Today’s Football 2020/21 Season

[PaulPowersTash]

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.

I'm not talking about trapping the ball.
I am talking about guiding (hence controling) the ball with your chest in a specific direction intentionaly.
I agree. It is basic.

 

[Nymzee]

I'm not talking about trapping the ball.
I am talking about guiding (hence controling) the ball with your chest in a specific direction intentionaly.
I agree. It is basic.

But he's doing that so that he can trap and then make a play but is tackled halfway through this by an offside player.

Mings is basically being penalised for trying to play football and not just heading it away.

 

[Lanolin]

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.

Yep, that's exactly how I see it. If that had happened to us at Goodison i'd have been furious and giving the officials both barrels for the rest of the game, but looking at the laws I just don't see how you could justify disallowing it.

I think the difference with the Son one is probably to do with the desire to 'let the game flow'. I think the recent changes and the directives to refs have been with a view to not stopping the game unless it's absolutely necessary. I'm guessing that Son was deemed to have played for the original ball but the linesman didn't flag because he was giving 'advantage' to the defender who now had the ball. Once he made the tackle they've decided that there is no advantage and so he's flagged it. I'm guessing here obviously, but it fits with the way they want the game to go.

Changing the topic slightly, the whole 'let the game flow' thing is another pet hate of mine. It seems to have been forgotten/ignored that much of the time, teams don't WANT the game to flow. The respite an offside decision can bring when you're up against it can be the difference between winning and losing, and the amount of times you see 'advantage' played when there is clearly absolutely no advantage whatsoever is ridiculous. I can't remember if it was Wolves or Sheffield United but one of those games we were 1 up in the last minute and the ref gave advantage for a foul on our furthest player forward on the halfway line. Do you want to take your chances with Tom Davies breaking forward from his own half and players strewn allover the place, or do you want to waste 30 seconds setting up a free kick, get your shape back, and knock a ball into the corner? Nobody's picking option A there but 9 times out of 10 that's what refs will do.

 

[DanB90]

As soon as Mings touches that ball, Rodri is no longer offside, I don’t know about others, but that’s always been the rule as I’ve understood it.

 

[Lanolin]

But he's doing that so that he can trap and then make a play but is tackled halfway through this by an offside player.

Mings is basically being penalised for trying to play football and not just heading it away.

It's hard though isn't it, because as you say, he could have headed it away. So it's difficult to write that into the laws, that if you choose to get rid with one touch it's one thing but if you decide to dally a bit it's another. I'm just playing devil's advocate like, but I don't know how you could differentiate between those things in law, unless you impose a timeframe maybe.

 

[Nymzee]

It's hard though isn't it, because as you say, he could have headed it away. So it's difficult to write that into the laws, that if you choose to get rid with one touch it's one thing but if you decide to dally a bit it's another. I'm just playing devil's advocate like, but I don't know how you could differentiate between those things in law, unless you impose a timeframe maybe.

Yeh I think a rule change won't happen but some common sense should come into it. Just feel bad for Mings because he's not afforded the chance to do anything but head the ball away because of an offside player.

 

[Old Blue 2]

As soon as Mings touches that ball, Rodri is no longer offside, I don’t know about others, but that’s always been the rule as I’ve understood it.

I don't know whether this is the clincher, but I think it is.

It shows Mings about to play the ball with his left foot, AFTER he has chested the ball down.

Rodri can be clearly seen to now be onside - check out the position of the Villa number 2 (and Rodri has not yet touched the ball).


So: prior to any contact Rodri made with the ball, he had got himself back into an onside position. That is clear from the above. He had not obstructed or prevented Mings from getting to the ball - that is 100% true. Mings had already got to the ball and chested it down without any interference from any Man City player.

Onside. Perfectly legit goal, and what a cracker it was!

I think some people on here are getting confused with the scenario of 'Player A' playing the ball forward, and 'Player B' of the same team being in an offside postion at the moment 'Player A' plays the ball forward, but by the time 'Player B' touches it he is ostensibly 'onside'. No, at the point of the ball last being played, 'Player B' is offside. Last night, at the time the ball was last played, Rodri was onside, as evidenced by my earlier screencap, and the above.

 

[Seamus Colemole]

I don't know whether this is the clincher, but I think it is.

It shows Mings about to play the ball with his left foot, AFTER he has chested the ball down.

Rodri can be clearly seen to now be onside - check out the position of the Villa number 2.
View attachment 114894

So: prior to any contact Rodri made with the ball, he had got himself back into an onside position. That is clear from the above. He had not obstructed or prevented Mings from getting to the ball - that is 100% true. Mings had already got to the ball and chested it down without any interference from any Man City player.

Onside. Perfectly legit goal, and what a cracker it was!

If i'm reading what you're saying correctly and that you're saying that because Rodri was in an onside position when he challenged for the ball it's legal, then it doesn't matter whatsoever, he could still have made that challenge if both players were 2 yards deeper than the full backs thus still in an offside position.

