Major Change To The Offside Rule

[WhyAlwaysMe?]

This new change to the offside law could have a major impact on City's success in all the PL, FA Cup & League Cup competitions. Let's hope that this will finally eliminate all of Sunderland's offside goals, that were allowed to stand. Maybe all the teams that park 6 players in front of the City back line, trying to beat the offside trap, will now have to come up with a new gimmick. This should end all that controversy in 2014, over a Cheick Tiote wonder goal scored, while Yoan Gouffran blocked Joe Hart and then, moved to allow the ball in the net.

I can imagine that this new change to the offside law, might be a major topic of discussion, at the yearly meeting of the managers. It's a shame that this change wasn't announced, until after Dazby's interview with Mark Clattenburg.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... eason.html

[mr_nool]

It was announced almost two weeks ago.

[WhyAlwaysMe?]

It was announced almost two weeks ago.

Mr_Nool, this change has actually been in the works for months and yes, it was announced weeks ago. However, it has taken weeks for the online media to provide us with some good coverage of the decision, that was worth sharing here.

Actually, I may have also been waiting for someone else to post the topic, since I've never started a thread before.... So, I hope you'll be understanding, since it's my first time as a thread-starter!

https://uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/look-o ... --sow.html

http://www.fifa.com/about-fifa/news/y=2 ... 95313.html

[mr_nool]

Sorry mate, didn't mean to piss om your parade ;-)

The Premier League tweeted a link of it along with explanatory videos. Thought about posting it myself, but forgot about it.

[WhyAlwaysMe?]

Sorry mate, didn't mean to piss om your parade ;-)
The Premier League tweeted a link of it along with explanatory videos. Thought about posting it myself, but forgot about it.

Noolie, not to worry, since we can hopefully look forward to another parade, when City gain more points, with this law change!

Thanks for guiding me to this PL.com link:

http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/news ... dance.html

[DoomMerchant]

what i don't understand is how this wasn't how offsides should have been interpreted anyway. I mean, it's just common sense that if a player interferes with play or is offside and comes back in directly changing the defender or goalies focus then it interferes with play. It's not rocket surgery.

it's how i always understood the rule should have worked anyway. Am i a woman? I should ask Andy Gray.

cheers

[WhyAlwaysMe?]

what i don't understand is how this wasn't how offsides should have been interpreted anyway. I mean, it's just common sense that if a player interferes with play or is offside and comes back in directly changing the defender or goalies focus then it interferes with play. It's not rocket surgery.

it's how i always understood the rule should have worked anyway. Am i a woman? I should ask Andy Gray.
cheers

DoomMerchant, yes, that is exactly how the law should have always been defined. All the rocket scientists and the brain surgeons in the world, couldn't figure out all the permutations and interptretations of the previous version of the offside rule! So the remaining FIFA "geniuses" and the Dyke at the FA, have finally decided to make the law somewhat clearer.

Andy Gray won't be able to give you an answer, without first consulting his bacterial twin, Richard Keys...their minds are inseparable!

[Foreverinbluedreams]

I think it is how it was interpreted DM but this is just clarifying it by putting it in writing.

[WhyAlwaysMe?]

The FA has also added some new conduct restrictions... Could aggressive walking be due for a return?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... nduct.html

[Slim]

I think it is how it was interpreted DM but this is just clarifying it by putting it in writing.

It was only interpreted that way half the time, I think in two consecutive matches(first was against Newcastle, can't remember the other) we had a goal of their disallowed and in the next game one of ours stood. The geordies were fuming over that, they're quite funny when they rant. However they were correct as both goals contained the elements that should have had them disallowed but it was only applied when the ref seemingly felt like it.

It was like the rule "you can only be offside with parts of your body that can legally score a goal." Which makes perfect sense to me, but it needed to be stated as we've seen goals ruled out and stood because someone was "offside" with an arm.

Let's not even start with the daylight rule and thank fuck that got trashed quickly.

