VAR, Refs and Linesmen | General Discussion

mu4c_20le said:
Akanji knew Rashford was offside, because he played him offside. The question we should be asking is what is Akanji doing. If he knew Rashford was offside, why did he stop playing as if he weren't. I keep hearing "if rashford wasn't there Akanji would have made the tackle".... nah
Click to expand...

Obvously Akanji isn't being smart but if you stick to the rule, the real question is : did Rashford impact on the ability of Akanji to play or challenge for the ball. Did he move into Akandji's way and impeded Akanji's progress.

And my answer is yes, at the end of the run when Akandji has to slow down because Rashford is between him and the ball right before Bruno's shot, he impedes his progress.

roonster09 said:
For keepers the rule is different, if the player is in line of sight of keeper then it's offside.
Click to expand...

The rules isn't different but there's a FA guideline for this situation so it's kinda the same, true.
 
Oly Francis said:
Obvously Akanji isn't being smart but if you stick to the rule, the real question is : did Rashford impact on the ability of Akanji to play or challenge for the ball. Did he move into Akandji's way and impeded Akanji's progress.

And my answer is yes, at the end of the run when Akandji has to slow down because Rashford is between him and the ball right before Bruno's shot, he impedes his progress.
Click to expand...
I believe one of the explanation from the officials was that he (Akanji) wasn't close enough to tackle Bruno. The most glaring thing is that he looked really half assed and didn't really made any attempt, didn't put pressure on Rashford, which would have made the ref look closer at him. The whole thing was odd as if both Akanji and Walker thought the other had it.
 
mu4c_20le said:
I believe one of the explanation from the officials was that he (Akanji) wasn't close enough to tackle Bruno. The most glaring thing is that he looked really half assed and didn't really made any attempt, didn't put pressure on Rashford, which would have made the ref look closer at him. The whole thing was odd as if both Akanji and Walker thought the other had it.
Click to expand...

That's the issue with a lot of refs. They far too often need to be shown stuffs that are pretty obvious. Then you wonder why some players exagerate contacts to draw fouls when they shouldn't need to. As a defender, there's very often a tiny doubt the player wasn't offside for some reason (like a teamate you didn't see covering or just bad judgement). Should Akanji risk a red card just so the ref sees that Rashord is blocking him?
 
Oly Francis said:
It's not what the rule says though. You can be offside just by being here, we see that consistently with players in front of keepers. Even if they're not playing the ball or physically blocking the keeper, they're offside because they interfere with the keeper's ability to challenge the shot. Rashford, by being here (ie by being between the defender and Bruno), interfered with Akanji's ability to challenge Bruno's shot.
Click to expand...
Akanji is too far away from the ball to do anything about Bruno's shot, Rashford didn't affect his ability to challenge for the ball he just chose not to
 
I still don’t like it. I didn’t celebrate either goal yesterday as I was sure they were both going to be given offside.

It completely ruins the moment.
 
Oly Francis said:
It's not what the rule says though. You can be offside just by being here, we see that consistently with players in front of keepers. Even if they're not playing the ball or physically blocking the keeper, they're offside because they interfere with the keeper's ability to challenge the shot. Rashford, by being here (ie by being between the defender and Bruno), interfered with Akanji's ability to challenge Bruno's shot.
Click to expand...
He didn’t interfere with the keepers ability to play the shit. He want blocking the keeper view nor stopped him getting there.
It’s simply not in the rules. That’s just how it is.
Akanji gives up long before Bruno shoots, look at it again.
 
After criticising VAR for a while, I have to congratulate it yesterday. I’ve always said I’d rather win a match against City through dubious circumstances to wind up their fans but yesterday disproved that. Both perfectly legitimate goals and both checked quickly. It says something with the way we’re treated when I want one dodgy decision to go for us but yesterday was as boring a day for VAR as could have been.
 
Just seen some city fans are claiming Bruno’s goal shouldn’t have stood. By every conceivable metric if Rashford was interfering with play - so was Walker when De Bruyne got the ball for the assist yesterday.
 
