Okonokos Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 1 minute ago, Paulie said: Am I wrong in thinking that we should set Ollie up at the edge of the opponents box, lob balls into the channel, and once the defender makes a touch have Ollie jump him and challenge? that is the same situation no? It really would be fascinating to see what would happen if we tried it. No reason not to give it a go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_avfc Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 22 minutes ago, villalad21 said: 2:33 into the video i thought he explained it fairly well. If by "explained it fairly well" you mean used generic phrases like "taking ownership of the ball" that aren't at all in the offside rule as written to justify a decision that everyone knows is ludicrous then yes that's a great explanation. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 9 minutes ago, Paulie said: Am I wrong in thinking that we should set Ollie up at the edge of the opponents box, lob balls into the channel, and once the defender makes a touch have Ollie jump him and challenge? that is the same situation no? I think teams will start to do that. As an attacker try and time your run, if you make it great, if you go too early, doesn't matter because you can pressure the defender and they have to clear it. Its a massive advantage to the attacking side. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bannedfromHandV Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 40 minutes ago, villalad21 said: 2:33 into the video i thought he explained it fairly well. No, you didn’t. You’ve just found an opportune moment to wind everyone up, again. Congrats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a m ole Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 40 minutes ago, DCJonah said: I think teams will start to do that. As an attacker try and time your run, if you make it great, if you go too early, doesn't matter because you can pressure the defender and they have to clear it. Its a massive advantage to the attacking side. I would immediately be looking at doing this if I were a coach, given the implication of the ruling. It’s a HUGE difference in the understanding of the spirit of the offside rule and in admitting that a defender controlling the ball negates any offside position it changes the forward/defender dynamic dramatically. You’d think if this really was the correct interpretation of the law then coaches would already be taught how to exploit and defend against this rule as part of their coaching badges and would be well aware of it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 I'm also seeing a lot of 'Mings starts a new phase when he chests it so it isn't offside' being said. If it's that simple, why isn't that the law quoted by PGMOL? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ender4 Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 2 hours ago, Okonokos said: They just changed the law for that incident last night. It was just a temporary change to assist Man Shitty who were struggling to break us down. All is back to normal now. yep, definitely the case. Whatever rule change keeps the 2 Mancs and Liverpool at the top will be applied at all times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightoffyour Posted January 21, 2021 VT Supporter Share Posted January 21, 2021 (edited) 5 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said: I'm also seeing a lot of 'Mings starts a new phase when he chests it so it isn't offside' being said. If it's that simple, why isn't that the law quoted by PGMOL? There's nothing about "phases of play" in the rules . It's just like Dermot **** Gallagher using the phrase "taking ownership of the ball". What the **** is that? He even then says Rodri can challenge for the ball, which is explicitly forbidden. The attempted justification of it by misinterpreting the rules is just baffling, but it begs the question: "why are the rules open to interpretation?" There isn't a situation in snooker when the referee can interpret potting a red to be worth 2 points. Edited January 21, 2021 by fightoffyour 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a m ole Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 Probably best we keep the rules of the game chat in other football, I just found an interesting post in a referee forum with a great example of the rule being applied correctly as must people understand it: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 Just now, fightoffyour said: There's nothing about "phases of play" in the rules . It's just like Dermot **** Gallagher using the phrase "taking ownership of the ball". What the **** is that? He even then says Rodri can challenge for the ball, which is explicitly forbidden. The attempted justification of it by misinterpreting the rules is just baffling, but i begs the question: "why are the rules open to interpretation"? There isn't a situation in snooker when the referee can interpret potting a red to be worth 2 points. Been having a discussion about it with (apparently) a ref who says that it was onside because Mings starts a new phase. I asked him why this isn't given as the official reason for onside - 'it should have been' so I asked him to find me the law that says anything about starting a new phase. Nothing so far. They're making the rules up to absolve themselves of blame. It's pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Okonokos Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 2 minutes ago, fightoffyour said: There's nothing about "phases of play" in the rules . It's just like Dermot **** Gallagher using the phrase "taking ownership of the ball". What the **** is that? He even then says Rodri can challenge for the ball, which is explicitly forbidden. The attempted justification of it by misinterpreting the rules is just baffling, but it begs the question: "why are the rules open to interpretation?" There isn't a situation in snooker when the referee can interpret potting a red to be worth 2 points. Yeah, I've looked over and over at the rules and nowhere does it say "new phase of play" or words to that effect. They're excusing the inexcusable. They have no case at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 7 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said: I'm also seeing a lot of 'Mings starts a new phase when he chests it so it isn't offside' being said. If it's that simple, why isn't that the law quoted by PGMOL? I have an idiot mate who keeps saying the same thing. I don't get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hippo Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 1 hour ago, Paulie said: Am I wrong in thinking that we should set Ollie up at the edge of the opponents box, lob balls into the channel, and once the defender makes a touch have Ollie jump him and challenge? that is the same situation no? It's a bit like "I think he got the ball" everyone pundits included - think there is a rule that is you get the ball it can not be foul. The truth is no such law exists Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 I need to stop discussing this with people, I'm getting too wound up by people making shit up to support this awful decision. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hippo Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 33 minutes ago, a m ole said: I would immediately be looking at doing this if I were a coach, given the implication of the ruling. It’s a HUGE difference in the understanding of the spirit of the offside rule and in admitting that a defender controlling the ball negates any offside position it changes the forward/defender dynamic dramatically. You’d think if this really was the correct interpretation of the law then coaches would already be taught how to exploit and defend against this rule as part of their coaching badges and would be well aware of it. It would be great if every team started doing it from now. The defender controlling the ball means the forward can't be offside. - I've heard it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hippo Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 4 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said: I need to stop discussing this with people, I'm getting too wound up by people making shit up to support this awful decision. Yep. If the ref had just missed it - I could accept that. But hiding behind "if he receives the ball" is taking the piss. MTFU - you got it wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 Just now, hippo said: Yep. If the ref had just missed it - I could accept that. But hiding behind "if he receives the ball" is taking the piss. MTFU - you got it wrong. The narrative has now switched to a new phase of a play, despite this neither being in mentioned in the laws, or any of the official channels mentioning this at all. Bonkers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rightdm00 Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 Whole bunch of pretzels being made with people trying to wave away this controversy. For me it's simple. If Mings actions are impacted by an offside player then that player is affecting play. Are we really arguing that Mings has to clear the ball because he is being pressured by a player in an offside position. How does that make any sense? Might as well bin the entire law. I can't wait for the exact same situation to be flagged offside multiple times in the next couple prem games. No way this interpretation stands otherwise you have broken the game of football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avfc1982am Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 Why the offside rule was tampered with I never know. It used to be complicated for women only. Now everyone is confused. I think even if the rule stated that the offside player couldn't interfere with play until the second opponent has received the ball activating a new phase of play this shit would never have happened. A rule allowing an offending player to then interfere in play before the ball is received by a second player activating a new phase of play is ridiculously stupid, and open to being twisted. Which is exactly what's happening. As some posters have mentioned, what they have done is open the door for this to happen more often. Total f*"#wits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 3 hours ago, Okonokos said: It really would be fascinating to see what would happen if we tried it. No reason not to give it a go. I remember when Van Nistelrooy did his offside on free kicks trick vs Bolton and Allardyce was fuming. Next game he had 3 or 4 players deliberately offside on set pieces as a response I cant find any photos just a diagram from a BBC photo but it was absolute farcical Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts