***city v villa official match thread***

[Douglas Higginbottom]

We also have the officials to thank for finishing the game with 11 men rather than 10, since Benteke was given as offside when he was clearly onside just before Joe fouled him near our goal (and would almost certainly have seen a red card and a penalty for it).

Looking at the line it was obvious why the lino gave offside, it wasn't clear at all and would've definitely looked offside from the lino's perspective.

We have had some silly ones this season. Yesterday Benteke was offside but somehow the trailing heel of MDM was deemed to play him onside.

Against WHU the scum got a goal disallowed because Nolan , at the back post, peered around a defender to see a cross being made. His body was onside but his left eye was offside.

Bottom line is the lino does what he does and we accept it.

[zuricity]

We also have the officials to thank for finishing the game with 11 men rather than 10, since Benteke was given as offside when he was clearly onside just before Joe fouled him near our goal (and would almost certainly have seen a red card and a penalty for it).

I wouldn't thank the officials Mike saw Delph lay Navas out with a forearm block and let it go. Villa could easily be down to ten men there. Clear foul and therefore penalty on Silva in the build up to the free kick from Kolo.

Some poor refereeing allowed Villa to get back into the game.

KUN , btw needs a rocket up his ass. Good job he wasn't playing on the wing because he would have ( note the use of the verb to have) fallen off it.

Care to clarify that? You seem to be relating it to me, so if you're giving me a lesson in grammar I'm very likely to swear at you.

The grammar lesson is not related to you at all.

[zuricity]

The off side rule is the guilty party for me, with most decisions. As much as I laughed at Evertons third goal it did make a mockery of the offside rule. Benteke was offside for Villa's first, but as he did not touch it then he was ignored. Same as the toffees goal.

On tv , when they decide to stop the film footage to draw the line across the field is also debatable.

Villa's first goal was offside.

[Dameerto]

We also have the officials to thank for finishing the game with 11 men rather than 10, since Benteke was given as offside when he was clearly onside just before Joe fouled him near our goal (and would almost certainly have seen a red card and a penalty for it).

I wouldn't thank the officials Mike saw Delph lay Navas out with a forearm block and let it go. Villa could easily be down to ten men there. Clear foul and therefore penalty on Silva in the build up to the free kick from Kolo.

Some poor refereeing allowed Villa to get back into the game.

KUN , btw needs a rocket up his ass. Good job he wasn't playing on the wing because he would have ( note the use of the verb to have) fallen off it.

Care to clarify that? You seem to be relating it to me, so if you're giving me a lesson in grammar I'm very likely to swear at you.

The grammar lession is not related to you at all.

Ah thanks for clarifying.

[kinkylola]

The off side rule is the guilty party for me, with most decisions. As much as I laughed at Evertons third goal it did make a mockery of the offside rule. Benteke was offside for Villa's first, but as he did not touch it then he was ignored. Same as the toffees goal.

On tv , when they decide to stop the film footage to draw the line across the field is also debatable.

Villa's first goal was offside.

people are acting like that is the worst offsides call in history ... it wasn't. Makes it very easy to tell who has unreasonable views about city.

[Original Dub]

The off side rule is the guilty party for me, with most decisions. As much as I laughed at Evertons third goal it did make a mockery of the offside rule. Benteke was offside for Villa's first, but as he did not touch it then he was ignored. Same as the toffees goal.

On tv , when they decide to stop the film footage to draw the line across the field is also debatable.

Villa's first goal was offside.

people are acting like that is the worst offsides call in history ... it wasn't. Makes it very easy to tell who has unreasonable views about city.

Not the worst by any means.

But offside all the same. Just like in many of this year's games.

I know I've banged on about it and I realise we have played shit in games.

But when you have that many dubious goals awarded against you and 20 stone wall penalties not awarded to you, it makes quite a diffence to your points tally at the end of the year.

The rags have been dog shit and people are wondering why we are now in a battle with them.

Above lies your answer. I have not noticed half of that shit happening them. In fact, I've never seen them have better luck.

[Wonderwall]

Souness was good after the rags game yesterday as he was saying that the law is shambolic. The problem is, its down to the individual officials interpretation of the offside rule, one week its offside, the next week it isnt. There is no consistency which also leads to players not knowing if they should stick or twist.

[Foreverinbluedreams]

Souness was good after the rags game yesterday as he was saying that the law is shambolic. The problem is, its down to the individual officials interpretation of the offside rule, one week its offside, the next week it isnt. There is no consistency which also leads to players not knowing if they should stick or twist.

It is shambolic, when a defensive line steps up to play someone offside then that someone is interfering with play, there's no two ways about it. It's great when them decisions go against the Rags though.

