Football thread 2022/23

[PaB]

I mean it’s offside all day long. But. As a compete neutral, Anything that  widens the gap between the single most unlikable, entitled  fans ever to walk the earth* and the title is s a good thing. 
 

*for the avoidance of doubt , that means Liverpool, but then everyone except liverpool fans already knew that. 

[feltmonkey]

10 minutes ago, BitterToad said:

He is CLEARLY interfering with play 

 

Maybe in the plain English definition of the phrase, but as I keep pointing out, NOT by the clear, very specific definition in the law.

 

Argue that the law is wrong, you'll be on far less shaky ground.

[Chindie]

That not being given as offside is absurd.

 

I say that as someone who would feel the only good result of that match would be if a mini-nuke went off in Old Trafford at kick off.

[feltmonkey]

I am wasting my time here.  

[Timmo]

If you're going to go into the minutae of the law to try and justify that being the right decision, then the only thing that proves is that it hasn't been written well enough. There's no way the makers of the law would ever have intended that to be a goal, and there's also no way that the ref and his assistant would have given the goal if they'd seen a replay of it.

 

They fucked up.

[Orion]

31 minutes ago, PaB said:

the single most unlikable, entitled  fans ever to walk the earth

 

Did you somehow miss those decades of Alex Ferguson's ManU?  

[spork]

Just now, Orion said:

 

Did you miss those two decades of Alex Ferguson's ManU?  

Haha yeah, Liverpool fans were extra bad during that time as they never shut up about Man Utd!

[feltmonkey]

15 minutes ago, Timmo said:

If you're going to go into the minutae of the law to try and justify that being the right decision, 

 

If you mean the letter of the law then yes of course that's the justification! That's literally all we have to go on. It's all any of of us have to go on.

 

Quote

then the only thing that proves is that it hasn't been written well enough.

 

Okay, this is worthy of debate. I think the laws have been written that way for a reason, and I gave my opinion on that a few posts ago.

 

Quote

There's no way the makers of the law would ever have intended that to be a goal,

 

So we're getting into rules as written vs rules as intended now? This is giving me flashbacks to Warhammer games. In that setting, I'm very much a rules as intended guy, but it's notable that in tournaments when there's actual money on the line it's always rules as written. The Premier League is arguably even more serious than Warhammer tournaments.

 

Quote

and there's also no way that the ref and his assistant would have given the goal if they'd seen a replay of it.

 

A qualified ref of similar ability to Stuart Atwell (I know, I know, but we have to work with what we have) did look at a replay, and concluded that technically - technically - Rashford was not offside.

 

I don't care as much as it probably appears I do. The goal stood, it felt wrong but was technically the correct decision, it certainly isn't going to change now. I just genuinely enjoy debating the details of football decisions. I'm that kind of pervert.

[glb]

50 minutes ago, PaB said:

I mean it’s offside all day long. But. As a compete neutral, Anything that  widens the gap between the single most unlikable, entitled  fans ever to walk the earth* and the title is s a good thing. 
 

*for the avoidance of doubt , that means Liverpool, but then everyone except liverpool fans already knew that. 

Shite and ninth and we’re still boiling piss

[Chindie]

If the law is interpreted to allow that to not be offside, the laws wrong.

 

The ball is played to him, and he's offside. Although he doesn't touch the ball, he is 'playing' it - he's shaping to control it as he sprints, he is the focus of the play, he's in possession of the ball in essence, he even shapes to shoot - and the defence is reacting to him. Every fan would look at that and say he's offside.

 

Offside is one of those rules that's been tinkered with so much that it's lost sight of of the intention of the rule and made it so complicated it's become something different.

[Stopharage]

Away from the offside debate, it’s great to see Rashford in such super form. To have the strength of character to deal with all the shit and responsibility that is thrown his way is pretty remarkable. 
 

Supremely talented player. To have the speed of thought (and feet) to chase and then leave the ball that Fernandes hit for the equaliser shows his footballing intelligence. 
 

