Today’s Football 2020/21 Season

[Nymzee]

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

But it doesn't seem like anyone outside of officials seem to know that rule otherwise there wouldn't be so much media discussion about if it should have been ruled out.

 

[Billy Dean]

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?

No. If a defender touches the ball into the path of the attacker, it is onside.

 

[number4.]

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.

This is the key point. Rodri doesn't receive the ball, he nicks it away. that deems what mings did or did not do irrelevant.

 

[MrGrumpy]

Can we please focus on the real scandal this season which was the ref blowing up 5 seconds before the end of the first half just as Liverpool punted the ball forward. That’s the title race right there.

Punt the ball? Punt the ball,? Mane clear controlled the ball and was brought on goal... o wait

 

[Lanolin]

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.

It's not an incorrect interpretation of the rule surely? If anything it's an incorrect wording of the rule. The way the rule is written means that the correct decision is onside. Whether that's what they intended when they drafted the laws is a totally different matter, but there's no basis in the laws as they are to disallow the goal. You could disallow it and just say 'yeah but he was offside wasn't he lads' but it wouldn't stand up in court (theoretically speaking of course). I've worked in regulation and one of the key things we always talked about when lookin at changes was the law of unintended consequences. There are almost always 'loopholes', it's virtually impossible to write laws in a way that categorically states exactly what should happen in any given circumstances.

 

[PeregrineT]

Punishing a player for attempting to play a ball rather than just letting it go and raising his hand for offsides is a bad thing for the game.

The reality is we know full well that that goal wouldnt have been allowed to stand had it been one of the other 16-17 teams in the league, and is called offsides 99% of the time.

 

[Tubey]

No. If a defender touches the ball into the path of the attacker, it is onside.

Absolutely wrong, but whatever.

 

[Billy Dean]

Punishing a player for attempting to play a ball rather than just letting it go and raising his hand for offsides is a bad thing for the game.

The reality is we know full well that that goal wouldnt have been allowed to stand had it been one of the other 16-17 teams in the league, and is called offsides 99% of the time.

Why? That's just the rules.

 

[Billy Dean]

Absolutely wrong, but whatever.

You;er right there TBF, I didnt read your post prperly lol

 

[marsh]

It will annoy Liverpool fans so I think it was a great decision, I was just hoping for a soft Man U penalty in the game after City just to get them fuming even more

 

[catcherintherye]

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.

No I'm not and I'm not sure the comparison is apt to be honest. Ferguson's MO was how aerial ability.

My point is more that because of the perceptions around his skin colour, people assume he should automatically have certain skills he may not have.

 

[Old Blue 2]

It will annoy Liverpool fans so I think it was a great decision, I was just hoping for a soft Man U penalty in the game after City just to get them fuming even more

This is the bottomline to it all, so enjoy!!! lol

 

[Seamus Colemole]

It's not an incorrect interpretation of the rule surely? If anything it's an incorrect wording of the rule. The way the rule is written means that the correct decision is onside. Whether that's what they intended when they drafted the laws is a totally different matter, but there's no basis in the laws as they are to disallow the goal. You could disallow it and just say 'yeah but he was offside wasn't he lads' but it wouldn't stand up in court (theoretically speaking of course). I've worked in regulation and one of the key things we always talked about when lookin at changes was the law of unintended consequences. There are almost always 'loopholes', it's virtually impossible to write laws in a way that categorically states exactly what should happen in any given circumstances.

Yeah pretty much this. "Gaining an advantage" means different things to the lawmakers than it does to your average fan.

It's a tricky one though, seems like everyone from fans to players to managers to ref can't agree on it. For me, from a "football expects" view, than no it shouldn't be allowed, but from a law view it should. As soon as Mings deliberately plays the ball the offside is reset meaning Rodri can become active again. But this is a loophole has existed for a while and never been closed leading to similar incidents creating similar debate.

But it is close, there is this Son incident which seems pretty identical yet he was given offside :




Plus there was an incident a few years ago involving (i think Australia) where the ball was crossed in towards an attacker stood in the middle just behind the defender in an offside position, the defender knowing he was there (but not knowing he was offside) went to head the ball clear but arsed it up and actually headed it backwards into the goal, and the goal stood. The debate was that the defender only headed it because of the player being in an offside position but because the attacker was just stood there and didnt become active it was allowed.

 

[PaulPowersTash]

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.

So when a player chests the ball in for a goal he's not in control?

 

[Nymzee]

So when a player chests the ball in for a goal he's not in control?

You're contacting a ball.

If you chest a ball down to the ground to then trap, and it's halfway down to the ground, you're not in control of a football. It's basic.