What a fecking goal. One of my favourites in recent years
21
Season Average Rating
- Appearances
- 39
- Goals
- 17
- Assists
- 5
- Yellow cards
- 6
- Status
This is wrong - do you know what the rule says?
If Bruno did not touch the ball then the offside decision would be taken from where Cavani was when the last person who did initially struck the pass (in this instance De Gea).
I promise you that this is factually correct.
The IFAB rules offer clarification on what they mean when they use the word "play". It is taken from the first point of contact on the ball.
Whether it is colloquially used to mean something else is irrelevant.
It’s infuriating!Ya it was a beaut.
As I said yesterday pound for pound probably the PL signing of the season. He majorly saved our asses this season. I dread to think where we’d be if we hadn’t picked him up
@macheda14
preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision
3 points you seem to be conveniently ignoring. You keep banging on about contact but these rules clearly state that he can be active and involved at these points.
Fernandes dummying the ball stops the Fulham player easily cutting the ball out, so how can be not be involved? this is a new phase of play which then makes Cavani onside from this point.
You can keep saying contact contact contact until you're blue in the face but i'll never agree with you on that.
At the end of the day it all depends on your definition of playing the ball. For me Fernandes played the ball, it doesn't matter if he missed it by 1mm. I've yet to see any definition or proof that dummying over a ball can't be deemed playing the ball either.
preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision
- clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
- making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
3 points you seem to be conveniently ignoring. You keep banging on about contact but these rules clearly state that he can be active and involved at these points.
Fernandes dummying the ball stops the Fulham player easily cutting the ball out, so how can be not be involved? this is a new phase of play which then makes Cavani onside from this point.
You can keep saying contact contact contact until you're blue in the face but i'll never agree with you on that.
At the end of the day it all depends on your definition of playing the ball. For me Fernandes played the ball, it doesn't matter if he missed it by 1mm. I've yet to see any definition or proof that dummying over a ball can't be deemed playing the ball either.
Last edited:
How petty of you.
At least Macheda is trying to put his point across in a sensible manner, your attempt to ridicule me with shite humour also helps me gather an impression about you too
It doesn’t matter if you will never agree with me or not, it’s the rules you should care about.
The rules you are pointing to are for when a player is in an offside position. You just aren’t getting this simple idea and it’s futile trying to explain it to you. Can I explain to you one final time. All players on the pitch and onside are active. All of them. Bruno going to the ball doesn’t suddenly make him active, he’s always been active.
Offside is judged from where players are when the ball is hit. Again can I use my example of what happens when a player goes to head the ball misses and it’s finished by another player who was originally onside, but when the first player made an attempt was offside?
Are you saying that if Cavani was onside when De Gea hit it and then ran offside when Bruno attempted tomake contact, Cavani would then be adjudged to be offside?
I’m going to say contact until I’m blue in the face because in this situation it’s not about agreeing or not. The rules are pretty clear and for some reason you decide to misread them. The rules I linked to you don’t apply to Bruno because he wasn’t offside. I linked them because they state in no uncertain terms that offside is judged from the moment of contact. Contact. Contact.
We live in a terrible world when someone can say something factual and the other person can just say ‘yeah well we’ll never agree’.
Yes, this exactly.Are you saying that if Cavani was onside when De Gea hit it and then ran offside when Bruno attempted tomake contact, Cavani would then be adjudged to be offside?
I’m going to say contact until I’m blue in the face because in this situation it’s not about agreeing or not. The rules are pretty clear and for some reason you decide to misread them. The rules I linked to you don’t apply to Bruno because he wasn’t offside. I linked them because they state in no uncertain terms that offside is judged from the moment of contact. Contact. Contact.
We live in a terrible world when someone can say something factual and the other person can just say ‘yeah well we’ll never agree’.
You've already admitted that you can play the ball without actually touching it, so how is touching the ball with the tiniest margin making any difference?
He's already stopped the defender getting to the ball, if he wasn't there Cavani doesn't score.
I get what you're saying that Fernandes is onside but the new phase of play is the important part.
IF the ball went cleanly through to Cavani and Fernandes wasn't there then yes he'd clearly be offside, but because Fernandes gets involved you then take that as a new point of reference.
Answer me this,
If Fernandes was stood offside, the ball came towards him and he dummied it through his legs, then Cavani from onside ran onto it and scored, would it be allowed?
So you don't think dummying the ball intentionally isn't a play?
Apples and oranges.
One circumstance is determined by a player interfering with play. The other is determined from when the last contact with the ball initiated.
It is almost like you are arguing that your view should be the rule, that is a different conversation. The point is that it isn't currently the rule. That is what every other person in the thread is trying to say to you.
He wouldn't be.
The ref would only be interested whether Bruno touched the ball in that example.
How petty of you.
At least Macheda is trying to put his point across in a sensible manner, your attempt to ridicule me with shite humour also helps me gather an impression about you too
I think gentle mocking is a fair response to someone making a very silly argument on a football forum. If you think that's unfair though then I do apologise.
The thing is the rule offside rule stipulates contact. It's there in black and white. You are the only person here who agrees with yourself. No you aren't Galileo, you are just wrong.
The rule says playing the ball.
For me dummying the ball IS playing the ball. It's an intentional action to deceive a defender.
It isn't so black and white, the rule is open to interpretation.
IF it said purely touch the ball then I'd agree, but it doesn't. Look at Greenwoods goal where VDB dummies it and distracts the defenders so he gets a shot away, how can't that be deemed making a play?
no, it says played or touched.