And for all the whoppers reading this off BlueMoon who have supported City for five seconds. Yesterday I was in a pub watching the game in Didsbury (roughly five United fans per city fan) and there’s a pair of City fans who always give me stick. As soo as Bruno scored he turned around and said “if they say Rashford is interfering there - it’s a joke - we have to be better” and his mate agreed. They’re proper City lads and they ended up buying my a pint at full time because “it’s great to see two home grown lads combining in a Manc derby - we forget how that feels.” Even though they’re city fans they’ve always been decent lads.
 
cyberman said:
He didn’t interfere with the keepers ability to play the shit. He want blocking the keeper view nor stopped him getting there.
It’s simply not in the rules. That’s just how it is.
Akanji gives up long before Bruno shoots, look at it again.
Click to expand...

That's not what Christina Unkel says. "Move this 10-15 yards up and i agree it’s offside" so to her (she's supposed to be a rule analyst) it's because she considers that Rashford isn't close enough to Ederson to really influence his decision (which is obviously wrong but it's more a problem with her understanding of players reactions than a rule issue).

She even asks "What position would goalkeeper haven taken if Rashford wasn’t in the picture?" as if Ederson would have been at the same positon with Bruno only when he obviously would have changed at least the angle.

FmcWHr-XwAEiavW
 
Oly Francis said:
That's not what Christina Unkel says. "Move this 10-15 yards up and i agree it’s offside" so to her (she's supposed to be a rule analyst) it's because she considers that Rashford isn't close enough to Ederson to really influence his decision (which is obviously wrong but it's more a problem with her understanding of players reactions than a rule issue).

She even asks "What position would goalkeeper haven taken if Rashford wasn’t in the picture?" as if Ederson would have been at the same positon with Bruno only when he obviously would have changed at least the angle.

FmcWHr-XwAEiavW
Click to expand...
Forget all that, if Akanji just puts his hand on Rashford there, he's offside.
 
Oly Francis said:
That's not what Christina Unkel says. "Move this 10-15 yards up and i agree it’s offside" so to her (she's supposed to be a rule analyst) it's because she considers that Rashford isn't close enough to Ederson to really influence his decision (which is obviously wrong but it's more a problem with her understanding of players reactions than a rule issue).

She even asks "What position would goalkeeper haven taken if Rashford wasn’t in the picture?" as if Ederson would have been at the same positon with Bruno only when he obviously would have changed at least the angle.

FmcWHr-XwAEiavW
Click to expand...
Why? He’s following the ball? It may look like Bruno is miles away but he’s half a second away from taking a shot here. It’s not as if the keepers frozen.
What that shows is the keeper isn’t getting anywhere near the ball if he comes for it so everything around him is moot.
Edit thinking about it now Rashford never touched the ball nor impedes anybody so all this picture shows are two United players that are onside?
 
Last edited:
Beachryan said:
There are simply two facts here:
1. It's not offside according the current interpretation of the offside law
2. The current interpretation of the offside rule is an absolute farce, and will likely be changed next week if not next season

It's genuinely unlucky for City, just as we've been shafted by the new handball interpretations twice in recent times (Lindelof penalty / Boro assist). I've no idea what the referees are thinking with saying that a player has to physically touch a defender to intefere with them. So can strikers now stand in front of a keeper and do star jumps as long as they don't touch them? No of course not. But where in the rules is that fitting in now?

The rules will be changed, again, because that's how this works now.
Click to expand...


Although I agree with your overall point, the bolded scenario is already considered offside under the current rules as the striker is "interfering with an opponent by preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent's line of vision".
 
Corey said:
Although I agree with your overall point, the bolded scenario is already considered offside under the current rules as the striker is "interfering with an opponent by preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent's line of vision".
Click to expand...
Ah thanks, so they've sorted that part. I'd say it's vague enough you could try and say Rashford was obstructing the defenders view of Fernandes, or the ball actually.

It's so poorly defined. Almost seems deliberately so!
 
I have yet to see anyone explain how if Rashford is offside (influencing players positions, changing the defensive set up) then Walker isn’t offside in the build up for the first goal (our left back has to leave De Bruyne free to track Walker)
 
Not gonna lie the Rashford incident was an offside and should have been ruled out but what do I care. Considering the number of times we have been at the end of wrong calls, I am unbothered really.

