comment by Clockwork Red: With or Wout You (U4892)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 5 seconds ago
comment by Clockwork Red: With or Wout You (U4892)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by The Process (U20671)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red: With or Wout You (U4892)
posted 45 minutes ago
Chris Sutton is very upset about that first goal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So much in the media are. I was watching Brighton vs Liverpool on Irish tv and at HT Damien Delaney used a TAA offside call to show why United’s goal shouldn’t have stood. The channel didn’t even have footage of the United game.
If City had scored that goal I can guarantee you wouldn’t have half the outrage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have to be honest and say I don't think it should have stood. Ederson was set for a shot by Rashford, while Akanji couldn't go at full pelt towards Bruno as Rashford was effectively in possession (he hadn't touched the ball but he virtually shepherded it).
I've only seen it on a small screen so will have to look again on MOTD later, but that's how it looked to me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By the letter of the law it's a goal but in no way is Rashford not interfering there IMO. He's only inches from touching it!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's the thing. Rashford was literally clean through. Surely the fact that a CB and the keeper had to account for him means he was "interfering".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He was definitely interfering. Shouldn’t have even been a tough call.
The offside rule is daft. Look at that Salah one last week as well.
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red: With or Wout You (U4892)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by The Process (U20671)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red: With or Wout You (U4892)
posted 45 minutes ago
Chris Sutton is very upset about that first goal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So much in the media are. I was watching Brighton vs Liverpool on Irish tv and at HT Damien Delaney used a TAA offside call to show why United’s goal shouldn’t have stood. The channel didn’t even have footage of the United game.
If City had scored that goal I can guarantee you wouldn’t have half the outrage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have to be honest and say I don't think it should have stood. Ederson was set for a shot by Rashford, while Akanji couldn't go at full pelt towards Bruno as Rashford was effectively in possession (he hadn't touched the ball but he virtually shepherded it).
I've only seen it on a small screen so will have to look again on MOTD later, but that's how it looked to me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By the letter of the law it's a goal but in no way is Rashford not interfering there IMO. He's only inches from touching it!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don’t agree with this… there’s a couple of things within the law that he’s clearly guilty of doing, isn’t he?
Awful decision.
Love it.
comment by Lisandro The King Martinez (U10026)
posted 3 minutes ago
The offside rule is daft. Look at that Salah one last week as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes another shocker. It was allowed because the defender touched the ball trying to stop it going to Salah. If he’d left it off it wouldn’t have stood.
comment by The Process (U20671)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Lisandro The King Martinez (U10026)
posted 3 minutes ago
The offside rule is daft. Look at that Salah one last week as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes another shocker. It was allowed because the defender touched the ball trying to stop it going to Salah. If he’d left it off it wouldn’t have stood.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep.
A decision that highlights how crap the rule is better than most, for me.
What’s the defender supposed to do… leave the ball and hope Salah is offside?
The defender only plays the ball because of where Salah is.
Morons running the game.
Rashford had it within perfect dribbling distance.
I absolutely expected it to be expunged, but alas, the officiates were with us today.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by The Process (U20671)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Lisandro The King Martinez (U10026)
posted 3 minutes ago
The offside rule is daft. Look at that Salah one last week as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes another shocker. It was allowed because the defender touched the ball trying to stop it going to Salah. If he’d left it off it wouldn’t have stood.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep.
A decision that highlights how crap the rule is better than most, for me.
What’s the defender supposed to do… leave the ball and hope Salah is offside?
The defender only plays the ball because of where Salah is.
Morons running the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't agree with the Salah decision either. But I suppose it's a case of the defender's action having "cancelled out" the forward ball (where Salah was offside) and essentially the defender's header then becomes like a bad backpass that played Salah in.
Still, for that to stand and the Toti one to be ruled out on the same night was pretty mad.
And Hag gets a Ten from me.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by The Process (U20671)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Lisandro The King Martinez (U10026)
posted 3 minutes ago
The offside rule is daft. Look at that Salah one last week as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes another shocker. It was allowed because the defender touched the ball trying to stop it going to Salah. If he’d left it off it wouldn’t have stood.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep.
A decision that highlights how crap the rule is better than most, for me.
What’s the defender supposed to do… leave the ball and hope Salah is offside?
