City's Disallowed Goal at the end of 1st Half

So am I right to say that the rule is Milner has to have been ruled to intentionally play the ball when it came off him and was knocked into the net? It's not just that it touches him, but he has to have intentionally played it, correct?

And that is a judgment call on the part of the referee and his assistants, correct?

And at least three of them were looking at it as Milner is racing back toward goal and Karius' punch comes at him unexpectedly - and these three agreed that the "goal" was actually offside, thus  not a goal. We had a similar situation go against us vs. Spurs and a penalty award, didn't we?

I've heard more than a few commentators in the past 24 hours who don't appear to know the rule.  I realize you can still disagree with the decision on a judgment call - but it's not automatically a case of offside being negated because of the ball touching Milner.

Do I have this right?

Maybe it just seems like every time we accomplish something significant, there is someone out there trying to downplay or undermine it.

So am I right to say that the rule is Milner has to have been ruled to intentionally play the ball when it came off him and was knocked into the net? It's not just that it touches him, but he has to have intentionally played it, correct?

And that is a judgment call on the part of the referee and his assistants, correct?

And at least three of them were looking at it as Milner is racing back toward goal and Karius' punch comes at him unexpectedly - and these three agreed that the "goal" was actually offside, thus  not a goal. We had a similar situation go against us vs. Spurs and a penalty award, didn't we?

I've heard more than a few commentators in the past 24 hours who don't appear to know the rule.  I realize you can still disagree with the decision on a judgment call - but it's not automatically a case of offside being negated because of the ball touching Milner.

Do I have this right?

I have no f**king idea anymore, these officials/ex pro's just make up the rules each game to suit their needs.

So am I right to say that the rule is Milner has to have been ruled to intentionally play the ball when it came off him and was knocked into the net? It's not just that it touches him, but he has to have intentionally played it, correct?

And that is a judgment call on the part of the referee and his assistants, correct?

And at least three of them were looking at it as Milner is racing back toward goal and Karius' punch comes at him unexpectedly - and these three agreed that the "goal" was actually offside, thus  not a goal. We had a similar situation go against us vs. Spurs and a penalty award, didn't we?

I've heard more than a few commentators in the past 24 hours who don't appear to know the rule.  I realize you can still disagree with the decision on a judgment call - but it's not automatically a case of offside being negated because of the ball touching Milner.

Do I have this right?

Maybe it just seems like every time we accomplish something significant, there is someone out there trying to downplay or undermine it.

Why make a thread to glorify their sour grapes? do you think man city forums have a post about their goal that should have been a free kick in the 2nd minute?

Who cares makes the win even more sweet if it was offside 

Onside for me.

Cool

The rule book is a funny thing but in the end I really don't care because if Man City fans want to use this as an excuse instead of focusing on why they were thoroughly outplayed by us over 180 minutes then I'm more than happy for them to do so.

What about a sterling fouling vvd thread or otamendi is a pussy thread?

What about a sterling fouling vvd thread or otamendi is a pussy thread?

Don't know what was more embarrassing for Otamendi. Going all 'opening scene of Saving Private Ryan' on the ground early on in the first half or making a complete tit of himself against Firmino later on in the second.

Karma comes to mind. Sweet.

Don't know what was more embarrassing for Otamendi. Going all 'opening scene of Saving Private Ryan' on the ground early on in the first half or making a complete tit of himself against Firmino later on in the second.

Karma comes to mind. Sweet.

I'll give a slight edge to Bobby de-pantsing him and scoring the winner. 

What about a sterling fouling vvd thread or otamendi is a pussy thread?

It just frosts my pumpkin the way these things are selectively remembered (with revisions), when we are on the receiving end of some highway robberies (including that unpenalized foul on Virgil in the early going and just about the entire match vs. Spurs). I saw some of this after we beat them 4-3 in the league, some seemingly rationalizing that since someone kicked the ball into our net after the whistle had gone, that we had been really lucky not to concede.

Sorry if it is a meaningless thread. Just wanted to say we won fair and square, and impressively at that.

My first thought was good goal,then offside goal then good goal again.It's F***ing sh*te that a simple offside rule has been fu**ed around with so no f**ker really knows what is going on.So the gobshites on telly/ social media can dissect every tiny F***ing detail and generaly moan about how their team is getting fu**ed over by the powers that be! We're thru they are out.HA F***ing HA!! Now where's the headache pills.

Who cares. F**k em.

Remember a few years ago when we were going for the title and Sterling was given offside at the Etihad when he was in on goal and was an easy 10 yards onside? Karma.

It was a goal but that what makes it sweeter

F**k it, what about the consistent diving from Sterling and co?
They got beat, deserved no more no less.

It just frosts my pumpkin the way these things are selectively remembered (with revisions), when we are on the receiving end of some highway robberies (including that unpenalized foul on Virgil in the early going and just about the entire match vs. Spurs). I saw some of this after we beat them 4-3 in the league, some seemingly rationalizing that since someone kicked the ball into our net after the whistle had gone, that we had been really lucky not to concede.

Sorry if it is a meaningless thread. Just wanted to say we won fair and square, and impressively at that.

Agree, reading some of the papers today it was all about the ref , although some did think it was a foul on vvd, albeit buried away in the match reports, should have guessed that giving us credit would be too much for some.

So am I right to say that the rule is Milner has to have been ruled to intentionally play the ball when it came off him and was knocked into the net? It's not just that it touches him, but he has to have intentionally played it, correct?

