Tonight's Football

There ARE other teams(we'd have no-one to play otherwise) and here's where all-comers can discuss the wider world of football......

Moderator: Zulus Thousand of em

User avatar
Worthy4England
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 32273
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: Tonight's Football

Post by Worthy4England » Mon May 30, 2022 7:21 am

It's all a bit too technical for me. Even had Fabinho been on his own with time and space and tried a deliberate pass to Allison, if the striker comes from an offside position, they should still be offside (for me).

User avatar
Bruce Rioja
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 38742
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 9:19 pm
Location: Drifting into the arena of the unwell.

Re: Tonight's Football

Post by Bruce Rioja » Mon May 30, 2022 7:32 am

GhostoftheBok wrote:
Sun May 29, 2022 8:50 pm
Bruce Rioja wrote:
Sun May 29, 2022 8:41 pm
Liverpool had 24 shots, nine of which were on target. The highlights alone show Courtouis making seven saves from on-target Liverpool attempts.

I'd say that the statistics rather pooh pooh your opinion that the Madrid defenders had Liverpool's attackers on a butty.
It's about shot management and how likely Liverpool are to score from those positions. I felt Real were pretty comfortable for most of the game, which is very impressive against Liverpool.

As I say, Diaz was subbed off. Salah barely showed up. Mane was the most useful of the three, but still didn't excel. We're talking about THE front three in Europe right now looking poor. That means the defenders have done a very tidy job.

Liverpool had more of the ball, more shots etc - but they were not particularly dangerous. Courtois was expected to make saves and did so. As I say, he maybe made two that required a quality goalkeeper.
Shot management? Behave. So what you're saying here is that the Madrid defence thought 'Yeah, let's let Liverpool have nine shots on target, we've got them covered'. Really? That's a combination of good goalkeeping and poor finishing, not good defending.
May the bridges I burn light your way

User avatar
BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 36010
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: Tonight's Football

Post by BWFC_Insane » Mon May 30, 2022 11:42 am

I still disagree with Prus interpretation of the rules. The paragraph about when an opponent plays the ball is separate to the one about a teammate playing it.

I think the rules are clear. If an opposition player plays the ball ‘non deliberately’ and you receive it you are offside regardless of any touch or not from your player.

That’s how walton interprets it. It’s obviously the rule in my view. Because simply if you aren’t offside from a deliberate act from the opponents…that act is not relevant to your teams involvement then the counter is you are offside if they don’t mean to do it.

I’m not saying the rules are in right. But the separation of the paragraphs to me is pretty clear. Valverde touching the ball doesn’t seem relevant to that rule.

User avatar
truewhite15
Passionate
Passionate
Posts: 2721
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 7:25 pm

Re: Tonight's Football

Post by truewhite15 » Mon May 30, 2022 11:51 am

BWFC_Insane wrote:
Mon May 30, 2022 11:42 am
I still disagree with Prus interpretation of the rules. The paragraph about when an opponent plays the ball is separate to the one about a teammate playing it.

I think the rules are clear. If an opposition player plays the ball ‘non deliberately’ and you receive it you are offside regardless of any touch or not from your player.

That’s how walton interprets it. It’s obviously the rule in my view. Because simply if you aren’t offside from a deliberate act from the opponents…that act is not relevant to your teams involvement then the counter is you are offside if they don’t mean to do it.

I’m not saying the rules are in right. But the separation of the paragraphs to me is pretty clear. Valverde touching the ball doesn’t seem relevant to that rule.
So I'm back to " that's the most absurd thing I've ever heard". If that's the interpretation, you could have an (unlikely, but possible) hypothetical situation where team A has a throw in, and a player stood in an offside postion, and through some calamitous Keystone Cops defending from team B the ball accidentally deflects to team A's striker - who is deemed offside because team B "played the ball accidentally". That's ridiculous.

User avatar
BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 36010
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: Tonight's Football

Post by BWFC_Insane » Mon May 30, 2022 12:26 pm

truewhite15 wrote:
Mon May 30, 2022 11:51 am
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Mon May 30, 2022 11:42 am
I still disagree with Prus interpretation of the rules. The paragraph about when an opponent plays the ball is separate to the one about a teammate playing it.

I think the rules are clear. If an opposition player plays the ball ‘non deliberately’ and you receive it you are offside regardless of any touch or not from your player.

That’s how walton interprets it. It’s obviously the rule in my view. Because simply if you aren’t offside from a deliberate act from the opponents…that act is not relevant to your teams involvement then the counter is you are offside if they don’t mean to do it.