A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:
It all depends on what you deem playing the ball. Clearly you don't think a dummy is playing the ball, I do. This is open to opinion.
It's so refreshing to see a truly intelligent forward player for Man Utd these days. Sometimes vision is worth so much more than pace. We need more "crafty" players like Cavani throughout the team
Look at the asterisk.
' *The first point of contact of the 'play' or 'touch' of the ball should be used' '
It isn't open to opinion.
yet again it still says play. fernandes dummying over the ball is that point.
If VAR thought it was a clear and obvious error why didn’t they disallow it?
By Oxford definition
Con-tac
The state or condition of physical touching.
"the tennis ball is in contact with the court surface for as little as 5 milliseconds"
That should be clear enough that it requires touching the ball
Yes it says play, but if you read it properly it says the first point of contact of the play or touch should be used. The first point of contact. Contact. Contact. Contact. Obviously in this context they mean 'play' to describe an intentional movement and 'touch' to describe an accidental one. And so referees should discern if someone is offside based on the first point of contact of the deliberate touch or the accidental touch.
It isn't bloody poetry it's not up for different interpretations. I'm not reading the word play and thinking if the writer is alluding to the innocence of childhood whilst evoking images of his mother playing games with him whilst running round that old bent tree in the garden. That tree which during the day filled him with wonder, but at night summoned up images of horror as its crooked shadow stretched across his bedroom. His cries for his mother met with her soothing words as she wrapped him in her arms. No. I'm reading play as its quite obviously meant within the context of the sentence.
It then specifies what they mean by that in the context of the rules. It is 4 lines down and has been pointed out to you on a number of occasions.
You are wrong.
Is your argument really boiling down to the idea that VAR cannot be wrong? I feel that is a losing argument.
Also for what it is worth I think most people would not refer to a dummy as "playing the ball". Say Fernandes' dummy for Greenwoods goal recently the commentator would typically say something like "Brilliant from Bruno, the whole defence thought he was going to play the ball but instead he let it run for Greenwood".
Not that this even matters.
Not that this even matters.
What a bizarre argument. Ad Utd has tied himself in knots with the rule book here.
Can Fernandes be ruled offside if he is offside and dummy’s a ball... yes.
Does any of that matter when Fernandes in a million miles onside... no.
A player cannot be declared offside by an onside player playing a dummy.
Can Fernandes be ruled offside if he is offside and dummy’s a ball... yes.
Does any of that matter when Fernandes in a million miles onside... no.
A player cannot be declared offside by an onside player playing a dummy.
That isn't what we're talking about.
Do you, or do you not think that Cavani being offside (or not) is affected by the action of Bruno Fernandes?
Probably 2nd and in the Europa League final. the stats show he has barely enhanced our league position and we have been 2nd already by week 16 when he had barely scored for us in the league. He barely contributed until about 4-6 weeks ago. Scored 3 goals over 3 month period for us and only scored his 2nd and 3rd Europa goals in the Semi finals
Link? To my mind once he got fit he’s effortlessly caught up with Rashford in the league and got us through to the final of the EL I don’t think we’d still be second without him but I’d like to see how important his goals actually were in context
I've already answered this, yes in my opinion by Fernandes intentionally trying (but failing) to play the ball makes it a new phase of play. He doesn't just leave the ball alone and walk off, he tries to flick it which makes the defender miss it.
How can accidentally missing the ball not be intentional?
Here's another scenario, say a cross comes in and 2 strikers are running onto it, the first one closest to the cross runs a little early and is offside, swings to shoot but airshots. The ball then travels through his legs and arrives at striker B who then proceeds to score.
Does the referee pull it back for offside or does he just say oh well bad luck?
Intent is the clear issue here. I don't think Fernandes missing the ball by MM's is enough for a defence or a referee to say he's not playing the ball.
While his impact has been overstated a little (not quality related, but in terms of missing a lot of games including key games), there is no denying that he has heavily contributed in most of the (league) games he has played and he was the main reason we won the Roma tie.
And back to my original point, yes, he’s offside. Bruno though was a million miles ONSIDE so it has no affect on whether or not Cavani is off.
If in the same scenario your air shooter was onside, but goalscorer offside, the goalscorer is offside. He doesn’t get a free pass to suddenly be onside because a guy misses a ball.
That's a whole different rule. In your scenario the goal would be ruled to be offside. However lets look at a very very similar scenario (to the point that I've copied and pasted yours and changed a few words).
A cross comes in and 2 strikers are running onto it, the first one closest to the cross swings to shoot but airshots. The ball then travels through his legs and arrives at striker B who is now in an offside position (but wasn't when the cross was made) and then proceeds to score. In your interpretation of the rules Striker B is offside and the goal is ruled out. We've seen this situation 100 times before and the goal is always given.
This discussion is incredible. I've got the popcorn out.
But by Bruno playing the ball this now changes the phase of play. He was offside when De Gea initially passed the ball, but Fernandes attempting to play the ball changes everything.
I really don't see how people are failing to see this, just because he fails to touch the ball by a mere miracle that cannot be forgotten.
Say Cavani was onside from De geas pass, but then Fernandes does what he does and it lands to cavani who's now run offside and he scores, they'd 100% say Fernandes is interfering with play/a new phase and make Cavani offside.
A player can be effecting play by not touching the ball.
No they wouldn’t.
You can’t be offside from a player not playing the ball. A dummy cannot be offside for the new player, only the player “playing” the dummy can be deemed offside.
It’s a better argument than I gave you credit for upon entering the thread regarding a new phase of play, I gotta give you that.
- Status