The defender only plays the ball because of where Salah is.
Morons running the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I had always thought the rule was your not offside if the defender plays it deliberately like a back pass. I didn’t realise that if defender attempted to cut it out and gets a touch it is not offside.
Then there was the ridiculous one in the CL final where the Benzema goal was denied despite a Liverpool actually playing it to him.
I had always thought the rule was your not offside if the defender plays it deliberately like a back pass. I didn’t realise that if defender attempted to cut it out and gets a touch it is not offside.
___________
That's the thing though. The defender's touch was deemed deliberate (which of course it was). If the forward ball just skims off him and through to Salah, it's ruled offside.
comment by The Process (U20671)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by The Process (U20671)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Lisandro The King Martinez (U10026)
posted 3 minutes ago
The offside rule is daft. Look at that Salah one last week as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes another shocker. It was allowed because the defender touched the ball trying to stop it going to Salah. If he’d left it off it wouldn’t have stood.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep.
A decision that highlights how crap the rule is better than most, for me.
What’s the defender supposed to do… leave the ball and hope Salah is offside?
The defender only plays the ball because of where Salah is.
Morons running the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I had always thought the rule was your not offside if the defender plays it deliberately like a back pass. I didn’t realise that if defender attempted to cut it out and gets a touch it is not offside.
Then there was the ridiculous one in the CL final where the Benzema goal was denied despite a Liverpool actually playing it to him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In all honesty mate, I’ve got no idea anymore!
comment by The Process (U20671)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Lisandro The King Martinez (U10026)
posted 3 minutes ago
The offside rule is daft. Look at that Salah one last week as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes another shocker. It was allowed because the defender touched the ball trying to stop it going to Salah. If he’d left it off it wouldn’t have stood.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It wasn’t a shocker because by the rules of the game it’s offside. But the issue is the rules.
After Mbappe’s goal against Spain they should have changed it to leave it more open to interpretation.
Another stupid one is being offside when the ball is played backwards.
comment by Lisandro The King Martinez (U10026)
posted 17 minutes ago
Another stupid one is being offside when the ball is played backwards.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or that 2 players have to be in front of you to play you onside. It should be 1 player with the goalkeeper not counting.
Nah I think that one is fair.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 1 minute ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red: With or Wout You (U4892)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by The Process (U20671)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red: With or Wout You (U4892)
posted 45 minutes ago
Chris Sutton is very upset about that first goal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So much in the media are. I was watching Brighton vs Liverpool on Irish tv and at HT Damien Delaney used a TAA offside call to show why United’s goal shouldn’t have stood. The channel didn’t even have footage of the United game.
If City had scored that goal I can guarantee you wouldn’t have half the outrage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have to be honest and say I don't think it should have stood. Ederson was set for a shot by Rashford, while Akanji couldn't go at full pelt towards Bruno as Rashford was effectively in possession (he hadn't touched the ball but he virtually shepherded it).
I've only seen it on a small screen so will have to look again on MOTD later, but that's how it looked to me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By the letter of the law it's a goal but in no way is Rashford not interfering there IMO. He's only inches from touching it!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don’t agree with this… there’s a couple of things within the law that he’s clearly guilty of doing, isn’t he?
Awful decision.
Love it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I love it as well. Just to clear up though. You do agree with me yes not disagree?
<sigh> Remember the days when the offside rule was so simple we never talked about it?
Jesus. Am I really THAT old?
comment by Beeb (U1841)
posted 20 minutes ago
<sigh> Remember the days when the offside rule was so simple we never talked about it?
Jesus. Am I really THAT old?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We both are mate.
For once VAR following the letter of the law helped Rashford where as he has had two goals removed by them doing the same.
I missed a pids masterpiece
Such consistent brilliance time and time again
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 24 minutes ago
comment by The Process (U20671)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Lisandro The King Martinez (U10026)
posted 3 minutes ago
The offside rule is daft. Look at that Salah one last week as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes another shocker. It was allowed because the defender touched the ball trying to stop it going to Salah. If he’d left it off it wouldn’t have stood.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep.
A decision that highlights how crap the rule is better than most, for me.
What’s the defender supposed to do… leave the ball and hope Salah is offside?
The defender only plays the ball because of where Salah is.
