Is there a Man City bias?

[downendcity]

30 minutes ago, spudski said:

To add to that...defenders train and are coached to move and block the run of the opponents.

......coached to break the laws of the game then?

It's a chicken and egg problem. If referees penalised these offences, as the laws enable, then after how many penalties would coaches coach such actions? Players are coached to do this because their coaches know that they will not be penalised!

A few season's back didn't they introduce an instruction to refs to penalise holding/WWF in the penalty area, but this seemed to quickly fade away after managers and coaches bemoaned the number of penalties being awarded? The laws are either there to be applied properly and enforced or they might as well scrap the lot.

 

[downendcity]

4 minutes ago, spudski said:

The unnatural arm position is a farce.

When running, turning, balancing, trying to jump high...what do you naturally do?

You use your arms laterally for balance.

You don't naturally put your arms down by your sides, or behind your back. That's totally unnatural. 

We don't run and turn with arms down.

We don't ' pogo' when jumping. 

Makes me laugh seeing defenders with their hands behind their backs when defending in the penalty area, when this is a more "unnatural" position than almost any other way they could have their arms!

[Mendip Broadwalk]

35 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Makes me laugh seeing defenders with their hands behind their backs when defending in the penalty area, when this is a more "unnatural" position than almost any other way they could have their arms!

Refs away from the prem elite dont give penalties because players are not imitating ducks and penguins with arms tucked in!!! Players dont have to stick arms behind backs because the laws allow balls to be hitting arms in positions that are the natural positions to what is happening except this another sketch again at the top level this with var isn't being used properly, because their all over micro offences offences instead of them big clear and obvious bollock drop ref errors, and its damaging football.

Edited 19 hours ago by Mendip Broadwalk

[spudski]

51 minutes ago, downendcity said:

......coached to break the laws of the game then?

It's a chicken and egg problem. If referees penalised these offences, as the laws enable, then after how many penalties would coaches coach such actions? Players are coached to do this because their coaches know that they will not be penalised!

A few season's back didn't they introduce an instruction to refs to penalise holding/WWF in the penalty area, but this seemed to quickly fade away after managers and coaches bemoaned the number of penalties being awarded? The laws are either there to be applied properly and enforced or they might as well scrap the lot.

 

It's the same with diving, some practice leaving the trailing leg.

 

[Cityboy1954]

20 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Yeah, tend to agree re obstruction.

No wolves player or keeper actually complained about the goal that tells you something .

[kmpowell]

To answer the original question, no I don't think there is a bias. I just think Man City have become absolute masters at playing the system to their benefit.

The game at the weekend, and many others I have seen, was littered with examples of what many would class as diving/exaggeration, blocking, sneaky, petty etc etc, but pretty much all of situations were/are technically inside the letter of the law, and IMO being played that way specifically for benefit.

I'd wager they have a team of people studying the rules and working with the payers to exploit. It could be argued that it's 'marginal gains', but to me if feels unethical and I personally don't like it.

[spudski]

59 minutes ago, downendcity said:

......coached to break the laws of the game then?

It's a chicken and egg problem. If referees penalised these offences, as the laws enable, then after how many penalties would coaches coach such actions? Players are coached to do this because their coaches know that they will not be penalised!

A few season's back didn't they introduce an instruction to refs to penalise holding/WWF in the penalty area, but this seemed to quickly fade away after managers and coaches bemoaned the number of penalties being awarded? The laws are either there to be applied properly and enforced or they might as well scrap the lot.

 

https://totalfootballanalysis.com/training-analysis/blocking-corners-tactical-analysis

[Roe]

1 hour ago, OJ009 said:

Probably as the on field decision was in his favour he would have no reason to go ballistic.

This but it's also pretty irrelevant how he reacts anyway

[WECANDO]

The only problem for me was that Silva backed into the keeper and stopped him from going for the ball. That's a foul. Had Silva stayed still in front of the keeper and not moved, then no foul.

[MarcusX]

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

I think Ronald was a case of “was he fouling Max”, not offside per se.