Whilst the likes of poisonous twats like Andrew Tate abound, Rashford remains a wonderful role model and testament to what hard work, a kind heart and proper talent can bring you. 

[bradigor]

Up in Liverpool for the weekend and the Everton situation is bad. Even on the bus from town to Prescot they were toxic in the way they spoke about things. This was at like 1PM before the game too. 

 

We had to go through Anfield early evening and there was still loads of then around kicking off 

[Fry Crayola]

9 hours ago, feltmonkey said:

So we're getting into rules as written vs rules as intended now

 

"The law as it's written" is a nice line of argument, but it doesn't hold up as strongly when the various bodies keep introducing guidance as to how it's to be interpreted without changing the written rule itself.

 

Whether you treat the letter of the law, the interpretation, or this specific outcome, people are arguing that they don't like the end result because it just doesn't seem in the spirit of the game. When people say "that shouldn't be allowed to stand", rules lawyering only tackles half of the argument.

 

I appreciate your position on this is merely debating whether or not the refs made the legally correct decision.

 

I do like that it shows that despite the best wishes of the powers that be, you can't remove subjectivity from the laws. It's a losing battle.

[feltmonkey]

16 minutes ago, Fry Crayola said:

 

"The law as it's written" is a nice line of argument, but it doesn't hold up as strongly when the various bodies keep introducing guidance as to how it's to be interpreted without changing the written rule itself.

 

Whether you treat the letter of the law, the interpretation, or this specific outcome, people are arguing that they don't like the end result because it just doesn't seem in the spirit of the game. When people say "that shouldn't be allowed to stand", rules lawyering only tackles half of the argument.

 

I appreciate your position on this is merely debating whether or not the refs made the legally correct decision.

 

I do like that it shows that despite the best wishes of the powers that be, you can't remove subjectivity from the laws. It's a losing battle.

 

Yeah, I agree as it happens. I don't think there has been any guidelines on interpretation regarding interfering with play, but I bet as a result of this goal, there will be soon. City are a powerful lobbying group in football. They may not have any fans, but they have all the money in the world. I can see the law changing, which I think is a shame as I like it as it is.

 

My preference for the law as it is probably does come from my own bias, both as a fan of the team who benefitted yesterday, and as a former striker in my playing days who had a bunch of my goals disallowed because someone was standing in an offside position out on the wing as I shot. I always hated the interpretation that if anyone on the pitch was in an offside position then it's offside. That hasn't been the law for a long time, and there has basically always been some version of "interfering in play" but at the much lower level I played, linesmen always disregarded that part of the law. It was infuriating. Part of the problem was that the linesman was quite often one of the opposition's subs.  We also didn't have VAR. Or corner flags most of the time.

[stephen129]

How are you supposed to play an offside trap with this rule? 

 

Your defensive line pushes forward to say the trap, the opposition striker is caught offside. He continues his run towards goal, as the ball is played to him he does a stepover. Meanwhile the attacking midfielder who has also made a run, this time deeper, from an onside position, picks up the ball and goes on to score the one on one with the keeper. 

 

Is that allowed?

[Art Vandelay]

8 minutes ago, stephen129 said:

How are you supposed to play an offside trap with this rule? 

 

Your defensive line pushes forward to say the trap, the opposition striker is caught offside. He continues his run towards goal, as the ball is played to him he does a stepover. Meanwhile the attacking midfielder who has also made a run, this time deeper, from an onside position, picks up the ball and goes on to score the one on one with the keeper. 

 

Is that allowed?

What ground is this hypothetical being played at?

[ryodi]

8 minutes ago, stephen129 said:

Is that allowed?

 

Yes because the striker doesn't touch it. Of course situations happen like this all the time but usually the player in the offside position only takes a couple of steps towards the ball before leaving it for the onside player whereas in this case Rashford was following the ball for decent amount of time before leaving it to Fernandes. 

[Boothjan]

I fucking love Julen Lopetegui. The difference he's made in such a short space of time is remarkable.