And that is a judgment call on the part of the referee and his assistants, correct?

And at least three of them were looking at it as Milner is racing back toward goal and Karius' punch comes at him unexpectedly - and these three agreed that the "goal" was actually offside, thus  not a goal. We had a similar situation go against us vs. Spurs and a penalty award, didn't we?

I've heard more than a few commentators in the past 24 hours who don't appear to know the rule.  I realize you can still disagree with the decision on a judgment call - but it's not automatically a case of offside being negated because of the ball touching Milner.

Do I have this right?

Maybe it just seems like every time we accomplish something significant, there is someone out there trying to downplay or undermine it.

From the FA website

Q4: Can a player who interferes with play after a rebound or save be given offside?
YES – interfering with an opponent or play after a rebound or save is clearly an offside offence if the player was originally in an offside position.

Who gives a F**k, Ederson should have been sent off for pushing Mane five times in about ten seconds anyway.

Who gives a f**k, Ederson should have been sent off for pushing Mane five times in about ten seconds anyway.

Yeah Mane was too honest there, if he'd tumbled over clutching his face then Ederson would have been sent off, but I like that our players don't cheat.
Plus are high kicks ok again now because Citeh did loads of dangerous high kicks and not a single one if them were penalised.

Maybe it just seems like every time we accomplish something significant, there is someone out there trying to downplay or undermine it.

And people starting threads about it 😊

I did refer to Law 11...the offside rules in the match thread. It appears that Milner would've had to play at the ball deliberatly to play Sane onside. If it rebounds off him accidently and Sane is in an offside position when he receives the ball, then he is penalised and a free kick is awarded to Liverpool.

Whether the Ass.Ref gave offside for that reason we don't really know. City could claim Milner reacted  to slowly and knocked it with his knee toward the goal.

To be fair in most cases with those circumstances the goal would've stood. It would've been a very lucky goal for City anyway. Perhaps the Ass.Ref did tell the Ref it was an accidental rebound by Milner and justice was done.

What about the contact from Jesus on the back of Milner leg... foul?

Unluckkkkkkky 👋🏻

Not that it matters, but here's my thoughts.

Regardless of Milner's intentions, Karius punched the ball anyway, so deliberate or not Milner was never playing Sane onside, as from the punch he was onside anyway.

Refereeing decisions did not decide this game, and we had a few dodgy calls ourselves.

This going to go down in the archives alongside Luis Garcia's was it, wasn't it over the line goal?

Sane wasnt offside at any point when the cross initially came in. Well onside, awful call by the 24 officials involved but it made me smile at the time and still does now.

WHO, I MEAN WHOOO ACTUALLY GIVES
                           A  F**k

Decisions good or bad, we have all had our share, IT'S FOOTBALL, They Happen,

Refs are Human too, they make mistakes , its acceptable, it may piss you off at times but overall we take the it on the chin and move on.


YNWA

Amazing that mo's 'offside' goal in the first leg is now being used as an example of decisions going against citeh but there was F**k all mention of it last week, funny that eh ?

When City tried to launch a counter from one of our few excursions towards their penalty box in the first half, de Bruyne was running with the ball with Ox chasing him. With Ox being faster, he pulled alongside De Bruyne, and under threat of losing the ball, de Bruyne throws himself on the floor.
No tackle, no pull back, no contact of note, yet debruyne gets a free kick ! WTF, no foul, just a 100% dive.
I’m still waiting to hear a city fan of any sort, inquire why ‘the best midfielder in europe’  has to resort to diving, when, if he stayed on his feet, he could just play everyone off the park 😳

F***ing Cheating Cnut !

He was legitimately OFFside. The decision was correct. We earned every bit of our win.

The issue with this decision, according to the Law 11 the offside rule, is as I said and that is...Did Milner intentionaly play the ball back towards the goal. The rule in Law 11 is not very clear. In this case Karius punched away a cross and it went straight at Milner.

Now did Milner have time to play the ball intentionaly or instinctively...if the answer is no...then it must have rebounded off him accidentally...so he did not play Sane ONSIDE.

Point is tho..did the Ass.Ref get it right in deciding that it was an accidental rebound off Milner....or did he just see Sane in an offside position and flagged for it.

In any case looking at the replays Milner couldn't react quick enough...so the right decision was given.

The issue with this decision, according to the Law 11 the offside rule, is as I said and that is...Did Milner intentionaly play the ball back towards the goal. The rule in Law 11 is not very clear. In this case Karius punched away a cross and it went straight at Milner.

Now did Milner have time to play the ball intentionaly or instinctively...if the answer is no...then it must have rebounded off him accidentally...so he did not play Sane ONSIDE.

Point is tho..did the Ass.Ref get it right in deciding that it was an accidental rebound off Milner....or did he just see Sane in an offside position and flagged for it.

In any case looking at the replays Milner couldn't react quick enough...so the right decision was given.

It really is that simple, isn't it? You can see Milner didn't have the time to play the ball intentionally, from what I remember, it was more reflex and him sticking out a leg which rebounded to Sane.

But you know what? The more concerning matter is how these f**king stupid ex pros (and pros) haven't a clue, and nor did the BT sport Ref pundit (can't remember the name) who just said it was a huge mistake by the ref without mentioning what you said. Could have been cleared up so easily if the rule was mentioned .

F**k City, F**k their money and F**k off to their fans

5-1 on aggregate you Rich cu*ts!!!

F**k City, F**k their money and f**k off to their fans

5-1 on aggregate you Rich Cu*ts!!!

This!