Morons running the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree, stupid rule.
Also not sure what the former referee(forget his name) on Sky was talking about in regards to a rule change this season when he said the new rule means Rashford isn't counted as offside. I haven't looked it up but if that's correct it's also a stupid rule. He literally made motion towards the ball and then faked a shot which obviously caused the defenders to concentrate on Rashford instead of Fernandes. You could also make a case that the goalkeeper positioned himself for the shot from Rashford rather than Fernandes. For me an offside rule should be centred on whether the player being in an offside position put the opposition at a disadvantage.
Then we had the one today, not that it made any difference, where Trent was called offside when making no movement to obtain the ball, in fact his movement suggested he had no intention of obtaining it since he was jogging towards the line with his hand in the air, calling for a throw-in.
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 24 minutes ago
comment by The Process (U20671)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Lisandro The King Martinez (U10026)
posted 3 minutes ago
The offside rule is daft. Look at that Salah one last week as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes another shocker. It was allowed because the defender touched the ball trying to stop it going to Salah. If he’d left it off it wouldn’t have stood.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep.
A decision that highlights how crap the rule is better than most, for me.
What’s the defender supposed to do… leave the ball and hope Salah is offside?
The defender only plays the ball because of where Salah is.
Morons running the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree, stupid rule.
Also not sure what your the former referee(forget his name) on Sky was talking about in regards to a rule change this season when he said the new rule means Rashford isn't counted as offside. I haven't looked it up but if that's correct it's also a stupid rule. He literally made motion towards the ball and then faked a shot which obviously caused the defenders to concentrate on Rashford instead of Fernandes. You could also make a case that the goalkeeper positioned himself for the shot from Rashford rather than Fernandes. For me an offside rule should be centred on whether the player being in an offside position put the opposition at a disadvantage.
Then we had the one today, not that it made any difference, where Trent was called offside when making no movement to obtain the ball, in fact his movement suggested he had no intention of obtaining it since he was jogging towards the line with his hand in the air, calling for a throw-in.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You come out with sime shiite at times!
comment by Lisandro The King Martinez (U10026)
posted 1 hour, 51 minutes ago
Another stupid one is being offside when the ball is played backwards.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I literally forget this even was a rule till that Wolves goal. What's the point? I might be missing something, but is it just one of those rules where they think: "You know, it's hardly ever going to come up - but the absolute scenes when it does!!!"
Diafol Coch
I don’t think it’s the letter of the law, I think you could easily apply the law to say he was offside?
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 35 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 24 minutes ago
comment by The Process (U20671)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Lisandro The King Martinez (U10026)
posted 3 minutes ago
The offside rule is daft. Look at that Salah one last week as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes another shocker. It was allowed because the defender touched the ball trying to stop it going to Salah. If he’d left it off it wouldn’t have stood.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep.
A decision that highlights how crap the rule is better than most, for me.
What’s the defender supposed to do… leave the ball and hope Salah is offside?
The defender only plays the ball because of where Salah is.
Morons running the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree, stupid rule.
Also not sure what the former referee(forget his name) on Sky was talking about in regards to a rule change this season when he said the new rule means Rashford isn't counted as offside. I haven't looked it up but if that's correct it's also a stupid rule. He literally made motion towards the ball and then faked a shot which obviously caused the defenders to concentrate on Rashford instead of Fernandes. You could also make a case that the goalkeeper positioned himself for the shot from Rashford rather than Fernandes. For me an offside rule should be centred on whether the player being in an offside position put the opposition at a disadvantage.
Then we had the one today, not that it made any difference, where Trent was called offside when making no movement to obtain the ball, in fact his movement suggested he had no intention of obtaining it since he was jogging towards the line with his hand in the air, calling for a throw-in.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I love how today this scenario unfolded for Wolves only a week after the Salah goal and guess what?. Nunes was flagged offside You couldn't make it up
Sign in if you want to comment
Jurgen Klopp…
Page 5 of 6
6
posted on 14/1/23
comment by Clockwork Red: With or Wout You (U4892)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 5 seconds ago
comment by Clockwork Red: With or Wout You (U4892)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by The Process (U20671)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red: With or Wout You (U4892)
posted 45 minutes ago
Chris Sutton is very upset about that first goal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So much in the media are. I was watching Brighton vs Liverpool on Irish tv and at HT Damien Delaney used a TAA offside call to show why United’s goal shouldn’t have stood. The channel didn’t even have footage of the United game.
