects and scores I'd think that's fine because he's not pressured for the header. He is, however, pressured for the control with his foot. Like at what point between Mings chesting and Rodri tackling him was he ever in control of that football.

I mean it's obviously a legal goal by the rules it's just the rules are dumb and don't take into account common sense.

 

[JMT]

Err no, you're attempting to control the ball, a ball on your chest is not in control.

Guessing you've never actually kicked a ball in real life.

I've watched Fellaini do it for years.

 

[Nymzee]

I've watched Fellaini do it for years.

You're not in control of a ball if it's on your chest the same way you're not in control of a ball if you head it down to yourself.

Like I say, if that goal was rulled out for offside last night absolutely no one would be complaining.

 

[Goat]

You're not in control of a ball if it's on your chest the same way you're not in control of a ball if you head it down to yourself.

Like I say, if that goal was rulled out for offside last night absolutely no one would be complaining.

But according to the rules, it was a perfectly legal goal, so I'm sure people would complain, people who know the rules anyway.