If this isn't offside...

[BillyStubbsTears]

...then we might as well just drop the offside law.


0:43 here.

https://www.mancity.com/citytv/mens/man-city-aston-villa-premier-league-brief-highlights-20-january-63746754

[selby]

  So Billy, you are saying that a defender passing the ball back to his keeper that is intercepted and put in the net should not be a goal then.
  He was clearly played onside by Mings mate, in fact if he had not been so slow and cumber-sum he was about to pass it back to his keeper, a law that has always been part of the game for years, obviously not in Mexborough  Wath and Birmingham.

[RoversAlias]

I'm not sure how that is offside to be honest. As soon as Mings takes possession of the ball the striker is entering a new phase of play and challenges for it. It's a mistake by the defender and I don't see how it is an offside.

[BillyStubbsTears]

RA.

That's my problem with the law as it stands. The concept of "new phase of play". The striker was clearly in an offside position when the ball was played forwards by the Man City player. To me, the spirit of the concept of offside requires that a player doesn't gain an advantage from that circumstance. A sensible law would be like in rugby. If you have been in an offside position, you must not actively take part in play until you have returned to an onside position. otherwise you have committed an offence.

It is reminiscent of the goal we conceded against Palace in the Cup a couple of years ago. A player taking up a grossly offside position but still allowed to take advantage of that position as the move progresses. It gives a hugely unfair advantage to the striker and it requires defenders to play in a way that factors in the possibility of the striker gaining from that advantage.

[Filo]

It’s old school offside,the rules today have been distorted so that offside becomes a matter of interpretation rather than a matter of fact

[BillyStubbsTears]

Selby. The only way Mings could possibly have been said to have "played him onside" was by intercepting the through ball. My argument would be that at that point, the striker having taken up the position he did, gains an unfair advantage. Because, by being in that offside position, he forces Mings to have to take his position into account. That is totally against the idea of the offside concept. You should not gain an advantage by taking up an offside position.

I've no idea what you are saying about intercepting a back pass. That's got nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

[EasyforDennis]

The crazy thing is. Had Mings just left the ball it would have been offside.

[ss1953]

Thought you were not offside if the ball is last played by the opposition.

Am I wrong?
Genuine question

[selby]

  Billy, once he chested the ball to bring it under control the Manchester City player could have stayed on the goal line with the Villa keeper but would have been active because Mings would play him on side.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Its a bit more complicated than that SS I think.

If the through ball had skimmed off Mings and gone through to the striker in the offside position, he would have been offside, even though the defender was the last to touch it. Because he was in an offside position when his teammate first played the through ball.

RA's point (which is correct according to the LETTER of the Law, but not, in my opinion, correct according to the PRINCIPLE of what the Law is trying to deal with) is that, once Mings intercepted the ball, the striker's offside position doesn't matter. That "Phase" of play has ended and the striker can now participate in the action. My argument is that that means the striker thus gains a huge advantage by having taken up an offside position. And that is unfair.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Selby. I assume you mean he WOULDN'T have been offside if he stayed on the goal line?

If that is what you mean, that is precisely my point in saying how ridiculous the Law is. In those circumstances, if Mings then chose to play the ball back to the keeper, the striker could challenge for it. So he gains an enormous advantage by having taken up an offside position BEFORE Villa took possession of the ball. Obviously, if he ran in behind Mings AFTER Mings had controlled the ball, he'd be totally at liberty to do what he wanted.

[selby]

  Billy, if a defender is deemed to have intentionally played the ball and has control of it an attacker cannot be in an offside position anywhere on the playing field.
  If the Manchester City player had made no effort to get back to the half way line and had stayed in the Villa penalty area and Mings had brought the ball down as he did but turned it back to his keeper which was intercepted and put in the net by the City player, would you have awarded the goal?

[since-1969]

...then we might as well just drop the offside law.


0:43 here.

https://www.mancity.com/citytv/mens/man-city-aston-villa-premier-league-brief-highlights-20-january-63746754

It’s now going to be a tactic by ever cheating scum bag Kittson  until it’s changed!

[i_ateallthepies]

I don't know how the phases of play are defined for the purposes of offside but the striker was in an offside position when the ball was played forward and he took the ball from the defender attempting to deal with the ball played forward.  Had the striker been onside i.e. challenging for the ball in-flight the defender would not have been trying to bring the ball down and would simply have headed it away.

[selby]

 1969, players have been doing it for years, Lincoln City and Stant I think it was did it at every set piece, they scored one v us by Stant standing purposely in an offside position, took the kick to the far side of the area into the corner with the  goal line, where it was headed back to Stant by now completely unmarked and onside who scored, offside when the kick was taken but not interfering onside to score being behind the ball when headed back across goal.

[ravenrover]

But you can be offside by a toenail or a pointing finger  The current offside ruling is beyond idiotic

[since-1969]

1969, players have been doing it for years, Lincoln City and Stant I think it was did it at every set piece, they scored one v us by Stant standing purposely in an offside position, took the kick to the far side of the area into the corner with the  goal line, where it was headed back to Stant by now completely unmarked and onside who scored, offside when the kick was taken but not interfering onside to score being behind the ball when headed back across goal.

