Today’s Football 2020/21 Season

[Lanolin]

Here mate: https://www.grandoldteam.com/forum/threads/today’s-football-2020-21-season.110926/page-1833#post-8435772

They ignore the second part of the rule which deals with the situation. I can only assume because they are embarrassed.

Personally I don't see how that applies. It specifically says 'in the way of ' or 'interferes with the movement towards the ball' and Rodri does neither of those things. He isn't in his way and he doesn't stop him or make it harder to get the ball, he just takes it off him after he's played the ball. I would agree with them ignoring that because I don't see how he could possibly be adjudged to have been in breach of that section of the law.

 

[Tubey]

Personally I don't see how that applies. It specifically says 'in the way of ' or 'interferes with the movement towards the ball' and Rodri does neither of those things. He isn't in his way and he doesn't stop him or make it harder to get the ball, he just takes it off him after he's played the ball. I would agree with them ignoring that because I don't see how he could possibly be adjudged to have been in breach of that section of the law.

Here's an example of why Mings touching it doesn't matter.



Imagine that ball is played through - the blue player is offside, but imagine the red player tries to block it, but makes a hash of it - he gets a touch, let's say intentionally, not a deflection - but the ball carries on running through. The red player runs back to recover, but the blue player nicks it off him, turns and scores.

Obviously, the blue player is still offside. The touch, deliberate or not, doesn't matter - he was offside when the ball was played, he gains an advantage by being offside while the ball was played to take advantage of the situation. This happens every week.

Rodri is the same. He's offside when the ball was played, he was the intended target, and it's still in the same phase of play. He's offside. The rule allows for this.

a player moving from, or standing in, an offside position is in the way of an opponent and interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the ball this is an offside offence

It was ignored by PGMOL due to the embarrassment of it. That rule will be clarified in the near future, but if they interpreted the existing rules of the game correctly, that goal is disallowed.

If that isn't the rule, then whenever a player attempts to play offside, they'd be mad to try and recover the situation, because if they then touch the ball they make the player onside. Which would be ludicrous.

 

[Chris O'Connor]

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 don't agree with the way rules are used but it's clear..

The law, however, states that it can be used to gain an unfair advantage

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

Essentially, because Tyrone Mings made an attempt to play the ball, Rodri is seen to not be gaining anything from being behind him. Peter Walton later backtracked on his opinion of the goal, stating that it was a "good goal".

To address the specific point you made about Rodri closing down Ming's before he'd touched the ball, you aren't normally given offside until you actually interfere by touching the ball, at the time Rodri touched the ball, he was deemed by the above rule to be onside.

It's a law that's taken advantage of and used to gain an advantage by purposely standing in an offside position but it's the law as it stands.

Peter Walton seemingly always agrees with every decision the prem refs make whether correct or incorrect and as with most on LFCTV (BTsport) is actually clueless himself, changing his mind was embarrassing. - Why do BT go out of their way to recruit Dumb and dumber? - They've even had Chris Foy in the past.

 

[Lanolin]

Here's an example of why Mings touching it doesn't matter.

View attachment 114881

Imagine that ball is played through - the blue player is offside, but imagine the red player tries to block it, but makes a hash of it - he gets a touch, let's say intentionally, not a deflection - but the ball carries on running through. The red player runs back to recover, but the blue player nicks it off him, turns and scores.

Obviously, the blue player is still offside. The touch, deliberate or not, doesn't matter - he was offside when the ball was played, he gains an advantage by being offside while the ball was played to take advantage of the situation. This happens every week.

Rodri is the same. He's offside when the ball was played, he was the intended target, and it's still in the same phase of play. He's offside. The rule allows for this.

a player moving from, or standing in, an offside position is in the way of an opponent and interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the ball this is an offside offence

It was ignored by PGMOL due to the embarrassment of it. That rule will be clarified in the near future, but if they interpreted the existing rules of the game correctly, that goal is disallowed.

If that isn't the rule, then whenever a player attempts to play offside, they'd be mad to try and recover the situation, because if they then touch the ball they make the player onside. Which would be ludicrous.