I’m not saying the rules are in right. But the separation of the paragraphs to me is pretty clear. Valverde touching the ball doesn’t seem relevant to that rule.
So I'm back to " that's the most absurd thing I've ever heard". If that's the interpretation, you could have an (unlikely, but possible) hypothetical situation where team A has a throw in, and a player stood in an offside postion, and through some calamitous Keystone Cops defending from team B the ball accidentally deflects to team A's striker - who is deemed offside because team B "played the ball accidentally". That's ridiculous.
Yep and I’m not even sure it’s intentional. It was a recent change to the rules so people claim…though I don’t know if that’s true.

The fact that it’s not exactly clear what it means shows that it needs ripping up and starting again with.

User avatar
Prufrock
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 23959
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:51 pm

Re: Tonight's Football

Post by Prufrock » Mon May 30, 2022 12:45 pm

BWFC_Insane wrote:
Mon May 30, 2022 11:42 am
I still disagree with Prus interpretation of the rules. The paragraph about when an opponent plays the ball is separate to the one about a teammate playing it.

I think the rules are clear. If an opposition player plays the ball ‘non deliberately’ and you receive it you are offside regardless of any touch or not from your player.

That’s how walton interprets it. It’s obviously the rule in my view. Because simply if you aren’t offside from a deliberate act from the opponents…that act is not relevant to your teams involvement then the counter is you are offside if they don’t mean to do it.

I’m not saying the rules are in right. But the separation of the paragraphs to me is pretty clear. Valverde touching the ball doesn’t seem relevant to that rule.
Jesus fecking wept. It's English comprehension. You're obviously, obviously wrong.

Otherwise every single through ball that nicked off a defender on the way through would be offside and we'd spend hours trying to work out if they'd meant to play the ball.

So De Bruyne plays a through ball to Sterling who is on side at the time, but on its way through it nicks off Van Dijk's shin (at which point Sterling is in an offside position). He'd then be offside. Which he wouldn't be. Obviously.

The first para is vital, the sine qua non.

1) A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:

In order to be offside (as in penalised for it) you have to:

- be in an offside position.
- at the moment the ball is played or touched by a team-mate.
- then you have to become involved in active play by doing one of:

2a) interfering with play
2b) interfering with an opponent
2c) gaining an advantage.

You gain an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when it has:
rebounded or been deflected off the goalpost, crossbar or an opponent or been deliberately saved by any opponent.

So if you're offside when someone has a shot, plays a pass, takes a shot and it comes back off the post (still offside) takes a deflection (still offside) is saved (still offside).

BUT

3) a player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent

Note the bit in bold. It's about whether you're considered to have gained an advantage. A reference back to 2c), and for 2c) to be relevant, 1) needs to have been met, the ball has to be touched or played by an opponent.

You're offside if the ball only *deflects" off the opponent. The deliberately played the ball thing is making clear that that doesn't count as deflected off an opponent. It's a way of saying if the defending team have control of the ball, you stop being offside (but to stop being offside , you have to be offside to begin with, a teammate has to have touched the ball).

So for that "goal" we need

- Benzema was in an offside position. He was.
- team-mate to have touched or played it. Valverde has to have touched the ball. They must have been satisfied that he did. If he didn't, it can't be offside.
-Benzema to have gained an advantage.

He gained an advantage because he played the ball after it detected off an opponent (Fabinho and Konate), it doesn't matter if it's more than one, in the same way it doesn't matter if it deflects off the crossbar AND a deliberate save by the goalkeeper.

But he wouldn't gain an advantage if Fabinho or Konate deliberately played the ball. They must have been satisfied that they didn't.

This is an example of what that para is aimed at:

https://www.skysports.com/watch/video/s ... h-sees-red

Rodri isn't offside under that para because Mings deliberately plays the ball by chesting it down (like I suspect Worthy, I think he very much should be).
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.

User avatar
Prufrock
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 23959
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:51 pm

Re: Tonight's Football

Post by Prufrock » Mon May 30, 2022 12:48 pm

truewhite15 wrote:
Mon May 30, 2022 11:51 am
BWFC_Insane wrote:
Mon May 30, 2022 11:42 am
I still disagree with Prus interpretation of the rules. The paragraph about when an opponent plays the ball is separate to the one about a teammate playing it.

I think the rules are clear. If an opposition player plays the ball ‘non deliberately’ and you receive it you are offside regardless of any touch or not from your player.

