EPL 20/21

[Diamonds are Forever 2,120]

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 by Diamonds are Forever

[Merkland Red 3,039]

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.

[parsforlife 2,465]

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.

[Ro Sham Bo 3,138]

Another defeat for Newcastle tonight it's looking like. 

[thekorean 83]

[thisal 1,334]

Motd discussing the offside rule again loses credibility when you look at the ball and their

line.

Edited January 23 by thisal

[Merkland Red 3,039]

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?

[Leewood 32]

I guess his (Watkins)   right leg might be offiside there,  BUT  that would be ridiculous if that was chalked off!

Offside should only be for blatant offside, like if the attacker was a good yard in front, not just millimeters.

[Andre Drazen 5,298]

[thisal 1,334]

2 hours ago, Merkland Red said:

Not seeing the issue here?

The ball is the offside line in this case not the defender.

[Merkland Red 3,039]

8 minutes ago, thisal said:

The ball is the offside line in this case not the defender.

See your point. I thought they were maybe checking to see where the defender was in comparison to the ball. 

Edited January 24 by Merkland Red

[Mr. Alli 11,381]

6 hours ago, Leewood said:

I guess his (Watkins)   right leg might be offiside there,  BUT  that would be ridiculous if that was chalked off!

Offside should only be for blatant offside

No. Offsides should be for offside. 

[Bully Wee Villa 8,993]

He wasn't given offside because the Newcastle defender touched the ball, so they didn't even check the lines. Which is a bollocks rule because the Newcastle player wouldn't have touched it if Watkins wasn't there.

Still, think he was level with the ball when it was crossed anyway, regardless of where the BBC decide to draw the lines.

Seems like a few Newcastle fans will have lost money at the bookies as Lampard set to beat Bruce in the race to the dole queue.

Not sure who they would go for. The Southampton manager whose name I have forgotten is the only England-based candidate I can think of that might tempt them.

Edited January 25 by Bully Wee Villa

[The Golden God 648]

Lampard getting sacked today.

[jagfox BLM 18,426]

Frank Lampard getting the bullet - The Athletic

[Sherrif John Bunnell 7,570]

Lampard's spell at Derby will probably get him a shot at some jobber club for a few months. Then it's off to the Tim Sherwood knacker's yard for him.

[Ron Aldo 2,576]

Tuchel rumoured to be Lampard's replacement. Not sure that would be the best appointment.

[Michael W 3,301]

The free pass Lampard got from the press was ridiculous. The Lampard defenders amongst the media already appearing to bleat about how he should be given more time 

Lampard spent £220m in the summer and yet they are worse than they were last season. That's as clear grounds for a sacking as you're likely to see. 

Edited January 25 by Michael W

[Bully Wee Villa 8,993]

I think he did pretty well to finish top four considering they weren't allowed to sign someone. They've definitely gone backwards though, and few of his signings look impressive. He can't have many complaints about getting the boot. They look further away from title contention than at any time this century. Currently longer odds than Everton or Villa.

Edited January 25 by Bully Wee Villa

[charger29 215]

The free pass Lampard got from the press was ridiculous. The Lampard defenders amongst the media already appearing to bleat about how he should be given more time 
Lampard spent £220m in the summer and yet they are worse than they were last season. That's as clear grounds for a sacking as you're likely to see. 

IMO there's a big difference between spending £220m on say 3 starters and 3 squad players, versus 6 new starting players. They were never all going to gel within 6 months of a normal season, nevermind one like this with no preseason, socialising etc.
I suspect those in charge at Chelsea knew this and, similar to last years transfer issues, didn't mind having a fan favourite and media darling taking the hit until they could move on.
That's not an excuse for Lampard though. He's came across as a very average coach who's only real value is convincing players to sign for his club. Based on that, he's perhaps more suited to a Mr Shakey-Hands Man role in scouting/transfers.