Jump to content

Recommended Posts

https://www.theguardian.com/football/ng-interactive/2022/sep/27/next-generation-2022-20-of-the-best-talents-at-premier-league-clubs

 

Lewis Milley - Newcastle United

 

Quote

It is a testament to the 16-year-old attacking midfielder’s ability that he was invited to train with Eddie Howe’s first-team squad this summer. Not content with making that leap so early Miley found himself on the first-team bench for pre-season friendlies with Atlanta and Athletic Bilbao. It has been a busy spell for the Gateshead-born younger brother of Newcastle Under-21 central midfielder Jamie Miley. Apart from a swift promotion from the Under-18s to join Jamie in the Under-21s, Lewis – who first joined Newcastle’s academy at the age of seven – scored on his debut for England Under-17s in a 3-0 win against Norway. In September Lewis returned to train with the first-team squad ahead of a scheduled but subsequently-postponed trip to West Ham.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, gbandit said:

What are the rules, if part of the attacking player’s body is behind the defender’s body then they’re onside? I’m interested, we’ll see a lot more goals but a lot more VARs

a body part (not the arm) in line with the defender.

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, lxsln said:

Lower divisions in Sweden, Holland and Italy will test a new variant of offside.

 

The left one is the new variant.

Screenshot_20220929_214939_Aftonbladet.jpg

 

Yes please.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with Stifler tbh. Changing what constitutes to offside means they'll just be drawing stupid lines between the attackers trailing foot as opposed to their front foot/shoulder. Doesnt change anything in that respect.  The offside law isnt the problem, its the woeful implementation of VAR, which you could argue is completely flawed anyway. 

 

Anyway the rule is fine as it is, if any part of your body that you can score with is offisde then you're offside. Nowt wrong with that. Stupid to now tell us that a player isnt offside because his trailing foot just so happens to be in line with a defenders knee when the ball is kicked. For all intents and purposes the attacker is offside. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Doctor Zaius said:

Agree with Stifler tbh. Changing what constitutes to offside means they'll just be drawing stupid lines between the attackers trailing foot as opposed to their front foot/shoulder. Doesnt change anything in that respect.  The offside law isnt the problem, its the woeful implementation of VAR, which you could argue is completely flawed anyway. 

 

Anyway the rule is fine as it is, if any part of your body that you can score with is offisde then you're offside. Nowt wrong with that. Stupid to now tell us that a player isnt offside because his trailing foot just so happens to be in line with a defenders knee when the ball is kicked. For all intents and purposes the attacker is offside. 

 

I know it wasn't officially the law, but wasn't the sort of accepted interpretation, 'unless there's daylight, he's onside'? VAR is hamstrung by a pathetic offside rule. If a player is caught offside with the new interpretation then it's easier to accept because the forward have more leeway and if they're still caught off then tough shit. This rule where you're offside just because you're leaning in a different direction is bollocks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...