[Mikhail Chigorin]

what i don't understand is how this wasn't how offsides should have been interpreted anyway. I mean, it's just common sense that if a player interferes with play or is offside and comes back in directly changing the defender or goalies focus then it interferes with play. It's not rocket surgery.

it's how i always understood the rule should have worked anyway. Am i a woman? I should ask Andy Gray.
cheers

DoomMerchant, yes, that is exactly how the law should have always been defined. All the rocket scientists and the brain surgeons in the world, couldn't figure out all the permutations and interptretations of the previous version of the offside rule! So the remaining FIFA "geniuses" and the Dyke at the FA, have finally decided to make the law somewhat clearer.

Andy Gray won't be able to give you an answer, without first consulting his bacterial twin, Richard Keys...their minds are inseparable!

Be fair WAM, the poor souls have to share the same brain cell.

[WhyAlwaysMe?]

DoomMerchant,
Andy Gray won't be able to give you an answer, without first consulting his bacterial twin, Richard Keys...their minds are inseparable!

Be fair WAM, the poor souls have to share the same brain cell.

Mikhail, yes, I should applaud the Andy Gray-Richard Keys brain cell for actually getting a paid job from BeIn Sport! They're great, if you like football comedy twins!

[Mikhail Chigorin]

DoomMerchant,
Andy Gray won't be able to give you an answer, without first consulting his bacterial twin, Richard Keys...their minds are inseparable!

Be fair WAM, the poor souls have to share the same brain cell.

Mikhail, yes, I should applaud the Andy Gray-Richard Keys brain cell for actually getting a paid job from BeIn Sport! They're great, if you like grotesque football comedy twins!

Just added another, appropriate adjective to your post.

Hope you didn't mind.

[Foreverinbluedreams]

I think it is how it was interpreted DM but this is just clarifying it by putting it in writing.

It was only interpreted that way half the time, I think in two consecutive matches(first was against Newcastle, can't remember the other) we had a goal of their disallowed and in the next game one of ours stood. The geordies were fuming over that, they're quite funny when they rant. However they were correct as both goals contained the elements that should have had them disallowed but it was only applied when the ref seemingly felt like it.

It was like the rule "you can only be offside with parts of your body that can legally score a goal." Which makes perfect sense to me, but it needed to be stated as we've seen goals ruled out and stood because someone was "offside" with an arm.

Let's not even start with the daylight rule and thank fuck that got trashed quickly.

Yep, agree with that Slim. These refs are obviously a bit too thick to apply a consistent interpretation so needed it put in writing for them.

[WhyAlwaysMe?]

DoomMerchant,
Andy Gray won't be able to give you an answer, without first consulting his bacterial twin, Richard Keys...their minds are inseparable!

Be fair WAM, the poor souls have to share the same brain cell.

Mikhail, yes, I should applaud the Andy Gray-Richard Keys brain cell for actually getting a paid job from BeIn Sport! They're great, if you like grotesque
football comedy twins!

Just added another, appropriate adjective to your post.
Hope you didn't mind.

Mikhail, many thanks for adding the perfect word, to describe Gray-Keys, the 2 sexist kings of sports journalism! Thinking of their backwards comments, always leaves me at a loss for words!

No sooner did we completely ridicule Andy Gray, and then, he nearly redeems himself!
He has challenged David James and said that City should definitely make the Top 4.
I guess that Andy Gray has more brain cells than Calamity James, after all...

http://talksport.com/football/andy-gray ... -will-miss?

[WhyAlwaysMe?]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... h-ban.html

The FA are adding new revisions on bookings for simulating or feigning injuries and diving. There could now be match bans for a player feigning injury, if it results in another player getting sent off.

Worryingly, the DM has used an image of Mike Jones, making his world famous mistake, by booking Sergio for diving! Rather surprising choice of photo, since the DM had originally published numerous articles slamming Mike Jones for his mistake, back in Nov-Dec 2014... They even ran a photoshopped version of Mike Jones as a blind man, with a walking stick! In case anyone needs a reminder of Jones being reprimanded and demoted:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... -Poll.html

With this new FA revision, I am now a bit concerned that Mike Riley and his PGMOL lackeys will make similar mistakes and give match bans to players who are legitimately rough tackled and injured.

[Wonderwall]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3186806/FA-ramp-disciplinary-crackdown-players-feigning-injury-opponents-dismissed-risk-three-match-ban.html

The FA are adding new revisions on bookings for simulating or feigning injuries and diving. There could now be match bans for a player feigning injury, if it results in another player getting sent off.

