Jump to content
IGNORED

Football thread 2022/23

Naysonymous

By Naysonymous
in Sport

 Share

Recommended Posts

Stopharage

Stopharage

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Chooch said:

I’m not sure kudos is deserved for showing Lampard up. 

I dunno, for a game in which a draw would probably be seen as a decent away result, Jones did make a number of attacking tactical changes which potentially opened them up a bit at the back. 

 

Been far more entertaining than Leicester's performance this afternoon. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hamus

Hamus

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Dark Soldier said:

Great day of football all round, but a sad sight seeing The Greatest Premier League Manager Ever™ being found out.

 

I don't think Lampard is that good?!

1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
feltmonkey

feltmonkey

Posted
Posted

Regarding Fernandes' goal, here's the offside law as it currently stands, regarding the nebulous concept of "interfering with play" - 

 

Quote

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

 

 

So, he didn't touch the ball.  He didn't prevent an opponent from playing the ball.  He didn't challenge for the ball.  He didn't attempt to play the ball.  He didn't make an obvious action that impacted an opponent's ability to play the ball.  

 

As the law stands, it was a goal.  You can complain that the law is wrong, but you can't argue that it should have been disallowed based on the current laws.  Where the controversy comes in is that to the average football fan, and particularly those who have any form of bias against the team that scored, it feels offside.  So we either adjust the laws in order to fit with this or we get used to it.  I think there are areas where the offside law needs to change, but I personally think this part is fine.  It's been like this for years, and we fairly often get situations where a player is offside but leaves the ball and another player who is running through gets onto the ball and has a chance.  Some teams do it deliberately and defences are aware of the tactic.  It happens several times a season and never before has there been quite such a fuss.  That's the Manchester United effect, I guess.  

 

 

1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
layten

layten

Posted
Posted

Not being able to see Rashford impacting on the keeper is Wenger levels of Myopia. Just another shit VAR decisions, just they are not usually quite so obvious. :lol: 

 

Also, not my TV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ryodi

ryodi

Posted
Posted
42 minutes ago, feltmonkey said:

Regarding Fernandes' goal, here's the offside law as it currently stands, regarding the nebulous concept of "interfering with play" - 

 

 

So, he didn't touch the ball.  He didn't prevent an opponent from playing the ball.  He didn't challenge for the ball.  He didn't attempt to play the ball.  He didn't make an obvious action that impacted an opponent's ability to play the ball.  

 

As the law stands, it was a goal.  You can complain that the law is wrong, but you can't argue that it should have been disallowed based on the current laws.  Where the controversy comes in is that to the average football fan, and particularly those who have any form of bias against the team that scored, it feels offside.  So we either adjust the laws in order to fit with this or we get used to it.  I think there are areas where the offside law needs to change, but I personally think this part is fine.  It's been like this for years, and we fairly often get situations where a player is offside but leaves the ball and another player who is running through gets onto the ball and has a chance.  Some teams do it deliberately and defences are aware of the tactic.  It happens several times a season and never before has there been quite such a fuss.  That's the Manchester United effect, I guess.  

 

 


So if the situation happens again the City defender needs to foul Rashford to get the offside because he’ll then be stopping the City defender getting the ball and it will actually be offside, 

1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DirkCrisis

DirkCrisis

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Orion said:

Is it @nakamura who is the big fan of Japanese football. I think he took his name from Shunsuke Nakamura. Wanted to ask about Mitoma at Brighton. He looks one hell of a talent. Does he have alot of hype in Japan ?

I can tell you he has a lot of hype at Brighton. Apparently he was playing for university teams 3 or 4 years ago. Electric down that wing but terrible at pens for Japan although to be fair the entire Japanese team seemed terrible at pens.

 

Anyway, we have a spare Trossard going if anyone needs someone desperate to go to a big club.

1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
spork

spork

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, ryodi said:


So if the situation happens again the City defender needs to foul Rashford to get the offside because he’ll then be stopping the City defender getting the ball and it will actually be offside, 

Sure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
feltmonkey

feltmonkey

Posted
Posted

If you're arguing that the law is wrong, I can see that. I personally kind of like it the way it is and always have done*. However the fact is that for it to be offside, Rashford would have had to either play the ball, physically impeded a defender from getting to the ball (just being in the general vicinity does not constitute impeding him), attempted to play the ball, or challenged for the ball. Or, weirdly as @ryodi pointed out, been fouled. He didn't do any of that, so by the letter of the law it's a goal. There's no question.  Being in proximity to the ball does not automatically constitute interfering with play now. I can absolutely understand why people think it shouldn't stand, but they're technically wrong. The best kind of wrong.  I'm a massive nerd about the laws of the game, and seem to find myself checking minutiae every other game.

 

*The reason I like this part of the law is that you avoid the situations where a goal is disallowed because someone strayed offside miles away from the ball, even though they weren't involved in the play at all. You used to get goals disallowed like this, and the upshot was that it needlessly took goals away from the game. Goals are the best bit of football. Disallowing someone's 20-yard belter because his teammate was watching it from an offside position does not serve football well. Brian Clough's quote, "if he wasn't interfering with play then what the hell was he doing on the pitch?" is a great soundbite but a poor starting point for creating laws.

3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BitterToad

BitterToad

Posted
Posted

It is so funny watching United fans talk themselves round in circles like they wouldn’t be absolutely incandescent if city had won with that goal. He is CLEARLY interfering with play and the goal should obviously have been given offside. I’m personally glad it wasn’t because City are a boringly perfect team backed by an awful regime. 
 

It’s fine to say “it should have been offside but I’m glad it wasn’t and a wins a win.” 

9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.

  I accept