VAR

[Nameless]

I'm disappointed that you're claiming Rodri made no movement towards Mings 'until he messed up his control'. If we're not going to stick to facts that can be clearly seen in the replays then the discussion becomes pointless.

Well there’s a difference between your opinion and fact, and it seems pretty clear to me that Rodri changes his direction and activity after Mings has first played the ball. If you see it differently then we’ll obviously differ in this specific incident.
I’m going to stick with my view that the rule is quite clear that if the ball is last played by an opponent you aren’t offside. If you can think of a better rule I’m happy to rethink.
I don’t think there is any justification for managers berating officials the way they do. Especially when the officials are applying the laws correctly. The technical area is a curse. Managers now believe they are ‘performers’, theirhistrionics are just an unnecessary part of the game.

[URZZZZ]

I'm disappointed that you're claiming Rodri made no movement towards Mings 'until he messed up his control'. If we're not going to stick to facts that can be clearly seen in the replays then the discussion becomes pointless.

The technical area is a curse. Managers now believe they are ‘performers’, theirhistrionics are just an unnecessary part of the game.

Is that really much of a surprise though? With the amount of money now being pumped in the game, causing increasingly harsh pressures on managers. Means they’re more likely to overreact in the heat of the moment

No evidence to support this but I do feel most the big clubs get the rub of the green when it comes to decisions such as the one last night. Must be really frustrating holding them for so long and losing out to a contentious goal like that

On the other hand, in the grand scheme of things, you could argue Villa are lucky to still be in the Prem as one point less would have seen them relegated (with the “ghost” goal against Sheffield United)

[Sanguine]

I don't want to see officials berated. That being said, Smith said he could be quoted as 'did you get juggling balls for Xmas?'
Adding to the player sent off last week when a frustrated hand waved knocked a yellow card out of a ref's hand, and it's not difficult to think that there is a level of pettiness in refereeing in general.
I'd also be far happier to see a 'crackdown' on behaviour towards referees if I felt that their decision-making was subject to the same scrutiny as managers and players. Instead every time something contentious happens the wagons circle and we're left with Dermot Gallagher to explain why officials are getting stuff wrong.

[Snowflake Royal]

I don't want to see officials berated. That being said, Smith said he could be quoted as 'did you get juggling balls for Xmas?'
Adding to the player sent off last week when a frustrated hand waved knocked a yellow card out of a ref's hand, and it's not difficult to think that there is a level of pettiness in refereeing in general.
I'd also be far happier to see a 'crackdown' on behaviour towards referees if I felt that their decision-making was subject to the same scrutiny as managers and players. Instead every time something contentious happens the wagons circle and we're left with Dermot Gallagher to explain why officials are getting stuff wrong.

There should be a fukton more pettiness in referring.

If you put Nigel Owens in charge of a football match it'd be 5 a side within 30 minutes, the amount of shit referees tolerate.

Also with Nameless that there's no issue with the rule.

If Rhodri is interfering with play the rule works and he should be offside. If Rhodri isn't interfering with play he is onside and the rule works.

The issue is whether he's interfering, which you disagree on, and therefore the ref's interpretation. The rule doesn't need changing, just the ref's interpretation if Sangers is right rather than Nameless.


For my view of the actual incident, I'm with Nameless. Rhodri is making no move to interfere with play until after Mings controls the ball, he bends his run slightly. Rhodri is miles away from Mings when he decides to play the ball, and out of his eyeline the entire time he's going for it.

If Mings backheads it for the keeper and it goes straight to a Rhodri standing still and watching, there's no question it's a goal. I don't see why this would be different

Don't agree with any argument that Mings can choose to not play the ball either. It's straight up and down. There's no way that's going through to the keeper. There are far too many onside City players in reasonable proximity and the action is far too far from the keeper.

Definite goal and right decision IMO

[BR0B0T]

I don't want to see officials berated. That being said, Smith said he could be quoted as 'did you get juggling balls for Xmas?'
Adding to the player sent off last week when a frustrated hand waved knocked a yellow card out of a ref's hand, and it's not difficult to think that there is a level of pettiness in refereeing in general.
I'd also be far happier to see a 'crackdown' on behaviour towards referees if I felt that their decision-making was subject to the same scrutiny as managers and players. Instead every time something contentious happens the wagons circle and we're left with Dermot Gallagher to explain why officials are getting stuff wrong.