Had Rashford stopped in his tracks when the ball made its way to his side, the goal would be correctly awarded if Bruno, being onside, latched on the ball to score. But in this case Rashford followed the ball without touching it thereby affecting the decision making of both Akanji and Ederson. He practically guided the ball for Bruno to come and take his shot.

it doesn’t matter what Akanji or Walker did or didn’t do, Rashford is active because he is making a run exactly where the ball is and so Akanji cannot slide him with the ball and win possession. The rules make it clear that Rashford didn’t need to touch the ball but if his involvement affects the opposing player, coming from an offside position, that’s offside allday long. But like I said earlier this is justice served and I’m on board with the decision.
 
Wumminator said:
I have yet to see anyone explain how if Rashford is offside (influencing players positions, changing the defensive set up) then Walker isn’t offside in the build up for the first goal (our left back has to leave De Bruyne free to track Walker)
Click to expand...
Interesting, never considered that.
 
mu4c_20le said:
I believe one of the explanation from the officials was that he (Akanji) wasn't close enough to tackle Bruno. The most glaring thing is that he looked really half assed and didn't really made any attempt, didn't put pressure on Rashford, which would have made the ref look closer at him. The whole thing was odd as if both Akanji and Walker thought the other had it.
Click to expand...
It didn’t matter what Akanji did or didn’t do. Had Rashford stopped when the ball came, allowing the ball to roll on and play continue, whatever had happened afterwards would be valid. Therefore if Bruno had gone ahead to score in this situation, that would be a valid goal.

In this case, Rashford follows the run of the ball and doesn’t shoot. The act of following the run of the ball makes him active because it affects what opposing players would do or not do.
 
Bearded One said:
It didn’t matter what Akanji did or didn’t do. Had Rashford stopped when the ball came, allowing the ball to roll on and play continue, whatever had happened afterwards would be valid. Therefore if Bruno had gone ahead to score in this situation, that would be a valid goal.

In this case, Rashford follows the run of the ball and doesn’t shoot. The act of following the run of the ball makes him active because it affects what opposing players would do or not do.
Click to expand...

How does Walker not being in an offside position on the lead up to City’s goal change that? He changed what our opposing players did. KDB had a free run because Malacia had tracked Walker.
 
Bearded One said:
It didn’t matter what Akanji did or didn’t do. Had Rashford stopped when the ball came, allowing the ball to roll on and play continue, whatever had happened afterwards would be valid. Therefore if Bruno had gone ahead to score in this situation, that would be a valid goal.

In this case, Rashford follows the run of the ball and doesn’t shoot. The act of following the run of the ball makes him active because it affects what opposing players would do or not do.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn’t make him active per the rules.
Why are people ignoring what the rules says? I think 99 percent of this forum agrees the rules need changed but that doesn’t make our individual opinions fact
 
Bearded One said:
It didn’t matter what Akanji did or didn’t do. Had Rashford stopped when the ball came, allowing the ball to roll on and play continue, whatever had happened afterwards would be valid. Therefore if Bruno had gone ahead to score in this situation, that would be a valid goal.

In this case, Rashford follows the run of the ball and doesn’t shoot. The act of following the run of the ball makes him active because it affects what opposing players would do or not do.
Click to expand...
It does matter what Akanji did because he was nowhere near the ball Rashford didn't block him or stop him getting to the ball so he's not affecting him
 
Bearded One said:
It didn’t matter what Akanji did or didn’t do. Had Rashford stopped when the ball came, allowing the ball to roll on and play continue, whatever had happened afterwards would be valid. Therefore if Bruno had gone ahead to score in this situation, that would be a valid goal.

In this case, Rashford follows the run of the ball and doesn’t shoot. The act of following the run of the ball makes him active because it affects what opposing players would do or not do.
Click to expand...
Maybe in the old rules, but current rules don't care about what the players are thinking. Refe saw that Akanji was not physically prevented from going for the ball.

I get the rule seems iffy, but this is the only way. Otherwise you get silly "what if" scenarios, like those unhinged city fans deleting Rashford from the still image. Its not the ref's job to get inside the players head. Who knows why Akanji pulled up.
 
Bearded One said:
It didn’t matter what Akanji did or didn’t do. Had Rashford stopped when the ball came, allowing the ball to roll on and play continue, whatever had happened afterwards would be valid. Therefore if Bruno had gone ahead to score in this situation, that would be a valid goal.

In this case, Rashford follows the run of the ball and doesn’t shoot. The act of following the run of the ball makes him active because it affects what opposing players would do or not do.
Click to expand...

the problem with this argument is that every week there are multiple times where the offside player starts moving towards the ball but then gets a shout and leaves it. So the question then is how much of a movement towards the ball constitutes interfering . It’s impossible to interpret that way
 
Bearded One said:
it doesn’t matter what Akanji or Walker did or didn’t do, Rashford is active because he is making a run exactly where the ball is and so Akanji cannot slide him with the ball and win possession. The rules make it clear that Rashford didn’t need to touch the ball but if his involvement affects the opposing player, coming from an offside position, that’s offside allday long. But like I said earlier this is justice served and I’m on board with the decision.
Click to expand...
My problem with it is the lack of clarity about it all. If a similar situation happens where Rashford touch the ball when Akanji clatters Rashford and does get the ball but it's clearly dangerous play. Normally straight red because he is the last man, but it's offside. Rashford get injured. What happens? Is it going to be offside, no card.. a freekick and a red? Yellow card for dangerous play, but still offside?

Rashford only touched the ball because of the tackle, so wasn't offside until Akanji tackled him. But being in an offside position Akanji 'had to ignore him to get the ball', by doing so Rashford gets injured and Akanji gets sent off.
 
Ayush_reddevil said:
the problem with this argument is that every week there are multiple times where the offside player starts moving towards the ball but then gets a shout and leaves it. So the question then is how much of a movement towards the ball constitutes interfering . It’s impossible to interpret that way
Click to expand...

Especially when said players makes a shot feint at one point during the run. Some people here try to pretend the rule is clear as to what constitutes "interference" or "deliberate action". It's not and it's pretty obvious when you look at the inconsistent explainations given by several refs asked after the game (see for exemple when I quoted from Christina Unkel who considers it would be an offside had the play been 10 yards closer to the goal, which still doesn't make any sense).

Also, people confuse "the rule" with FA guidelines that give exemples of situaton when refs need to consider it's not an offside, but these guidelines don't cover all the situatons, it's just broad exemples.
 
What' about Walker?
Remove Rashford from the picture and Walker would close Bruno down everytime, make it hard for Bruno to take perfect shot. Note: Keyword here is closing down, not blocking. With Rashford in the picture (and keep chasing the ball down to last minute), Walker had to take guess whenever to close down Bruno's or block Rashford's pathway. It completely changes how other players react, how is it not interfering?

Players are not robots, they are not programmed to play the game perfectly. Sometimes players have to make educated guess and act accordingly. I'm happy with the win (and VAR) and United 100% deserved it but the call is still bull.
Inb4 "they choose poorly"
 
Last edited:
People think that this is a new issue but I always remember that Evans own goal against Newcastle where the striker is clearly offside and the only reason Evans pokes at the ball is because of the striker but that used another techinicality of this same issue. Same thing with Salah goal
 
cyberman said:
No, it doesn’t make him active per the rules.
Why are people ignoring what the rules says? I think 99 percent of this forum agrees the rules need changed but that doesn’t make our individual opinions fact
Click to expand...
The rules simply say that the offside player doesn’t need to touch the ball but if his involvement “affects” the opposing player, then it is offside. I painted two scenarios in my initial post. Had Rashford stopped and allowed the ball roll on that’s a different situation from running along with the ball, drawing players to himself.
Edwards6 said:
It does matter what Akanji did because he was nowhere near the ball Rashford didn't block him or stop him getting to the ball so he's not affecting him
Click to expand...
Even if Akanji was afar off. Rashford’s involvement in the play by running along with the ball will affect how an opposing player or keeper would react as against the player just standing still and letting play continue.
mu4c_20le said:
Maybe in the old rules, but current rules don't care about what the players are thinking. Refe saw that Akanji was not physically prevented from going for the ball.

I get the rule seems iffy, but this is the only way. Otherwise you get silly "what if" scenarios, like those unhinged city fans deleting Rashford from the still image. Its not the ref's job to get inside the players head. Who knows why Akanji pulled up.
Click to expand...
The player doesn’t need to touch the ball to be off. He just needs to attempt to play it and so long as the ball is close to him, if his action “impacts” an opponent, that’s offside all day long. Had Rashford stayed stationery when the ball got to him, that’s a different case.
Ayush_reddevil said:
the problem with this argument is that every week there are multiple times where the offside player starts moving towards the ball but then gets a shout and leaves it. So the question then is how much of a movement towards the ball constitutes interfering . It’s impossible to interpret that way
Click to expand...
That’s why the flag is usually raised as soon as that run commences. In this case though Rashford ran for a few seconds and stops when Bruno is on hand to shoot.
MikeKing said:
My problem with it is the lack of clarity about it all. If a similar situation happens where Rashford touch the ball when Akanji clatters Rashford and does get the ball but it's clearly dangerous play. Normally straight red because he is the last man, but it's offside. Rashford get injured. What happens? Is it going to be offside, no card.. a freekick and a red? Yellow card for dangerous play, but still offside?

Rashford only touched the ball because of the tackle, so wasn't offside until Akanji tackled him. But being in an offside position Akanji 'had to ignore him to get the ball', by doing so Rashford gets injured and Akanji gets sent off.
Click to expand...
Yeah there are grey areas sure but the one of yesterday was quite clear.
 
Thank God most of you have common sense, was offside but you guys deserved the win.
 
@Bearded One But your examples doesn’t make sense. The amount of times that an offside player makes a defender go for the ball only for that action to play the player in happens almost every weekend. Rashford isn’t stopping any City player getting to the ball and distractions isn’t in the rule book.
Being offside isn’t punishable by itself. When Rashford doesn’t touch the ball nor stop any City player getting to it then the Rashford that’s standing in front of Ederson is onside so the keeper is distracted by an onside Rashford.
There’s more uproar on here about this goal than there is by worse examples against us over the last 18 months.
 
cyberman said:
@Bearded One But your examples doesn’t make sense. The amount of times that an offside player makes a defender go for the ball only for that action to play the player in happens almost every weekend. Rashford isn’t stopping any City player getting to the ball and distractions isn’t in the rule book.
Being offside isn’t punishable by itself. When Rashford doesn’t touch the ball nor stop any City player getting to it then the Rashford that’s standing in front of Ederson is onside so the keeper is distracted by an onside Rashford.
There’s more uproar on here about this goal than there is by worse examples against us over the last 18 months.
Click to expand...
You don’t need to block then opposition defender or distract them. You rightly noted that being in an offside position in itself is not punishable. Normally when players are offside, they immediately try as possible not to get involved in the play and the only way to show that is to stop in your tracks right in that moment. In this case however, Rashford is very much involved in the play by following the run of the ball albeit not touching it, thereby drawing players to himself. Note that he doesn’t need to distract anybody or block anybody but the involvement of running with the ball affects what the city players and keeper would do or not do.

I wish Icould say it’s not offside but every time I’ve watched it for various angles, there’s no doubt that it shouldn’t have stood.
 
It’s one of the unintended but inevitable consequences of trying to codify every single scenario into a series of black-and-white rules. It should be simplified into a basic question - does the attacking team gain an advantage from the offside player?
 
Gio said:
It’s one of the unintended but inevitable consequences of trying to codify every single scenario into a series of black-and-white rules. It should be simplified into a basic question - does the attacking team gain an advantage from the offside player?
Click to expand...

That wouldn't be a basic answer, attacking teams gain some sort of advantages from pretty much any offside player, one way or another.
 
mu4c_20le said:
I do hope this glosses over Akanji's decision making and you guys keep him for a few more years.
Click to expand...

Actually the whole thing was Cancelo's fault for pulling a Cancelo and dragging everyone outta position, Ake over to LB, so Akanji had to fill for Ake who was filling for Cancelo and but thankfully Dias and Stones will be fit soon.


Akanji's fault alright, cause Ederson isn't totally clearing that without Rashford threatening to shoot. If only Akanji could stop making the crucial mistake of not being able to phase through players.
 
Oly Francis said:
That wouldn't be a basic answer, attacking teams gain some sort of advantages from pretty much any offside player, one way or another.
Click to expand...
Any decent referee should be able to judge whether a player has interfered and affected the decision-making of the defenders / goalkeeper. Especially with the benefit of replays. It’s really simple when you boil it back down to the spirit of the rule.
 
padr81 said:
Thank God most of you have common sense, was offside but you guys deserved the win.
Click to expand...
Thanks man, I appreciate that from a City fan. I think we did too. The rules should be more clear, and it shouldn't be this much of a drama of such a simple decision, that much is clear. It should be clarified and not brushed over, these situations matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.