When a player standing behind the defender in an off side position , then watches a cross heading in his direction but allows the defender in front the  first touch before he nips in to tackles him  gaining an advantage , having come from an off side position to start with has to be deemed as off side . But the law says not.... Farce !

[selby]

  It comes down to interpretation by the Referee, if the touch is deemed in control and intentional as that was last night, then it is not offside.
  If  it hits a player unintentionally and the player is not in control of the movement then it is offside.
  The problem is that you had a Manchester United so called expert who obviously does not know the law wanting Manchester City to lose points in the game and talks out of his backside, and the Manager of Aston Villa likewise.
  The referee was spot on, dealt with the situation correctly, and if you look at the result in this mornings paper the goal stood. 
 

[RoversAlias]

Some good points made in this thread and I do understand your viewpoint BST, but I still believe this goal should stand and here is why, regardless of how the law states the rule regarding phases of play.

I like to see the game refereed with common sense, contextual understanding and a clear sense of what is and isn't fair.

In this particular instance, Rodri has not snuck up on anyone (like when we see nefarious strikers lurk and pinch the ball off unwitting keepers looking to take a long goal kick) and has fairly and reasonably challenged Mings for possession. He was offside when the initial ball forward was played, but Mings has had time to control the ball with his chest and then with his foot before turning to look for a pass. Rodri then tackles him and lays it off to Bernardo who scores the goal. Now to me, I see no unfair play by City and a new phase of play had clearly begun once Mings took control of the ball for Villa, so what is the issue? Where do we draw the line?

I think it is a little different to the Palace one against us also, as in that instance Palace played a ball forward that both Townsend and Meyer were options for, with Meyer stood well offside. Townsend headed it back across goal and Meyer scored from a lateral position, but in my opinion they should both have been deemed active players for the initial lobbed pass forward. There is no break in the sequence so it should have been the same phase of play and therefore offside. The debate there is more to do with players being active for receiving a pass, whereas Rodri was not active for the initial ball forward that Mings cut out last night.

[EasyforDennis]

The way referees and assistants operate the offside law in the premiership is now spoiling the game.They are relying far too much on var.
So what would happen when a ball is played through to a player in an offside position who now would have to carry on and is then fouled and ends up getting injured. Will the defender get a yellow card or not if the attacking player is subsequently deemed to be offside?

[POD]

Just watched this back on MOTD.  The referee and VAR were correct in the decision for the reasons stated above.

One thing that I would add in watching the replays several times - the defender Mings knows that the striker is there and glances back twice to check his position and thought that he had time to chest the ball down and deal with it.  He took an unnecessary risk and got the ‘chesting down’ a bit wrong allowing the City player to dispossess him, so on reflection he should just have headed it clear. 

[dickos1]

It should 100% be offside
How can a player be 15 yards offside when the ball is played towards him, and then he runs and tackles the defender. It’s ludicrous.
The law is pathetic.

I don’t understand the comparisons with a back pass as you can’t be offside anyhow from a back pass

[selby]

  Look at the score in the game and tell me whether you can get back on side or not.  You could last night.

[Barmby Rover]

Its Premiership, the rules don't apply. Handball, never happens even though there are usually a couple of offences every match, fake injuries and diving are the order ogf the day. Cheats league.

[drfchound]

Irrespective of whether the spirit of the law is broken, the actual law of the game is that it wasn’t offside.
This was confirmed afterwards too.
Has no one noticed that recently when we have had a free kick which is going to be knocked into the opponents box that Fej stands in an offside position, a couple of yards behind the defensive line, then moves onside as the ball has been played.
If anything falls to him he is deemed to be onside under the current rules.

[jmt23]

The games in a mess at the moment, and clear rules, not interpretations of them need laying down. Clubs seem to have a position of bending the rules as far as they can, these things are taught, and discussed how to achieve.

Its just not the spirit of the game - if it can't be played in the right spirit, you might swell have a full on free for all. I feel for referees they know what's right and wrong, and have to implement these silly rules - then take the brunt of the players and managers frustrations.

[DonnyNoel]

As a former ref this one caught me by surprise I'll admit. I'm often the advocate of the "next phase of play" argument but this one seems so against footballing sense. The arguments about how many touches Mings takes should be irrelevant, as i consider it still to be the same phase of play.

I really don't see how much different it is to a keeper spilling a shot into the path of an offisde attacker. Thats always offside.

[1879Rovers]

I remember we used to be impressed if the mrs knew the offside rule now it would be impressive if referees and top players knew the laws. Juventus game last night exactly the same thing happened and it was given offside.

[dickos1]

That’s a great point,
When a goalie saves it and parries the ball the striker is still offside so what’s the difference?

[turnbull for england]

As a former ref this one caught me by surprise I'll admit. I'm often the advocate of the "next phase of play" argument but this one seems so against footballing sense. The arguments about how many touches Mings takes should be irrelevant, as i consider it still to be the same phase of play.

I really don't see how much different it is to a keeper spilling a shot into the path of an offisde attacker. Thats always offside.

Sums it up perfectly