The mancityfans.net football forum

mr_nool wrote:It was announced almost two weeks ago.

mr_nool wrote: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.

DoomMerchant wrote: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

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

WhyAlwaysMe? wrote:

DoomMerchant wrote: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!

Mikhail Chigorin wrote:

WhyAlwaysMe? wrote:
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.

WhyAlwaysMe? wrote:

Mikhail Chigorin wrote:

WhyAlwaysMe? wrote:
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!

Slim wrote:

Foreverinbluedreams wrote: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 wrote:

WhyAlwaysMe? wrote:

Mikhail Chigorin wrote:

WhyAlwaysMe? wrote:
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.

WhyAlwaysMe? wrote: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.

Wonderwall wrote:

WhyAlwaysMe? wrote: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?

WhyAlwaysMe? wrote:

Wonderwall wrote:

WhyAlwaysMe? wrote: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 wrote: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.