[Mike1812]

Everton fans confronting their players in the streets is pretty it of order. 

[Gabe]

I think the Rashford goal was a brilliant bit of quick thinking, but there's no doubt that Edison has changed how he came out for the ball as a result of Rashford's proximity to it (the picture above captures very well his body shape and angle in relation to the ball), and I was surprised it was given. I'm sure we've seen a fair few goals ruled out in the past couple of seasons (and perhaps even at the World Cup) where an offside player was in the eye-line of the goalkeeper, and how many times do you see an offside player motion towards going for the ball being flagged, even if an onside a teammate is also going for it.

 

I think @feltmonkey is right that because City are involved and it was a high-profile game that would've been seen around the world, it will get some discussion amongst the lawmakers of the game at the very least.

[Plissken]

I'm with @feltmonkey - the goal should have stood because that is the rule.  Now I agree that the rule needs changing, but that's the rule.  The problem I have is the ignorance of the rule from people paid to talk about the game on TV and radio, and I almost rang up 606 to point out to Chris Sutton and Robbie Savage that the goal was correct as per the rules, so they didn't need to get people on to debate whether it should have stood, and perhaps a better discussion should be how come a fan knows this and professional pundits don't but.. y'know... that would have involved phoning up 606 and talking to Chris Sutton and Robbie Savage.

[Fry Crayola]

Do you really need them to add "it's valid according to the rules, but..." before they add their opinion?

 

Or do you want their punditry to be limited to "it's legal so no complaints"?

[Plissken]

1 minute ago, Fry Crayola said:

Do you really need them to add "it's valid according to the rules, but..." before they add their opinion?

 

Or do you want their punditry to be limited to "it's legal so no complaints"?

 

Their punditry was "should the goal have stood?".

 

The absolute black and white answer is "yes".  The discussion should have been "does the rule need changing?"

 

But they weren't interested in that bit, because they were clearly ignorant of the rules.  Which is a bit of a problem for two ex-professional footballers, paid to talk about the game on a national broadcaster with all the resources behind them that entails.  It's also deliberate ignorance.

 

(I'm trying to think of the World Cup game where the pundits (on ITV, I think) were all railing against a decision, and they went to Peter Walton who explained why it was right with actual diagrams, and they just carried on anyway.)

[Fry Crayola]

Ah, fair enough. I haven't watched any punditry in a while.

 

I do think "should the goal have stood" has wiggle room for opinion rather than fact, but if I haven't seen it, I'll bow out.

[Oh Danny Boy]

It’s mental that goal stood, in any rational sense it should not stand. If I was a City fan I’d be fuming, United fans know this too but this morning they be all like…

 

[feltmonkey]

All this talk about Fernandes' goal has meant that Liverpool have got off really lightly in this thread after they got battered by Brighton.

[glb]

Everyone was too busy celebrating Man United’s title win.

 

Interestingly, over the last 10 games Man City have only earned one more point than Liverpool. Pep will have Haaland in goal by mid-March.

[layten]

59 minutes ago, feltmonkey said:

All this talk about Fernandes' goal has meant that Liverpool have got off really lightly in this thread after they got battered by Brighton.

Asthma meds have just not been the same since Covid shut down the Grand Tours.

[David Kenny]

Even within the limits of the rules it's crazy that that Man City goal stood. Surely running with the ball and shaping your body as if to shoot counts as

 

"making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball" given that the keeper had positioned himself to save a shot from Rashford, so had no chance of getting to the shot from Fernandez.

 

I don't really care about the injustice to Man City but I don't think it is clear that the referee was "technically" correct.

 

[Danster]

Interesting penalty in the Newcastle Fulham game. Fulham got a delayed Var decision for a penalty. Mitrovic took it, but kinda slipped just before making contact with the ball, which ended up in the back of the net. Goal was disallowed though because he'd kinda clipped the ball from his left, onto his right foot when making contact. Newcastle got a indirect free kick. Very odd, but correct decision.