Nope. If the blue player wasn't attempting to receive the original ball and the defender then played it to him, he would no longer be offside. I'm not sure why you're quoting that part of the law again, it doesn't apply in this situation. The player is not in the way or interfering with the movement towards the ball. That section of the law would apply if Rodri had come back from his offside position and jumped for the ball, affecting Mings' ability to head it cleanly. In your example it would apply if the offside player ran across the line of the defender or whatever. None of the words in that section can be applied to the scenario last night as far as I can see.

I think the controversy of last night just comes from how quickly it happened. I'd be amazed if there haven't been many other instances where somebody has come back from an offside position and picked the ball up after one touch from a defender and then contributed to a goal, just not from directly behind the defender like last night.

 

[Tubey]

Nope. If the blue player wasn't attempting to receive the original ball and the defender then played it to him, he would no longer be offside. I'm not sure why you're quoting that part of the law again, it doesn't apply in this situation. The player is not in the way or interfering with the movement towards the ball. That section of the law would apply if Rodri had come back from his offside position and jumped for the ball, affecting Mings' ability to head it cleanly. In your example it would apply if the offside player ran across the line of the defender or whatever. None of the words in that section can be applied to the scenario last night as far as I can see.

I think the controversy of last night just comes from how quickly it happened. I'd be amazed if there haven't been many other instances where somebody has come back from an offside position and picked the ball up after one touch from a defender and then contributed to a goal, just not from directly behind the defender like last night.

That isn't what happened. That's covered by the rule as that would be an attempted backpass or a poor pass.

Mings doesn't do that. He simply controls the ball.

If Mings enters the second phase of play and attempts to pass the ball, Rodri is no longer offside. But that isn't what happened. What happened is akin to a through ball to Rodri, who stops, and Mings slides to intercept but gets it wrong and Rodri then nicks it off him. That's offside. It's always been offside.

 

[Tubey]

Essentially, because Tyrone Mings made an attempt to play the ball, Rodri is seen to not be gaining anything from being behind him.

If that was the rule, take it to its logical endpoint.

Any defender attempting to play offside but also attempting to clear the ball just in case would be playing a striker onside if he got the slightest touch on it.

If that was the rule, then strikers would be within their rights to recognise that being 3-4 yards offside every now and then would be an advantage. Or you could have one striker onside and a second striker offside, so if the defender misses it, the onside striker could run on, and if he gets a touch, the offside striker could run on. It'd be chaos and completely undermine the offside rule.

The rule exists as when the ball is played, if the intended target is offside, then it's offside. Rodri was the intended target. He was offside. He then, in the same phase of play, made an action towards the ball.

He's offside.

 

[Chris O'Connor]

Here's an example of why Mings touching it doesn't matter.

View attachment 114881

Imagine that ball is played through - the blue player is offside, but imagine the red player tries to block it, but makes a hash of it - he gets a touch, let's say intentionally, not a deflection - but the ball carries on running through. The red player runs back to recover, but the blue player nicks it off him, turns and scores.

Obviously, the blue player is still offside. The touch, deliberate or not, doesn't matter - he was offside when the ball was played, he gains an advantage by being offside while the ball was played to take advantage of the situation. This happens every week.

Rodri is the same. He's offside when the ball was played, he was the intended target, and it's still in the same phase of play. He's offside. The rule allows for this.

a player moving from, or standing in, an offside position is in the way of an opponent and interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the ball this is an offside offence

It was ignored by PGMOL due to the embarrassment of it. That rule will be clarified in the near future, but if they interpreted the existing rules of the game correctly, that goal is disallowed.

If that isn't the rule, then whenever a player attempts to play offside, they'd be mad to try and recover the situation, because if they then touch the ball they make the player onside. Which would be ludicrous.

In the example quoted once the opposition player touched the ball he would play the blue player onside despite the fact the blue player would have been offside had the ball run through without a red player touching it. Yes it is ludicrous but the red player leaving the ball to run through means the blue player will be offside WHEN he touches it. If the blue player chooses not to touch it but wait for a colleague then he won't be flagged

 

[Lanolin]

That isn't what happened. That's covered by the rule as that would be an attempted backpass or a poor pass.

Mings doesn't do that. He simply controls the ball.