Yea I know, I think the offside went unnoticed by most but watching it back, there's no one else on the line or between him and Max so really should have been.

I'm still clutching at those straws in my defence of Max there 

[Harry]

If the keeper falls over when Silva backs into him then a foul would be given. Goalie needs to be smarter there. 
 

Not sure why teams are leaving their keepers exposed nowadays. In the past they’d always have a defender shoving the attacker away if he’s around the goalie. Nowadays they’re just left to fend for themselves. 

Edited 18 hours ago by Harry

[Davefevs]

51 minutes ago, Harry said:

If the keeper falls over when Silva backs into him then a foul would be given. Goalie needs to be smarter there. 
 

Not sure why teams are leaving their keepers exposed nowadays. In the past they’d always have a defender shoving the attacker away if he’s around the goalie. Nowadays they’re just left to fend for themselves. 

Said the same Harr, ditto in Max’s scenario too.  Managers need to wise up to new tactics.  Evolve!

We’ve seen he evolution of having no defenders on the posts to catch goal-hangers offside after first contact, and to have more players to attack the ball / mark.

We are seeing that countered by opposition teams standing on the keeper at the point of cross, but moving away before first contact.

Evolve again, please!

[spudski]

7 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Said the same Harr, ditto in Max’s scenario too.  Managers need to wise up to new tactics.  Evolve!

We’ve seen he evolution of having no defenders on the posts to catch goal-hangers offside after first contact, and to have more players to attack the ball / mark.

We are seeing that countered by opposition teams standing on the keeper at the point of cross, but moving away before first contact.

Evolve again, please!

It's an evolution of cheating the ref though Dave. 

Keeper falls over to cheat the ref. 

I don't think tactics need to evolve...rather rules, how they are interpreted by refs etc. 

Consistency is needed.

All those hours of coaching, studying, training, analysis etc etc...for what end? When it's easily all undone by refs decisions, rules and interpretation. 

[Cowshed]

56 minutes ago, Harry said:

If the keeper falls over when Silva backs into him then a foul would be given. Goalie needs to be smarter there. 
 

Not sure why teams are leaving their keepers exposed nowadays. In the past they’d always have a defender shoving the attacker away if he’s around the goalie. Nowadays they’re just left to fend for themselves. 

Scenario. Free kick outside the box. Silva backs into the keeper and a fraction of a second before the ball is struck Silva steps right, ducks and the ball goes past the keeper. It is a free kick, and its offside.  And from this header officials in this instance got done. Wolves got done by something they should be aware of. Teams will block the keeper off if they are allowed to. The next team will see the keeper drawing attention to what occurs and this will be a free kick. 

[Roe]

6 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

Scenario. Free kick outside the box. Silva backs into the keeper and a fraction of a second before the ball is struck Silva steps right, ducks and the ball goes past the keeper

I don't usually like comparing to different hypothetical scenarios as every single incident is different. That's why the "consistency" that people always harp on about wanting is impossible.

But this would be quite interesting. Maybe you could have a wall of 3 or 4 blocking the keepers view until a split second before the free kick is struck

[Harry]

16 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

Scenario. Free kick outside the box. Silva backs into the keeper and a fraction of a second before the ball is struck Silva steps right, ducks and the ball goes past the keeper. It is a free kick, and its offside.  And from this header officials in this instance got done. Wolves got done by something they should be aware of. Teams will block the keeper off if they are allowed to. The next team will see the keeper drawing attention to what occurs and this will be a free kick. 

But again, if you’re the keeper and an attacker backs into you, then fall over. You’ll get a free kick. 

[spudski]

Id like to see a free kick, where a wall is formed, and as we sometimes do, a player lies on the floor, and the ball hits his arm. 

Natural position or not...

So many rules in the box are bollox. Yet so many just focus on how to cheat them. 

Just change the friggin rules. 

