vikingTON Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 (edited) 3 hours ago, Andre Drazen said: He received it on his chest. How is this so fucking hard to understand? Erm no, the offside player has to 'receive' it from the opponent. Which he didn't. Mings literally moved the ball in the 180 degree opposite direction to where the forward was. Away back to playing with your wrestling dolls. 1 hour ago, craigkillie said: It doesn't have to be a deliberate pass, the ball just has to deliberately played at, which it was. Any deliberate move from a defending player to touch the ball counts. The Manchester City player then "received the ball" off him by coming round from behind him and taking possession of it. Essentially, as soon as Mings deliberately plays at the ball, all bets are off. This is not a good rule, but this is the rule nonetheless. I don't think you know what 'receive' means. Wish me luck tomorrow as I walk into a shop with a baseball bat and 'receive' the contents of the till. Such a generous gift but what can you do?! Edited January 21, 2021 by vikingTON 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erih Shtrep Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 6 minutes ago, Leewood said: Ha, ha, that would nice! However, I think Jurgen has already said he retires in summer 2022 or takes a year out or something I vaguely remember. Then it will be Stevie G's turn to return to Liverpool. I've always thought Steven Gerrard's next move will be Celtic. There's that Liverpool/Celtic link - give him better wages and a YNWA scarf and he'd come. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 12 minutes ago, virginton said: I don't think you know what 'receive' means. Wish me luck tomorrow as I walk into a shop with a baseball bat and 'receive' the contents of the till. Such a generous gift but what can you do?! The natural extension of this is that Mings could stand with the ball for 10 seconds and the City player still wouldn't be able to come and take it off him. Making the distinction between a player heading the ball which eventually goes to an opponent or chesting a ball which the opponent comes and gets doesn't seem like the point of this rule. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carnoustie Young Guvnor Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 (edited) 3 minutes ago, craigkillie said: The natural extension of this is that Mings could stand with the ball for 10 seconds and the City player still wouldn't be able to come and take it off him. Making the distinction between a player heading the ball which eventually goes to an opponent or chesting a ball which the opponent comes and gets doesn't seem like the point of this rule. No that's not the case at all, the City player could move back into an onside position and take part in the game again from there. Its his responsibility to get himself onside, you can't possibly be asking a defender to not only deal with the players who are in a legal position on the park but legislate for the ones that aren't too. Its a stupid role made by idiots which is clearly wrong. Edited January 21, 2021 by Carnoustie Young Guvnor 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 1 minute ago, Carnoustie Young Guvnor said: No that's not the case at all, the City player could move back into an onside position and take part in the game again from there. Its his responsibility to get himself onside, you can't possibly be asking a defender to not only deal with the players who are in a legal position on the park but legislate for the ones that aren't too. Its a stupid role made by idiots which is clearly wrong. I am in full agreement that the rule is stupid, but my point is that the decision made was correct under these rules. How would the City player "move back into an onside position" - if you mean simply back to be the other side of the Villa player, then is that not basically exactly what did happen here, albeit in much less than the 10 seconds in my example? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carnoustie Young Guvnor Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 Just now, craigkillie said: I am in full agreement that the rule is stupid, but my point is that the decision made was correct under these rules. How would the City player "move back into an onside position" - if you mean simply back to be the other side of the Villa player, then is that not basically exactly what did happen here, albeit in much less than the 10 seconds in my example? Not in that phase of play, he's offside, but if he gets back onside can take part in the next phase. I read someone today saying if that's the rule say you get a free kick, why wouldn't you just pick a defender put maybe two attackers behind them offside, one in front, fire it straight at them then when they control it pounce and nick it and you're away. Its a stupid stupid stupid rule that needs got rid of. Realistically they should take all the confusion out as soon as its headed forward he's off so if he makes any move at all to influence the game it should get given. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carnoustie Young Guvnor Posted January 21, 2021 Share Posted January 21, 2021 Also they're always trying to encourage players playing football, well if you're Mings or any defender having watched that, next time you'll just launch it why take the chance. Its maybe the stupidest rule change in the history of the game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Tunbridge Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 1 hour ago, Day of the Lords said: Minamino is a shining example of Liverpool's lack of depth. He came on and looked like a boy picked to make the numbers up at a game of fives. A couple of shite crosses and got in Salah's way and missed the ball entirely 8 yards out. Super stuff. Salah had come on at about 55 mins and looked almost as ineffectual. All the more frustrating as I'd used my FF triple captain chip on the c**t this week. Only signed to sell shirts. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagfox Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 9 hours ago, Barry Ferguson's Hat said: He's a married man who bonks trannies. REPORTED 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 8 hours ago, Scotty Tunbridge said: Only signed to sell shirts. Could he not get a job in the team? