Well it's wide open this season so could last a long time or a short time, makes it more interesting and suspenseful, but of course it's always good if your team is winning all the time, I guess unpredictability makes sport more entertaining though, again there's enjoyment in your team laying waste to all and it feels good, but it also feels good to win a title after a tighter contest
I didn’t mind not having a tight contest last season. It was thoroughly enjoyable we will definitely have a tight contest this season. We will get over our blip and fight with City for the title. MU and Leicester will fight for the CL places with Spurs.
Its amazing what needing to prove you are any good to attract the right offer in the summer can do for a **** like pogpoo. Anyway, City extremely ominous at this point. Best we try to keep up as long as possible rather than give up like I have on the league. Any continuation of this form will mean 5th or 6th not 4th. I would rather keep trying until leicester and spurs break and secure 3rd than see us ever giving up as a set of players. The fa cup draw was a disaster so that leaves us the cl to focus on later in the season.
Tobes will get the rule book out to say otherwise. You get that every game, the moment the offside attacker puts any pressure on the defender it's given offside. I would even bet on seeing it in our game tonight.
many defenders are not even aware of that rule. An attacker can lurk behind a defender in an offside position and as soon as the defender controls the ball, he can pounce and pinch it. Nonsensical rule, which makes a mockery of the whole offside principle.
BREAKING: FIFA have released a statement regarding the European “Super League”.. They confirm that this competition would NOT be recognised by FIFA & therefore any player involved will not be allowed to participate in any FIFA competition i.e World Cup.
Haha. FIFA and the football establishment coming together to protect their financial interests. We’ve not heard the last of it.
It was not offside last night as mings deliberately played the ball. It is an anomaly between not flagging (the guy is miles offside) in trying to let play go on and mings then effectively ending the offside by deliberately playing the ball. The instant he chests it the player can become active. If the player has challenged mings in anyway then he would have been offside. Mings had an easy header forward to his own team mate there so really he needs to look at himself. However i expect clarification of the rule to come quickly as it is clear that is it an unexpected consequence of keeping the flag down. Right now I would expect some sides to put a player between defenders and keeper to prevent back passing for example. If you could work it out as long as you just stand about unitl someone plays a pass back then run you should be ok. Its not exactly easy to implement in general play is it?
I can understand it when there's a deliberate back pass, or when the defender has control of the ball, but Mings is still trying to get it under control when he's robbed. It may be right according to the letter of the law, but doesn't really fit with the "seeking to gain an advantage from being in an offside position" aspect of the rule, imo.
so the attacker just stands there and pretends not to be interested. But as soon as the defender touches the ball, he is tackled and robbed of the ball from behind and plays it to his fellow attacker who then scores. The ball initially came from the attacking team. No wonder Smith was incensed. It goes against the spirit of that specific rule. Referees should not act like robots. As soon as Mings touched the ball, he is tackled. That should have been the clue for the ref to blow the whistle. FFS we need to see the wood for the trees.
That is the rule (11?), and what you say is correct. BUT - I'll say what I said in 'The other place', and that is this: remember when Lovren played Harry Kane on a few seasons ago when he swiped at a ball and deflected it to Kane, who then was brought down for a pen (which he missed)? What was Lovren supposed to do (kicking the ball properly obviously not being an option)? He played to the whistle - should he have just stood aside and let the ball go to Kane in an offside position? What if the lino ****s up , and so does VAR (as in Bobby at Villa)? I can see why the rule is there - to stop back passes that are cut out being given as offside. But what if a defender lunges at a cross, gets a slight snick on it, and that diverts it to a forward five yards offside who taps it in? Bag of ****e if you ask me (which you didn't, tbf).
most refs / linesman would normally give an offside in that position even if that is technically incorrect .
most refs / linesman would normally give an offside in that position even if that is technically incorrect .
So if a ball is played through and both the attacker and defender chase it (flag stays down because that's what they do now) but the defender gets there first before being dispossessed, it's onside? Joke of a rule. The ball was played towards the offside player but Mings felt he had to deal with it (clearly off so should have let it run through to the keeper) so intercepted but was tackled whilst doing so. The offside player clearly makes movement towards the ball too. If Mings had passed it (whether that's to thre Man City player, to an teammate or towards the keeper) then it would be understandable, he didn't even have time to control it. You could argue that he should have dealt with it on his initial touch but I'd counter that by saying he shouldn't have to deal with it at all when the only concern is a player 20yrds offside. That player being in the offside position is the only reason he touched the ball!
Speaking of offside, what's the logic behind the "coming back from an offside position" thing. If a player is onside when he picks up the ball, what advantage has he gained?
In the strictest interpretation of the law, it is not offside. But this just shows how stupid the rule is. You have referees taking 10 mins to see if Bobby's pubic hair is offside but then they don't think Rodri is interfering with play? The game is gone.
The rule wasn’t designed for a situation like that. And like many refereeing issues it’s about seeing the wood for the trees. In the small print of the laws the attacker could have been ok but in the spirit of the offside rule the whole world would see the offside.