Worryingly, the DM has used an image of Mike Jones, making his world famous mistake, by booking Sergio for diving! Rather surprising choice of photo, since the DM had originally published numerous articles slamming Mike Jones for his mistake, back in Nov-Dec 2014... They even ran a photoshopped version of Mike Jones as a blind man, with a walking stick! In case anyone needs a reminder of Jones being reprimanded and demoted:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... -Poll.html

With this new FA revision, I am now a bit concerned that Mike Riley and his PGMOL lackeys will make similar mistakes and give match bans to players who are legitimately rough tackled and injured.

It's dangerous ground to say if a player is injured or not. What are the boundaries? I remember both Aguero and Silva both going down injured last season in what seemed a very innocuous challenge and both ended up out for a while. Imo this should not be a refs call. What next? Referees demanding medical reports?

[WhyAlwaysMe?]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3186806/FA-ramp-disciplinary-crackdown-players-feigning-injury-opponents-dismissed-risk-three-match-ban.html

The FA are adding new revisions on bookings for simulating or feigning injuries and diving. There could now be match bans for a player feigning injury, if it results in another player getting sent off.

It's dangerous ground to say if a player is injured or not. What are the boundaries? I remember both Aguero and Silva both going down injured last season in what seemed a very innocuous challenge and both ended up out for a while. Imo this should not be a refs call. What next? Referees demanding medical reports?

Wonderwall, I totally agree with your comment and I also don't trust the refs to decide who has faked an injury, or not.

I don't think it's a coincidence that it's always Aguero, Silva & the rest of City's best players, that are purposely targeted with the roughest of fouls. When City played Everton, it was immediately clear that Besic and Coleman had been instructed to close Aguero down. The injury that kept Aguero out for so long, was caused by Coleman and Besic creating a sandwich around Aguero and then, both tackling Sergio, at the same time! The Everton defenders got exactly what they needed, with Aguero off the pitch!

It is also well known that Silva has had ankle injuries... So, it's never a surprise to me, when City's opponents purposely aim their boots at David's ankles. What does surprise me is the increasing lack of protection from the refs, with every year that City remains at the top!

[Slim]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3186806/FA-ramp-disciplinary-crackdown-players-feigning-injury-opponents-dismissed-risk-three-match-ban.html

The FA are adding new revisions on bookings for simulating or feigning injuries and diving. There could now be match bans for a player feigning injury, if it results in another player getting sent off.

It's dangerous ground to say if a player is injured or not. What are the boundaries? I remember both Aguero and Silva both going down injured last season in what seemed a very innocuous challenge and both ended up out for a while. Imo this should not be a refs call. What next? Referees demanding medical reports?

Wonderwall, I totally agree with your comment and I also don't trust the refs to decide who has faked an injury, or not.

I don't think it's a coincidence that it's always Aguero, Silva & the rest of City's best players, that are purposely targeted with the roughest of fouls. When City played Everton, it was immediately clear that Besic and Coleman had been instructed to close Aguero down. The injury that kept Aguero out for so long, was caused by Coleman and Besic creating a sandwich around Aguero and then, both tackling Sergio, at the same time! The Everton defenders got exactly what they needed, with Aguero off the pitch!

It is also well known that Silva has had ankle injuries... So, it's never a surprise to me, when City's opponents purposely aim their boots at David's ankles. What does surprise me is the increasing lack of protection from the refs, with every year that City remains at the top!

Does anyone remember that game they have captioned with Aguero getting booked for simulation?

Does anyone remember that on replay it was shown quite clearly he was fouled, quite clearly he should have had a penalty. If they'd sent off the defender there would be no call for a ban as it would not have been questioned.

[WhyAlwaysMe?]

Does anyone remember that game they have captioned with Aguero getting booked for simulation?
Does anyone remember that on replay it was shown quite clearly he was fouled, quite clearly he should have had a penalty. If they'd sent off the defender there would be no call for a ban as it would not have been questioned.

Slim, yes my earlier post describes the whole Mike Jones wrongly booking Aguero debacle, that caused a global outcry for change in refereeing.
Here's a link to one of DM's own articles, condemning Mike Jones, at the time. The DM photo caption editor made poor choices, to illustrate this FA rules feature!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... -Poll.html