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukDukGoose Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 11 hours ago, craigkillie said: I am in full agreement that the rule is stupid, but my point is that the decision made was correct under these rules. How would the City player "move back into an onside position" - if you mean simply back to be the other side of the Villa player, then is that not basically exactly what did happen here, albeit in much less than the 10 seconds in my example? Correct. There's a number of rules which are poor. This is just another of these. I'm very surprised an EPL level defender didn't know this was a rule when I was aware of it in amateur football several years ago. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Briggs Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 12 hours ago, Scotty Tunbridge said: Only signed to sell shirts. That'a bit harsh as Minamino had played well for RB Salzburg in the Champions League. His release clause was only £7 million which was considered to be a bargain at the time. He's not met expectations, even as a sub, and it would be no surprise if he moves on this year. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grangemouth Bairn Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 14 hours ago, Scotty Tunbridge said: Only signed to sell shirts. I think everyone new that at the time. From a commercial point of view it strengthens Liverpool’s position in the Japanese market and opens sponsorship and tour opportunities there too. He is an absolutely honking player though - Salzburg done well to work the £7m release clause into his contract. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diamonds are Forever Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 (edited) 7 hours ago, Merkland Red said: Correct. There's a number of rules which are poor. This is just another of these. I'm very surprised an EPL level defender didn't know this was a rule when I was aware of it in amateur football several years ago. It's crazy, it's one thing to debate the decision by saying whether it is or isn't allowed within the laws of the game because you've interpreted it differently, but for Mings to admit that he's 'never even heard of that rule' just show the average level of knowledge of the laws of the game amongst players and coaches. I wasn't fully aware of how this should be interpreted myself, but I don't earn a living from football. It's crazy that people at that level do not have a full understanding of the most fundamental laws in the game. You hear it all the time with players and managers after games criticising perfectly good decisions because the decision doesn't fit in with their mistaken knowledge of the laws. You'd think a defender knowing how the offside law works might be quite important. I can't think of any other sport, or even trade, where people get by with such little knowledge of their own speciality. Edited January 22, 2021 by Diamonds are Forever 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukDukGoose Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 26 minutes ago, Diamonds are Forever said: It's crazy, it's one thing to debate the decision by saying whether it is or isn't allowed within the laws of the game because you've interpreted it differently, but for Mings to admit that he's 'never even heard of that rule' just show the average level of knowledge of the laws of the game amongst players and coaches. I wasn't fully aware of how this should be interpreted myself, but I don't earn a living from football. It's crazy that people at that level do not have a full understanding of the most fundamental laws in the game. You hear it all the time with players and managers after games criticising perfectly good decisions because the decision doesn't fit in with their mistaken knowledge of the laws. You'd think a defender knowing how the offside law works might be quite important. I can't think of any other sport, or even trade, where people get by with such little knowledge of their own speciality. Exactly. I'm also certain that they have meetings with the officials to explain any rule changes at the beginning of each season. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsforlife Posted January 22, 2021 Share Posted January 22, 2021 3 hours ago, Diamonds are Forever said: It's crazy, it's one thing to debate the decision by saying whether it is or isn't allowed within the laws of the game because you've interpreted it differently, but for Mings to admit that he's 'never even heard of that rule' just show the average level of knowledge of the laws of the game amongst players and coaches. I wasn't fully aware of how this should be interpreted myself, but I don't earn a living from football. It's crazy that people at that level do not have a full understanding of the most fundamental laws in the game. You hear it all the time with players and managers after games criticising perfectly good decisions because the decision doesn't fit in with their mistaken knowledge of the laws. You'd think a defender knowing how the offside law works might be quite important. I can't think of any other sport, or even trade, where people get by with such little knowledge of their own speciality. It’s mental. To come out publicly and state you don’t know the basic requirements of your job and not expect any consequences. Given how many backroom staff clubs carry at that level to tell players exactly what to eat etc it seems incredible that they don’t have someone about keeping them right about what the actual rules of the game they are playing are. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ro Sham Bo Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 Another defeat for Newcastle tonight it's looking like. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thekorean Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thisal Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 (edited) Motd discussing the offside rule again loses credibility when you look at the ball and their line. Edited January 23, 2021 by thisal 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukDukGoose Posted January 24, 2021 Share Posted January 24, 2021 11 hours ago, thisal said: Motd discussing the offside rule again loses credibility when you look at the ball and their line. Not seeing the issue here? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.