There should be a fukton more pettiness in referring.

If you put Nigel Owens in charge of a football match it'd be 5 a side within 30 minutes, the amount of shit referees tolerate.

Also with Nameless that there's no issue with the rule.

If Rhodri is interfering with play the rule works and he should be offside. If Rhodri isn't interfering with play he is onside and the rule works.

The issue is whether he's interfering, which you disagree on, and therefore the ref's interpretation. The rule doesn't need changing, just the ref's interpretation if Sangers is right rather than Nameless.


For my view of the actual incident, I'm with Nameless. Rhodri is making no move to interfere with play until after Mings controls the ball, he bends his run slightly. Rhodri is miles away from Mings when he decides to play the ball, and out of his eyeline the entire time he's going for it.

If Mings backheads it for the keeper and it goes straight to a Rhodri standing still and watching, there's no question it's a goal. I don't see why this would be different

Don't agree with any argument that Mings can choose to not play the ball either. It's straight up and down. There's no way that's going through to the keeper. There are far too many onside City players in reasonable proximity and the action is far too far from the keeper.

Definite goal and right decision IMO

I just equate it with similar moves such as hiding behind the goalkeeper, waiting for him to put the ball down...legal but proper shithousing

Your player does it, you'll take it...

[Winston Biscuit]

Only saw this incident yesterday and listened to some football jour lists on a podcast chatting about it.

I would have been baffled at what was going on at the time, but they all made the point that the ref did apply the law correctly. It's more about whether you like that law being in place or not I guess. Once you introduce the active/inactive thing to offside then you also need to introduce 'phases of play' so you can identify specific moments when someone goes from one to the other.

I just think the old offside rule where there was no active/inactive worked fine. There was no need to change it.

Also lol @ Mings for not knowing the offside rule when it's literally quite a significant part of his job to know it

[Snowflake Royal]

I just think the old offside rule where there was no active/inactive worked fine. There was no need to change it.

Don't agree with that. I remember the days when you'd have a perfectly good goal chalked off because someone on the other side of the pitch, nowhere near the action, was sat down injured or had strayed half a yard beyond a defender.

[Winston Biscuit]

I just think the old offside rule where there was no active/inactive worked fine. There was no need to change it.

Don't agree with that. I remember the days when you'd have a perfectly good goal chalked off because someone on the other side of the pitch, nowhere near the action, was sat down injured or had strayed half a yard beyond a defender.

With regards to your latter example of someone straying half a yard off elsewhere, that's the bit I like about it. As a team you need to stay onside, not just the player receiving the ball. Means even those players not involved in the move at that moment are still involved in the offside tactical battle with a defender.

Your other example of a player injured, I dont believe that came into it as I seem to remember someone being on the ground injured was considered out of play and was not flagged offside. I have tried searching up old laws of the game on that area but cant find anything. I can remember seeing it happen though, I am sure I even saw it at elm park once when we scored with a player in an offside position who was down injured so not flagged, and their defender kicking off after we scored as it's just very off putting and maybe he thought they were feigning injury

[Simmops]

If only the fa listened to me

[Sanguine]

Fair enough Ian. We'll have to disagree on the incident itself.






Two frames above, (1) Mings controls the ball on his chest, Rodri is in my view already moving towards the ball, confirmed by another angle from behind the play, Rodri bending towards the ball before it gets to Mings (can't link to the image, but it's the freeze frame at the start here https://www.skysports.com/watch/video/1 ... h-sees-red). And (2) the ball has hit Mings' chest and Rodri is now barely 2-3 steps from him.

I don't see how Mings has a fair shot here. Rodri was offside when the ball was played and yet the only chance Mings has not to be tackled as the ball reaches the floor is to somehow kill it stone dead on his chest, or to know Rodri was coming and spin away.

[Sanguine]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55814673

PGMOL, IFAB and UEFA have come down in Mings favour on this, 'clarifying' how the law should be interpreted.

