Man City 'offside' goal would now be penalised..

[Bridgendjack]

This is typical of Man City getting away with another goal that shouldn’t have been !! If it was the other way around you can guarantee that Villa would not have been given the goal......

“Football authorities have sought to clarify a law that allowed Bernardo Silva to score a highly controversial goal for Manchester City against Aston Villa in their 2-0 win last week.
City's Rodri was returning from an offside position when he dispossessed Villa defender Tyrone Mings, who had controlled an aerial pass forward with his chest. Rodri set up Silva and City went 1-0 up.
The Villa bench was enraged and boss Dean Smith was sent off for his protests, which included asking fourth officials "whether they got juggling balls for Christmas". He was subsequently charged by the FA with using abusive or insulting language.
At the time, by the letter of the law, the goal was legitimate, because Mings played the ball deliberately and so the offside player is deemed not to have gained an advantage.
But referees group the Professional Game Match Officials Limited, rulemakers the International Football Association Board, and European governing body Uefa have since offered clarification on how such an incident should be interpreted in the future.
"Where a player in an offside position immediately impacts on an opponent who has deliberately played the ball, the match officials should prioritise challenging an opponent for the ball, and thus the offside offence of 'interfering with an opponent by impacting on the opponent's ability to play the ball' should be penalised."
The statement from the Premier League added: "Accordingly, if a similar situation to the one involving Rodri's impact on Mings occurred in a future match, then the impact would be penalised for offside."”

 

[Muteswan]

It’s a ridiculous rule/law, how was he not interfering with play? I understand what the explanation is, but it’s mad.
Another thing, the assistant referee not signalling until the offside player is deemed to be active in the play. Someone is going to get seriously injured while play goes on and the offside player is active again. Madness.

 

[Bridgendjack]

Sounds to me like they’ve made up this bullshit to try to save face rather than just admit that they made a mistake in allowing the goal !

 

[Itchysphincter]

Jamal’s second against Barnsley was coming back from offside.

 

[Bridgendjack]

Jamal’s second against Barnsley was coming back from offside.

Yes but we do not get those decisions constantly. My point is that Man City are constantly getting the decisions from referees and it’s as if refs are afraid to go against them

 

[lidojack]

Jamal’s second against Barnsley was coming back from offside.

I seem to remember Gomis scoring a similar goal against Hull.
It's not a new problem and it should have been fixed well before this.

 

[Muteswan]

Jamal’s second against Barnsley was coming back from offside.

Yes, but it wasn’t spotted by the Lino or the Ref whereas the Man City incident was seen by both.
Also , if things go in our favour then that’s ok.

 

[JackSomething]

Does anyone remember the goal at the Liberty where Trundle was offside, but sort of shepherded the ball into the net without touching it? I'm sure it was in League 1, possibly against Blackpool. Or am I just imagining things?

 

[Lisvanejack]

Does anyone remember the goal at the Liberty where Trundle was offside, but sort of shepherded the ball into the net without touching it? I'm sure it was in League 1, possibly against Blackpool. Or am I just imagining things?

Yes, I believe the rule at that time was you weren’t offside until you touched the ball. I think Leon played it through to Trunds, who realised he would be offside if he touched it so shielded it in instead. I think that rule only lasted the one season

 

[Fireboy]

Is it just me that doesnt give fuck about the offside goal?, I'd rather citeh win the league than manure or the bin dippers. I have nothing against them for two years ago, it was the officials who fucked up, although I still want us to smash the smug bastards into the floor. I know quite a few loyal citeh fans and they have watched them for over 30 years. Fuck liverpool and fuck united.

 

[Glyn1]

And thank you West Brom for tiring out City's forwards. Well done.

 

[Badlands]

It’s a ridiculous rule/law, how was he not interfering with play? I understand what the explanation is, but it’s mad.
Another thing, the assistant referee not signalling until the offside player is deemed to be active in the play. Someone is going to get seriously injured while play goes on and the offside player is active again. Madness.

It's one of timing - an immediate challenge is obvious but what if it was several seconds on or if the ball is held by the defender before making a back pass to the keeper.
In rugby the offside player has to be played onside either by a team mate of himself returning to an onside position - the new interpretation of the law doesn't include that requirement.
IMO it's a bad rule that needed re-writing not interpreting.

 

[PSumbler]

It’s a ridiculous rule/law, how was he not interfering with play? I understand what the explanation is, but it’s mad.
Another thing, the assistant referee not signalling until the offside player is deemed to be active in the play. Someone is going to get seriously injured while play goes on and the offside player is active again. Madness.

It's one of timing - an immediate challenge is obvious but what if it was several seconds on or if the ball is held by the defender before making a back pass to the keeper.
In rugby the offside player has to be played onside either by a team mate of himself returning to an onside position - the new interpretation of the law doesn't include that requirement.
IMO it's a bad rule that needed re-writing not interpreting.

Just scrap the offside rule entirely. Takes away any element of doubt or interpretation