If City had scored that goal I can guarantee you wouldn’t have half the outrage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have to be honest and say I don't think it should have stood. Ederson was set for a shot by Rashford, while Akanji couldn't go at full pelt towards Bruno as Rashford was effectively in possession (he hadn't touched the ball but he virtually shepherded it).
I've only seen it on a small screen so will have to look again on MOTD later, but that's how it looked to me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By the letter of the law it's a goal but in no way is Rashford not interfering there IMO. He's only inches from touching it!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's the thing. Rashford was literally clean through. Surely the fact that a CB and the keeper had to account for him means he was "interfering".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He was definitely interfering. Shouldn’t have even been a tough call.
posted on 14/1/23
The offside rule is daft. Look at that Salah one last week as well.
posted on 14/1/23
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red: With or Wout You (U4892)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by The Process (U20671)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red: With or Wout You (U4892)
posted 45 minutes ago
Chris Sutton is very upset about that first goal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So much in the media are. I was watching Brighton vs Liverpool on Irish tv and at HT Damien Delaney used a TAA offside call to show why United’s goal shouldn’t have stood. The channel didn’t even have footage of the United game.
If City had scored that goal I can guarantee you wouldn’t have half the outrage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have to be honest and say I don't think it should have stood. Ederson was set for a shot by Rashford, while Akanji couldn't go at full pelt towards Bruno as Rashford was effectively in possession (he hadn't touched the ball but he virtually shepherded it).
I've only seen it on a small screen so will have to look again on MOTD later, but that's how it looked to me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By the letter of the law it's a goal but in no way is Rashford not interfering there IMO. He's only inches from touching it!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don’t agree with this… there’s a couple of things within the law that he’s clearly guilty of doing, isn’t he?
Awful decision.
Love it.
posted on 14/1/23
comment by Lisandro The King Martinez (U10026)
posted 3 minutes ago
The offside rule is daft. Look at that Salah one last week as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes another shocker. It was allowed because the defender touched the ball trying to stop it going to Salah. If he’d left it off it wouldn’t have stood.
posted on 14/1/23
comment by The Process (U20671)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Lisandro The King Martinez (U10026)
posted 3 minutes ago
The offside rule is daft. Look at that Salah one last week as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes another shocker. It was allowed because the defender touched the ball trying to stop it going to Salah. If he’d left it off it wouldn’t have stood.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep.
A decision that highlights how crap the rule is better than most, for me.
What’s the defender supposed to do… leave the ball and hope Salah is offside?
The defender only plays the ball because of where Salah is.
Morons running the game.
posted on 14/1/23
Rashford had it within perfect dribbling distance.
I absolutely expected it to be expunged, but alas, the officiates were with us today.
posted on 14/1/23
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by The Process (U20671)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Lisandro The King Martinez (U10026)
posted 3 minutes ago
The offside rule is daft. Look at that Salah one last week as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes another shocker. It was allowed because the defender touched the ball trying to stop it going to Salah. If he’d left it off it wouldn’t have stood.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep.
A decision that highlights how crap the rule is better than most, for me.
What’s the defender supposed to do… leave the ball and hope Salah is offside?
The defender only plays the ball because of where Salah is.
Morons running the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't agree with the Salah decision either. But I suppose it's a case of the defender's action having "cancelled out" the forward ball (where Salah was offside) and essentially the defender's header then becomes like a bad backpass that played Salah in.
Still, for that to stand and the Toti one to be ruled out on the same night was pretty mad.
posted on 14/1/23
And Hag gets a Ten from me.
posted on 14/1/23
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by The Process (U20671)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Lisandro The King Martinez (U10026)
posted 3 minutes ago
The offside rule is daft. Look at that Salah one last week as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes another shocker. It was allowed because the defender touched the ball trying to stop it going to Salah. If he’d left it off it wouldn’t have stood.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep.
A decision that highlights how crap the rule is better than most, for me.
What’s the defender supposed to do… leave the ball and hope Salah is offside?
The defender only plays the ball because of where Salah is.