I recall the first season it was introduced, Van Persie a number of times stood about five yards offside, the ball was then lifted over the top for Walcott on the wing ( who wasn't offside ), by the time Walcott got into a crossing position Van Persie was all alone in the box because he had a five yard head start on the central defenders that were playing him offside. Farce.

If a player is on the deck or obviously retreating when the ball is played then it's fair to deem them as not interfering otherwise it's just ridiculous.

[iwasthere2012]

Souness was good after the rags game yesterday as he was saying that the law is shambolic. The problem is, its down to the individual officials interpretation of the offside rule, one week its offside, the next week it isnt. There is no consistency which also leads to players not knowing if they should stick or twist.

It is shambolic, when a defensive line steps up to play someone offside then that someone is interfering with play, there's no two ways about it. It's great when them decisions go against the Rags though.

I recall the first season it was introduced, Van Persie a number of times stood about five yards offside, the ball was then lifted over the top for Walcott on the wing ( who wasn't offside ), by the time Walcott got into a crossing position Van Persie was all alone in the box because he had a five yard head start on the central defenders that were playing him offside. Farce.

If a player is on the deck or obviously retreating when the ball is played then it's fair to deem them as not interfering otherwise it's just ridiculous.

To paraphrase Shankly, if they are not interfering with play, what the fuck are they doing on the pitch?

[nottsblue]

Souness was good after the rags game yesterday as he was saying that the law is shambolic. The problem is, its down to the individual officials interpretation of the offside rule, one week its offside, the next week it isnt. There is no consistency which also leads to players not knowing if they should stick or twist.

It is shambolic, when a defensive line steps up to play someone offside then that someone is interfering with play, there's no two ways about it. It's great when them decisions go against the Rags though.

I recall the first season it was introduced, Van Persie a number of times stood about five yards offside, the ball was then lifted over the top for Walcott on the wing ( who wasn't offside ), by the time Walcott got into a crossing position Van Persie was all alone in the box because he had a five yard head start on the central defenders that were playing him offside. Farce.

If a player is on the deck or obviously retreating when the ball is played then it's fair to deem them as not interfering otherwise it's just ridiculous.

To paraphrase Shankly, if they are not interfering with play, what the fuck are they doing on the pitch?

Interesting to note it's been noted and mentioned after the rags have been hard done by. No mention when it happened to us.

[DoomMerchant]

The off side rule is the guilty party for me, with most decisions. As much as I laughed at Evertons third goal it did make a mockery of the offside rule. Benteke was offside for Villa's first, but as he did not touch it then he was ignored. Same as the toffees goal.

On tv , when they decide to stop the film footage to draw the line across the field is also debatable.

Villa's first goal was offside.

people are acting like that is the worst offsides call in history ... it wasn't. Makes it very easy to tell who has unreasonable views about city.

Are you saying it was the "edge of offside"?

Spaz

Cheers

[Ted Hughes]

The off side rule is the guilty party for me, with most decisions. As much as I laughed at Evertons third goal it did make a mockery of the offside rule. Benteke was offside for Villa's first, but as he did not touch it then he was ignored. Same as the toffees goal.

On tv , when they decide to stop the film footage to draw the line across the field is also debatable.

Villa's first goal was offside.

people are acting like that is the worst offsides call in history ... it wasn't. Makes it very easy to tell who has unreasonable views about city.

Are you saying it was the "edge of offside"?


Spaz

Cheers

Is he not referring to Benteke's offside call and the ridiculous furore surrounding it ? Aguero has had a whole host of decisions like that go against him, and they don't even register as worthy of comment after the half finishes. Suddenly this borderline offside becomes the worst decision known to man, but it would have been very very difficult for the lino.

[blues2win]

X2. Also no mention of the penalty we should have had I notice.

[Foreverinbluedreams]

X2. Also no mention of the penalty we should have had I notice.

Which one?

[kinkylola]

The off side rule is the guilty party for me, with most decisions. As much as I laughed at Evertons third goal it did make a mockery of the offside rule. Benteke was offside for Villa's first, but as he did not touch it then he was ignored. Same as the toffees goal.

On tv , when they decide to stop the film footage to draw the line across the field is also debatable.

Villa's first goal was offside.

people are acting like that is the worst offsides call in history ... it wasn't. Makes it very easy to tell who has unreasonable views about city.

Are you saying it was the "edge of offside"?


Spaz

Cheers

Is he not referring to Benteke's offside call and the ridiculous furore surrounding it ? Aguero has had a whole host of decisions like that go against him, and they don't even register as worthy of comment after the half finishes. Suddenly this borderline offside becomes the worst decision known to man, but it would have been very very difficult for the lino.

Thank you, yes.