[W-S-M Seagull]

3 hours ago, Mendip Broadwalk said:

For this Wolves Man City incident i see two offences foul on keeper

Foul on keeper? Come on. Bernard Silva is 2 foot tall and would get knocked over by a feather. Sa is too weak against him. Simply backing into a keeper isnt a foul. Physical contact at corners is expected. The fact Sa didn't go berserk about the goal suggests even he didn't think he was fouled. 

[Mendip Broadwalk]

5 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

Foul on keeper? Come on. Bernard Silva is 2 foot tall and would get knocked over by a feather. Sa is too weak against him. 

think silva is five six but anyway i am unaware of this law of the game that if your below a certain height you cant commit an offence. which law is it

 

6 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

 backing into a keeper isnt a foul.

 it is.  

[W-S-M Seagull]

9 minutes ago, Mendip Broadwalk said:

think silva is five six but anyway i am unaware of this law of the game that if your below a certain height you cant commit an offence. which law is it

 

 it is.  

Its really not. 

The referee and VAR didn't consider it a foul either. 

[W-S-M Seagull]

9 minutes ago, Mendip Broadwalk said:

think silva is five six but anyway i am unaware of this law of the game that if your below a certain height you cant commit an offence. which law is it

 

 it is.  

Its really not. 

The referee and VAR didn't consider it a foul either. 

[Mendip Broadwalk]

6 hours ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

therefore has the right to challange the keeper. 

 

33 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

. Simply backing into a keeper isnt a foul. 

Challenge backing in which one is it then?

34 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

 Bernard Silva is 2 foot tall and 

a players height is not part of the laws of the game!! 

34 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

The fact Sa didn't go berserk 

Another law i was unaware of when i did me refs courses. 

7 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

Its really not. 

 

obstructing impeding and blocking the keeper is an offence. 

[W-S-M Seagull]

20 minutes ago, Mendip Broadwalk said:

obstructing impeding and blocking the keeper is an offence. 

He didn't obstruct nor impede. Silva has every right to be in the position he is in. 

If you watch the clip slowly you'll see that initially there is about a foot between them. The keeper then ever so slightly moves towards Silva. Silva stays in the same position. 

Sa initiates the contact by putting his hand on Silva. Silva then uses his slight strength to push back against that. The keeper then pushes him away. This is called jostling which is allowed. 

Sa didn't attempt to get the ball directly from the corner and it wouldn't have been realistic for him to do so, so no blocking or impeding occurred in that phase. 

Edited 15 hours ago by W-S-M Seagull

[johnbytheriver]

There is a big team bias,always has been and always will be.

[downendcity]

3 hours ago, WECANDO said:

The only problem for me was that Silva backed into the keeper and stopped him from going for the ball. That's a foul. Had Silva stayed still in front of the keeper and not moved, then no foul.

Not so wecando. See my earlier post below re obstruction.

Although, as @Mendip Broadwalk mentioned, if Silva's obstruction happened before the corner was taken, then as the ball was not in play it couldn't be penalised by the ref, even though the damage was done with the keeper being prevented from attacking the pending corner.

5 hours ago, downendcity said:

As for the Man city goal, everything indicates that the linesman flagged for offside, which, as has been pointed out, you cannot be from a corner. However, the Man City player - Silva? - clearly backs into the Wolves' keeper on the line, thereby preventing him from attacking the corner.

In Law 12 it says:

IMPEDING THE PROGRESS OF AN OPPONENT WITHOUT CONTACT

Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the opponent’s path to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction when the ball is not within playing distance of either player.

All players have a right to their position on the field of play; being in the way of an opponent is not the same as moving into the way of an opponent.

A player may shield the ball by taking a position between an opponent and the ball if the ball is within playing distance and the opponent is not held off with the arms or body. If the ball is within playing distance, the player may be fairly charged by an opponent.

 

The ball was definitely not within playing distance of Silva, whose initial movement was away from the track of the incoming corner, and he did move into the opponent's path to obstruct the keeper.

In my view it should have been penalised, but, as you rightly say, referees seem to have a blind spot when it comes to penalising actions inside the box which, if anywhere else to the pitch, would be penalised, and for far less contact .