Morons running the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I had always thought the rule was your not offside if the defender plays it deliberately like a back pass. I didn’t realise that if defender attempted to cut it out and gets a touch it is not offside.
Then there was the ridiculous one in the CL final where the Benzema goal was denied despite a Liverpool actually playing it to him.
posted on 14/1/23
I had always thought the rule was your not offside if the defender plays it deliberately like a back pass. I didn’t realise that if defender attempted to cut it out and gets a touch it is not offside.
___________
That's the thing though. The defender's touch was deemed deliberate (which of course it was). If the forward ball just skims off him and through to Salah, it's ruled offside.
posted on 14/1/23
comment by The Process (U20671)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by The Process (U20671)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Lisandro The King Martinez (U10026)
posted 3 minutes ago
The offside rule is daft. Look at that Salah one last week as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes another shocker. It was allowed because the defender touched the ball trying to stop it going to Salah. If he’d left it off it wouldn’t have stood.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep.
A decision that highlights how crap the rule is better than most, for me.
What’s the defender supposed to do… leave the ball and hope Salah is offside?
The defender only plays the ball because of where Salah is.
Morons running the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I had always thought the rule was your not offside if the defender plays it deliberately like a back pass. I didn’t realise that if defender attempted to cut it out and gets a touch it is not offside.
Then there was the ridiculous one in the CL final where the Benzema goal was denied despite a Liverpool actually playing it to him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In all honesty mate, I’ve got no idea anymore!
posted on 14/1/23
comment by The Process (U20671)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Lisandro The King Martinez (U10026)
posted 3 minutes ago
The offside rule is daft. Look at that Salah one last week as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes another shocker. It was allowed because the defender touched the ball trying to stop it going to Salah. If he’d left it off it wouldn’t have stood.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It wasn’t a shocker because by the rules of the game it’s offside. But the issue is the rules.
After Mbappe’s goal against Spain they should have changed it to leave it more open to interpretation.
posted on 14/1/23
Another stupid one is being offside when the ball is played backwards.
posted on 14/1/23
comment by Lisandro The King Martinez (U10026)
posted 17 minutes ago
Another stupid one is being offside when the ball is played backwards.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or that 2 players have to be in front of you to play you onside. It should be 1 player with the goalkeeper not counting.
posted on 14/1/23
Nah I think that one is fair.
posted on 14/1/23
Deja vu
posted on 14/1/23
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 1 minute ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red: With or Wout You (U4892)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by The Process (U20671)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Clockwork Red: With or Wout You (U4892)
posted 45 minutes ago
Chris Sutton is very upset about that first goal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So much in the media are. I was watching Brighton vs Liverpool on Irish tv and at HT Damien Delaney used a TAA offside call to show why United’s goal shouldn’t have stood. The channel didn’t even have footage of the United game.
If City had scored that goal I can guarantee you wouldn’t have half the outrage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have to be honest and say I don't think it should have stood. Ederson was set for a shot by Rashford, while Akanji couldn't go at full pelt towards Bruno as Rashford was effectively in possession (he hadn't touched the ball but he virtually shepherded it).
I've only seen it on a small screen so will have to look again on MOTD later, but that's how it looked to me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By the letter of the law it's a goal but in no way is Rashford not interfering there IMO. He's only inches from touching it!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don’t agree with this… there’s a couple of things within the law that he’s clearly guilty of doing, isn’t he?
Awful decision.
Love it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I love it as well. Just to clear up though. You do agree with me yes not disagree?
posted on 14/1/23
<sigh> Remember the days when the offside rule was so simple we never talked about it?
Jesus. Am I really THAT old?
posted on 14/1/23
comment by Beeb (U1841)
posted 20 minutes ago
<sigh> Remember the days when the offside rule was so simple we never talked about it?
Jesus. Am I really THAT old?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We both are mate.
For once VAR following the letter of the law helped Rashford where as he has had two goals removed by them doing the same.
posted on 14/1/23
I missed a pids masterpiece
Such consistent brilliance time and time again
posted on 14/1/23
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 24 minutes ago
comment by The Process (U20671)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Lisandro The King Martinez (U10026)
posted 3 minutes ago
The offside rule is daft. Look at that Salah one last week as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes another shocker. It was allowed because the defender touched the ball trying to stop it going to Salah. If he’d left it off it wouldn’t have stood.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep.