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."

Essentially it is the point I was trying to make, albeit made much more succinctly. As it stood the law put Rodri onside as soon as the ball hits Mings chest, which gives him no time to react to Rodri's whereabouts where the midfielder challenges for the ball, i.e. the law expected him to manage Rodri's phase of play, this clarification removes that requirement.

[Simmops]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55814673

PGMOL, IFAB and UEFA have come down in Mings favour on this, 'clarifying' how the law should be interpreted.

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."

Essentially it is the point I was trying to make, albeit made much more succinctly. As it stood the law put Rodri onside as soon as the ball hits Mings chest, which gives him no time to react to Rodri's whereabouts where the midfielder challenges for the ball, i.e. the law expected him to manage Rodri's phase of play, this clarification removes that requirement.

This is what we said they should follow when we advised them of the rules and laws and technology limitations and how to interlink them, glad they listened on this one!

[Nameless]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55814673

PGMOL, IFAB and UEFA have come down in Mings favour on this, 'clarifying' how the law should be interpreted.

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."

Essentially it is the point I was trying to make, albeit made much more succinctly. As it stood the law put Rodri onside as soon as the ball hits Mings chest, which gives him no time to react to Rodri's whereabouts where the midfielder challenges for the ball, i.e. the law expected him to manage Rodri's phase of play, this clarification removes that requirement.

That is interesting.
I think this was one of those situations where both arguments had validity (don’t disappoint me and agree !), but it is sensible to have removed any doubt.

[Snowflake Royal]

Looks like a bullshit kneejerk reaction to some public outrage to a singe isolated incident and unjustifiably made an ad hoc rule change halfway through the season. Not a fan of the move at all. If you want to change it, do it in the off season. Everyone should play to the same rules for every game for the full season.

Now you've got the daft situation about interpreting how immediate is immediate, and what counts as deliberate.

[Pepe the Horseman]

Lol @ WBA not playing to the whistle. Bet Big Sam was happy about that.

[Franchise FC]

Lol @ WBA not playing to the whistle. Bet Big Sam was happy about that.

Not happy about the way they focused on Sian Massey. As if male assistant refs haven’t made the same mistake. She’s normally extremely good. One error, and it was an error, and she gets full on Andy Gray’d

[Sanguine]

Looks like a bullshit kneejerk reaction to some public outrage to a singe isolated incident and unjustifiably made an ad hoc rule change halfway through the season. Not a fan of the move at all. If you want to change it, do it in the off season. Everyone should play to the same rules for every game for the full season.

Now you've got the daft situation about interpreting how immediate is immediate, and what counts as deliberate.

I'm sure common sense will prevail. Clearly (as the footage shows) moving towards the ball before it got to Mings, and towards Mings as soon as it hit his chest, to the extent that Rodri was on the player when the ball hit the ground, could reasonably be interpreted as 'immediate'.

In practice, the rule will essentially mean that if you're in an offside position, don't challenge the opponent who receives the ball. Which will work, because no single player holds on to the ball for long enough for it not to.

[South Coast Royal]

Lol @ WBA not playing to the whistle. Bet Big Sam was happy about that.

Not happy about the way they focused on Sian Massey. As if male assistant refs haven’t made the same mistake. She’s normally extremely good. One error, and it was an error, and she gets full on Andy Gray’d

In fairness she has had a lot of OTT praise in the past couple of years; criticism goes with the job whether you are a man or a woman.

BTW does anybody know if she has reffed any League games-for most linos it is a stepping stone to refereeing as they are qualified refs..

[Silver Fox]

Aren't all premier league linespeople full time lineos? Certainly never see the likes of Darren Cann reffing games, but then I've also never seen the OTT praise Massey has received so maybe I'm looking in the wrong places.

[URZZZZ]

Main talking point tonight of VAR was from Old Trafford. Must say, it’s nice to see the boot on the other leg for United - on the other end of dubious decisions. Not too sure about both the incidents themselves but personally didn’t think there was much in it on either

I do think that the outcome should have been applied consistently, so I’m a bit surprised they didn’t overturn Man United’s disallowed goal