Aston Villa’s Tyrone Mings tweets angry reaction to controversial Manchester City goal

Tyrone Mings called the law that allowed Manchester City’s controversial opening goal against Aston Villa to come off Wednesday night as “absurd”.

Villa had steadfastly defended for the first 79 minutes and was set to take a point alongside Pep Guardiola, before Bernardo Silva controversially gave City the lead.

Rodri was comfortably offside when Bernardo Silva’s header was sent in his direction. Mings checked his shoulder, made the interception and returned the ball, before the Aston Villa defender was then robbed by Rodri, who returned from an offside position to dispossess him and feed Bernardo Silva for the opening of City. Villa then lost 2-0.

Peter Walton, BT Sport expert and former top referee, admitted he initially thought the goal should have been disallowed but after receiving clarification from the Premier League he explained why he was allowed to stay.

“A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent and deliberately playing the ball is not considered to have gained an advantage,” said Walton. BT Sport. “Therefore, Mings playing the ball deliberately plays the Manchester City player onside, even though he is in an offside position. Therefore, the goal must be maintained and he did not gain the advantage by being where he was. ”

It’s that simple.

Like many of us, Mings was perplexed that a player in an offside position was actually played onside by intercepting a pass to prevent the ball from passing through said player in an offside position.

“You’ve never even heard of this rule, just let the players stand offside, then come back and attack you?” Mings wrote on Twitter in response to Walton’s explanation. “Looking back, I should have cleaned it 100%, but I didn’t even know it was. It’s absurd.”

Villa boss Dean Smith was slightly less diplomatic than Mings, recounting BT Sport full time: “This is ridiculous. He was 10 yards offside and came back and tackled our player, it’s a pathetic law and a pathetic decision. ”