A decision that highlights how crap the rule is better than most, for me.
What’s the defender supposed to do… leave the ball and hope Salah is offside?
The defender only plays the ball because of where Salah is.
Morons running the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree, stupid rule.
Also not sure what the former referee(forget his name) on Sky was talking about in regards to a rule change this season when he said the new rule means Rashford isn't counted as offside. I haven't looked it up but if that's correct it's also a stupid rule. He literally made motion towards the ball and then faked a shot which obviously caused the defenders to concentrate on Rashford instead of Fernandes. You could also make a case that the goalkeeper positioned himself for the shot from Rashford rather than Fernandes. For me an offside rule should be centred on whether the player being in an offside position put the opposition at a disadvantage.
Then we had the one today, not that it made any difference, where Trent was called offside when making no movement to obtain the ball, in fact his movement suggested he had no intention of obtaining it since he was jogging towards the line with his hand in the air, calling for a throw-in.
posted on 14/1/23
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 24 minutes ago
comment by The Process (U20671)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Lisandro The King Martinez (U10026)
posted 3 minutes ago
The offside rule is daft. Look at that Salah one last week as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes another shocker. It was allowed because the defender touched the ball trying to stop it going to Salah. If he’d left it off it wouldn’t have stood.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep.
A decision that highlights how crap the rule is better than most, for me.
What’s the defender supposed to do… leave the ball and hope Salah is offside?
The defender only plays the ball because of where Salah is.
Morons running the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree, stupid rule.
Also not sure what your the former referee(forget his name) on Sky was talking about in regards to a rule change this season when he said the new rule means Rashford isn't counted as offside. I haven't looked it up but if that's correct it's also a stupid rule. He literally made motion towards the ball and then faked a shot which obviously caused the defenders to concentrate on Rashford instead of Fernandes. You could also make a case that the goalkeeper positioned himself for the shot from Rashford rather than Fernandes. For me an offside rule should be centred on whether the player being in an offside position put the opposition at a disadvantage.
Then we had the one today, not that it made any difference, where Trent was called offside when making no movement to obtain the ball, in fact his movement suggested he had no intention of obtaining it since he was jogging towards the line with his hand in the air, calling for a throw-in.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You come out with sime shiite at times!
posted on 14/1/23
comment by Lisandro The King Martinez (U10026)
posted 1 hour, 51 minutes ago
Another stupid one is being offside when the ball is played backwards.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I literally forget this even was a rule till that Wolves goal. What's the point? I might be missing something, but is it just one of those rules where they think: "You know, it's hardly ever going to come up - but the absolute scenes when it does!!!"
posted on 14/1/23
Diafol Coch
I don’t think it’s the letter of the law, I think you could easily apply the law to say he was offside?
posted on 14/1/23
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 35 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 24 minutes ago
comment by The Process (U20671)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Lisandro The King Martinez (U10026)
posted 3 minutes ago
The offside rule is daft. Look at that Salah one last week as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes another shocker. It was allowed because the defender touched the ball trying to stop it going to Salah. If he’d left it off it wouldn’t have stood.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep.
A decision that highlights how crap the rule is better than most, for me.
What’s the defender supposed to do… leave the ball and hope Salah is offside?
The defender only plays the ball because of where Salah is.
Morons running the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree, stupid rule.
Also not sure what the former referee(forget his name) on Sky was talking about in regards to a rule change this season when he said the new rule means Rashford isn't counted as offside. I haven't looked it up but if that's correct it's also a stupid rule. He literally made motion towards the ball and then faked a shot which obviously caused the defenders to concentrate on Rashford instead of Fernandes. You could also make a case that the goalkeeper positioned himself for the shot from Rashford rather than Fernandes. For me an offside rule should be centred on whether the player being in an offside position put the opposition at a disadvantage.
Then we had the one today, not that it made any difference, where Trent was called offside when making no movement to obtain the ball, in fact his movement suggested he had no intention of obtaining it since he was jogging towards the line with his hand in the air, calling for a throw-in.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I love how today this scenario unfolded for Wolves only a week after the Salah goal and guess what?. Nunes was flagged offside You couldn't make it up
Page 5 of 6
6