That’s how walton interprets it. It’s obviously the rule in my view. Because simply if you aren’t offside from a deliberate act from the opponents…that act is not relevant to your teams involvement then the counter is you are offside if they don’t mean to do it.

I’m not saying the rules are in right. But the separation of the paragraphs to me is pretty clear. Valverde touching the ball doesn’t seem relevant to that rule.
So I'm back to " that's the most absurd thing I've ever heard". If that's the interpretation, you could have an (unlikely, but possible) hypothetical situation where team A has a throw in, and a player stood in an offside postion, and through some calamitous Keystone Cops defending from team B the ball accidentally deflects to team A's striker - who is deemed offside because team B "played the ball accidentally". That's ridiculous.
Yes. Or a defender clearing it against his own man and an attacker somehow being offside.

But that isn't the interpretation. FIFA are thick but they're not that thick.

The playing the ball thing is only relevant to the "gaining an advantage" limb of the offside test, and to gain an advantage you have to be offside in the first place, which requires a team-mate playing the ball.
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.

User avatar
BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 36010
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: Tonight's Football

Post by BWFC_Insane » Mon May 30, 2022 1:50 pm

Fair play and said rule makes more sense of course. But it clearly needs a rewrite.

User avatar
Bruce Rioja
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 38742
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 9:19 pm
Location: Drifting into the arena of the unwell.

Re: Tonight's Football

Post by Bruce Rioja » Mon May 30, 2022 1:57 pm

I basically gave up on trying to understand the latest version of the offside rule when that lad scored for Middlesbrough against Man U, who, had he scored would have been offside, but because he passed it to someone else, wasn't.

It's an absolute shambles.
May the bridges I burn light your way

User avatar
Prufrock
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 23959
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:51 pm

Re: Tonight's Football

Post by Prufrock » Mon May 30, 2022 2:21 pm

That was the current fecked up version of the handball rule, Bruce, rather than the current fecked up version of the offside rule :D
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.

User avatar
Bruce Rioja
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 38742
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 9:19 pm
Location: Drifting into the arena of the unwell.

Re: Tonight's Football

Post by Bruce Rioja » Mon May 30, 2022 2:23 pm

Prufrock wrote:
Mon May 30, 2022 2:21 pm
That was the current fecked up version of the handball rule, Bruce, rather than the current fecked up version of the offside rule :D
Ahh, you're right. I knew it was a fecked-up something. :D
May the bridges I burn light your way

User avatar
Prufrock
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 23959
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:51 pm

Re: Tonight's Football

Post by Prufrock » Mon May 30, 2022 2:41 pm

BWFC_Insane wrote:
Mon May 30, 2022 1:50 pm
Fair play and said rule makes more sense of course. But it clearly needs a rewrite.
I do think there's a wider issue in that every year they dick around and tweak the edges of various rules but the way they do it is incredibly legalistic and reactive.

I may have been a bit harsh calling it English comprehension above :D . It's basically statutory construction, and you shouldn't need to be a lawyer to follow the "laws" ( :eyeroll: ) of the game.

And every time they do it you end of with mental things that a) are obviously *wrong* to fans/players or b) there is some weird new thing going on that the ex refs are so keen to talk about that they ignore the main point.

And the ex-ref pundits are all *terrible*. They're all dicks (you'd have to be) who think they're cleverer by half and are too busy trying to show off about a niche thing and missing the obvious.

So to take Bruce's Middlesbrough example, there's the daft rule that if it hits your arm for whatever reason (including when accidental) and you score it's handball, but if you pass to someone that rule doesn't apply (though the existing handball rule still does), a tweak on the previous daft rule that if it hits your arm for whatever reason (including when accidental) in the build up to a goal it's handball.

But that doesn't change the existing handball rule. Handball is still handball, it's just there's an addition even if it's accidental and you score. The Middlesbrough lad handballed it, his arm was up by his head. End of story. Instead the idiot ref (I'm assuming it was Walton but who knows) started talking about the fact someone else scored giving the impression you could catch a cross and then as long as you rolled it to someone else it was fine. As if all the silly player pundits just hadn't understood this clever new rule. Instead of what happened which was the ref missed the obvious handball and VAR did its nonsense nothing to see here routine.

Ditto the "deliberately playing the ball" nonsense. That Rodri City goal I linked to, it's just obviously offside. That new para is stupid. Rodri is offside when the city player passes forward. Mings should be able to bring that ball down and play without any interference from Rodri who is behind him and offside. He obviously "gains an advantage" from being there because he sneaks up and tackles him and they score.
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.