There's basically 2 things to note when talking of offside :

1 : is the player in an offside position when the ball is played to him by a teammate?

2 : if he was, a foul is then committed when he becomes "active", with "active" being determined by scenarios in law 11.

A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball is not offside. It's debatable what "receiving the ball" means

Does it mean like Kane did from Lovren in the clip posted earlier, or does it cover tackling an opponent? Or both.

 

[PaulPowersTash]

I don't know whether this is the clincher, but I think it is.

It shows Mings about to play the ball with his left foot, AFTER he has chested the ball down.

Rodri can be clearly seen to now be onside - check out the position of the Villa number 2 (and Rodri has not yet touched the ball).
View attachment 114894

So: prior to any contact Rodri made with the ball, he had got himself back into an onside position. That is clear from the above. He had not obstructed or prevented Mings from getting to the ball - that is 100% true. Mings had already got to the ball and chested it down without any interference from any Man City player.

Onside. Perfectly legit goal, and what a cracker it was!

I think some people on here are getting confused with the scenario of 'Player A' playing the ball forward, and 'Player B' of the same team being in an offside postion at the moment 'Player A' plays the ball forward, but by the time 'Player B' touches it he is ostensibly 'onside'. No, at the point of the ball last being played, 'Player B' is offside. Last night, at the time the ball was last played, Rodri was onside, as evidenced by my earlier screencap, and the above.

Top post.

 

[McBain]

But did they?

Yeah no can’t think of any two Brazilian or Argentian players lauded as being head and shoulders above everyone else in the World, who’s like we’d never see again

 

[Old Blue 2]

If i'm reading what you're saying correctly and that you're saying that because Rodri was in an onside position when he challenged for the ball it's legal, then it doesn't matter whatsoever, he could still have made that challenge if both players were 2 yards deeper than the full backs thus still in an offside position.

To just concentrate on last night's game.

A player is offside (with regard to the ball being played forward to or towards him) for as long as there is not two opposition players between him and the opposition goal line. Obviously there are exceptions - a player standing wide on one touchline when the ball is played down the centre or the opposite touchline, for example.

Players (and we see this often, particularly when they go in to make the GK make a rushed clearance) move back to reach an onside position again. That is standard practise. Once they reach that onside position, they become part of normal play again, given that the ball is yet to be played again by any player (and subsequently IS played by another player). Rodri reached an onside position again last night. THEN Mings (after chesting the ball down) went to play the ball with his left foot, and he did so, but in the process was block-tackled by Rodri who, at the point of the block-tackle, was in an onside position.

I therefore see Rodri in an onside position, and the subsequent action leading to a goal perfectly in order.

 

[Sharpies volley]

As soon as Mings touches that ball, Rodri is no longer offside, I don’t know about others, but that’s always been the rule as I’ve understood it.

The very second Mings touches the ball I was always lead to believe all bets are off.

 

[Lanolin]

To just concentrate on last night's game.

A player is offside (with regard to the ball being played forward to or towards him) for as long as there is not two opposition players between him and the opposition goal line. Obviously there are exceptions - a player standing wide on one touchline when the ball is played down the centre or the opposite touchline, for example.

Players (and we see this often, particularly when they go in to make the GK make a rushed clearance) move back to reach an onside position again. That is standard practise. Once they reach that onside position, they become part of normal play again, given that the ball is yet to be played again by any player (and subsequently IS played by another player). Rodri reached an onside position again last night. THEN Mings (after chesting the ball down) went to play the ball with his left foot, and he did so, but in the process was block-tackled by Rodri who, at the point of the block-tackle, was in an onside position.

I therefore see Rodri in an onside position, and the subsequent action leading to a goal perfectly in order.

No, rodri’s position at the time of the tackle is irrelevant. What you’re talking about would apply to rugby but not football.

 

[d34noj]

To just concentrate on last night's game.

A player is offside (with regard to the ball being played forward to or towards him) for as long as there is not two opposition players between him and the opposition goal line. Obviously there are exceptions - a player standing wide on one touchline when the ball is played down the centre or the opposite touchline, for example.

Players (and we see this often, particularly when they go in to make the GK make a rushed clearance) move back to reach an onside position again. That is standard practise. Once they reach that onside position, they become part of normal play again, given that the ball is yet to be played again by any player (and subsequently IS played by another player). Rodri reached an onside position again last night. THEN Mings (after chesting the ball down) went to play the ball with his left foot, and he did so, but in the process was block-tackled by Rodri who, at the point of the block-tackle, was in an onside position.

I therefore see Rodri in an onside position, and the subsequent action leading to a goal perfectly in order.

And therein lies the end of the argument.

 

[Nymzee]

Yeah no can’t think of any two Brazilian or Argentian players lauded as being head and shoulders above everyone else in the World, who’s like we’d never see again

Maradona's goal output was nowhere near Messi & Ronaldo.

Pele's goal output has now been eclipsed even with all his domestic goals happening in Brazil and the US...