If Mings enters the second phase of play and attempts to pass the ball, Rodri is no longer offside. But that isn't what happened. What happened is akin to a through ball to Rodri, who stops, and Mings slides to intercept but gets it wrong and Rodri then nicks it off him. That's offside. It's always been offside.

It really hasn't. And the fact that neither the officials on the pitch, those on VAR or the PGMOL agree with you suggests that you may have some unfounded confidence in your interpretation of the laws.

 

[Chris O'Connor]

If that was the rule, take it to its logical endpoint.

Any defender attempting to play offside but also attempting to clear the ball just in case would be playing a striker onside if he got the slightest touch on it.

If that was the rule, then strikers would be within their rights to recognise that being 3-4 yards offside every now and then would be an advantage. Or you could have one striker onside and a second striker offside, so if the defender misses it, the onside striker could run on, and if he gets a touch, the offside striker could run on. It'd be chaos and completely undermine the offside rule.

The rule exists as when the ball is played, if the intended target is offside, then it's offside. Rodri was the intended target. He was offside. He then, in the same phase of play, made an action towards the ball.

He's offside.

An offside player isn't flagged nowadays until he touches it, sometimes an intended target is offside but leaves it for an onside colleague to run through.

 

[Lanolin]

If that was the rule, take it to its logical endpoint.

Any defender attempting to play offside but also attempting to clear the ball just in case would be playing a striker onside if he got the slightest touch on it.

If that was the rule, then strikers would be within their rights to recognise that being 3-4 yards offside every now and then would be an advantage. Or you could have one striker onside and a second striker offside, so if the defender misses it, the onside striker could run on, and if he gets a touch, the offside striker could run on. It'd be chaos and completely undermine the offside rule.

The rule exists as when the ball is played, if the intended target is offside, then it's offside. Rodri was the intended target. He was offside. He then, in the same phase of play, made an action towards the ball.

He's offside.

This is a massive, massive, misunderstanding of the offside rule.

 

[Tubey]

It really hasn't. And the fact that neither the officials on the pitch, those on VAR or the PGMOL agree with you suggests that you may have some unfounded confidence in your interpretation of the laws.

Ok, simply answer me this. A through ball happens, striker is offside, ball comes off the chest of a defender due to a poor touch, striker comes back, nicks the ball off him and scores.

Offside, yes or no?

 

[Tubey]

In the example quoted once the opposition player touched the ball he would play the blue player onside despite the fact the blue player would have been offside had the ball run through without a red player touching it. Yes it is ludicrous but the red player leaving the ball to run through means the blue player will be offside WHEN he touches it. If the blue player chooses not to touch it but wait for a colleague then he won't be flagged

That simply isn't the rule. The moment he makes a movement to the ball he's offside.

The rule:


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

 

[Lanolin]

Ok, simply answer me this. A through ball happens, striker is offside, ball comes off the chest of a defender due to a poor touch, striker comes back, nicks the ball off him and scores.

Offside, yes or no?

It's impossible to say because it depends on the circumstances. It depends whether the player was making a play at the original ball, whether that play impacted the defender etc. You've shown a fundamental lack of understanding of how the offside rule works in your post above by mentioning the intended recipient, you're years out of date with the way you're looking at this, the offside rule isn't just a black and white situation, it depends on the situation.

 

[Tubey]

It's impossible to say because it depends on the circumstances. It depends whether the player was making a play at the original ball, whether that play impacted the defender etc. You've shown a fundamental lack of understanding of how the offside rule works in your post above by mentioning the intended recipient, you're years out of date with the way you're looking at this, the offside rule isn't just a black and white situation, it depends on the situation.

I've just described the situation. When I said "Intended Target", I mean that when that target then becomes involved in play, the offside is judged from the moment the team mate made the original pass. I worded it badly, but it was fairly clear what I was implying.

That situation I've just described is crystal clear - if a through ball is attempted, a defender gets a touch, a striker who was offside when the ball is played comes from an offside position, takes the ball and scores; is that offside, yes or no?

Because that situation happens every single week. If that isn't offside, then a defender would be insane to attempt to intercept a pass ever again just in case.

 

[Nymzee]

An offside player affects the play which results in a goal.

Just can't wrap my head around how it wasn't ruled out.

Not arsed about phases, late flags, all that nonsense it's just bonkers to me it wasn't classed as offisde.