User avatar
GhostoftheBok
Legend
Legend
Posts: 6795
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2018 12:51 pm

Re: Tonight's Football

Post by GhostoftheBok » Mon May 30, 2022 2:48 pm

Bruce Rioja wrote:
Mon May 30, 2022 7:32 am
Shot management? Behave. So what you're saying here is that the Madrid defence thought 'Yeah, let's let Liverpool have nine shots on target, we've got them covered'. Really? That's a combination of good goalkeeping and poor finishing, not good defending.
I'm saying that good defences these days offer shooting corridors to attackers that make saves as routine as possible for keepers, rather than risking allowing players into positions they are more likely to score from.

This isn't new or controversial. Dyche has been doing this for years at Burnley, as have a number of clubs on the continent. It's why Burnley keepers always look so good statistically, but don't get targeted by big clubs - because typically bigger clubs play more open defensive structures that are design to benefit their attacks and 'keepers are expected to make more unorthodox and less routine saves.

So, yeah, there are instances where sides encourage players to take on lower percentage shots rather than closing them down and having play develop. In Madrid's case it was more like they were in situations where ordinarily Liverpool would have had a clear-cut shot, but instead had a half-chance because the defence did its job. Courtois still had to make a save, but he had a chance to make it because the defending was good and players made very few mistakes.

Courtois had an outstanding game, which he had to for a side like Real's to beat Liverpool; but he kept a clean sheet thanks to the defence in front of him.

User avatar
Worthy4England
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 32273
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: Tonight's Football

Post by Worthy4England » Mon May 30, 2022 3:33 pm

Good defences have always tried to do that, as you say, neither new nor controversial, albeit there might be now better science around what constitutes a better "corridor" from a defensive perspective....

User avatar
GhostoftheBok
Legend
Legend
Posts: 6795
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2018 12:51 pm

Re: Tonight's Football

Post by GhostoftheBok » Mon May 30, 2022 5:34 pm

Worthy4England wrote:
Mon May 30, 2022 3:33 pm
Good defences have always tried to do that, as you say, neither new nor controversial, albeit there might be now better science around what constitutes a better "corridor" from a defensive perspective....
Absolutely.

Sometimes the opposition get a shot on goal and the defence has still done a great job. That's always been true.

User avatar
TANGODANCER
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 43133
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
Location: Between the Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light penny candles from stars.

Re: Tonight's Football

Post by TANGODANCER » Sat Jun 04, 2022 7:17 pm

Got a football lesson from a sharper, committed and impressively skilful Hungarian side. We lost 1-0 to a harsh penalty, but we weren't the better side. Boss man played about trying various positions, new players and nothing worked. Harry Kane is off the boil and spent time out left and Alexander Armstrong managed to put three corner kicks out for goal kicks without hitting a player. Bowen looks useful but Grealish was our best player and should have started, as should Sterling. Hope this wakes us up.
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?

User avatar
Worthy4England
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 32273
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: Tonight's Football

Post by Worthy4England » Sun Jun 05, 2022 11:15 am

Dear Wales. I'm supporting Ukraine.

User avatar
TANGODANCER
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 43133
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
Location: Between the Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light penny candles from stars.

Re: Tonight's Football

Post by TANGODANCER » Sun Jun 05, 2022 6:20 pm

Worthy4England wrote:
Sun Jun 05, 2022 11:15 am
Dear Wales. I'm supporting Ukraine.
Aye. Not a Wales fan at rugby or football. Wife's a born Scouser and all her mothers side are Welsh (She's (was) a cousin to T.V.actor Glyn Owen), so loyalties are a bit divided here. I'm English with an Irish father. I can't stand Bale, Ramsey or Moore. Come on Ukraine. :oyea:
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?

User avatar
TANGODANCER
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 43133
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
Location: Between the Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light penny candles from stars.

Re: Tonight's Football

Post by TANGODANCER » Sun Jun 05, 2022 6:49 pm

Ah well, Wales join our group. 1-0
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?

User avatar
BWFC_Insane
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 36010
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: Tonight's Football

Post by BWFC_Insane » Sun Jun 05, 2022 7:00 pm

I will buck the trend and say I’m pretty pleased for Wales. Ukraine would have been a fairy story, but Wales having not been to a WC in most of their supporters lifetimes is pretty remarkable and a great achievement to finally get there.

Also an England Wales game much more exciting than one against Ukraine.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests