Of course he was, which makes it even sweeter.
Was Rashford interfering with play?
- Thread starter PoTMS
- Start date
Wouldn't have been surprised for it to be disallowed but the linesman didn't flag and VAR said it was legit so who are we to argue with the rules?
I'd agree if he was stopping Akanji get to the ball but he was nowhere near it so Rashford wasn't interfering34% voted no
if this was a goal against United, this place would explode
edit:typo
He was, he effects Ederson way more than the defender though. Bad interpretation of the rule but after the decisions that went against us last season( Middlesbrough handball, Cedric handball) I'll take it. Also well done to Rashford for not touching the ball.
No.
Not according to the laws of the game
Not according to the laws of the game
I hope so 
Rashford should get an assist for this!Under the law as it stands, it may have been the correct decision, but the modern offside law is a mess. Everything about Manuel Akanji’s positioning and decision-making was conditioned by what Marcus Rashford did. It may make it easier to judge whether a player is on- or offside effectively by interpreting interfering as touching the ball, but that does not mean it is right. Rashford essentially played the most protracted dummy in history.
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...nnot-disguise-shifting-of-sands-in-manchester
It's offside, Rashford is literally shielding the ball, that is interfering with play. However, Salah scored something similar so there is consistency with VAR, maybe it's consistently wrong. Either way, I'm so happy that that was our equalising goal, it hurt them harder which is what I like to see.
Agreed. He's running toward the side, not to the ball, because Rashford was there. The goal given was a disgrace. No United fan should enjoy that goal.
Last edited:
its not a fad, it's a directive
I can also imagining Bruno screaming at him
The two must be really close to trust each other. I can imagine a certain player would just keep going and taking the shot.
Can we all discuss how weird Kyle Walker's movement was? He ran to the ball like he was going to defend/block it and then just decided he couldn't be arsed letting Bruno have acres of space making VAR's job even easier.
Offside or not, those are absolute basics and a very weird decision from an experienced defender.
Akanji I have more sympathy with.
Offside or not, those are absolute basics and a very weird decision from an experienced defender.
Akanji I have more sympathy with.
The rules are batshit crazy if it's not an offside.
Worked in our favor in a derby so feels amazing, but come on now.
Rashford is at the very least catching the attention of both Akanji and Ederson in that play,
Which in itself counts at being involved in the move...
It's daft as hell and if such goal was scored against us the entire forum would be livid, and rightly so.
It sometimes feels like the people who make all those little rules are trying to be clever for the sake of it,
very much how Pep the cnut loses it in matches against Pool or in the CL knockouts.
Worked in our favor in a derby so feels amazing, but come on now.
Rashford is at the very least catching the attention of both Akanji and Ederson in that play,
Which in itself counts at being involved in the move...
It's daft as hell and if such goal was scored against us the entire forum would be livid, and rightly so.
It sometimes feels like the people who make all those little rules are trying to be clever for the sake of it,
very much how Pep the cnut loses it in matches against Pool or in the CL knockouts.
He knows it but can't claim it.
Sweet sweet VAR
It was the ref not V... oh never mind.
It's offside. I don't see how you can objectively look at the scene and argue that he was passive there ... even if he didn't touch the ball, he very clearly intervened.
Then again, I honestly couldn't care less today ... if anything, it makes the win even sweeter. Pep can go pound sand.
Then again, I honestly couldn't care less today ... if anything, it makes the win even sweeter. Pep can go pound sand.
Chris Sutton thinks he was, featuring delicious tears
Agree
Bruno won the race fair and square.
Rashford didn't slow either of their defenders.
That is an excellent point. In the past play would have been stopped well before the ball reached Rashford.
Yeah we were due a decision like this, well overdue, but come on the rule is fecking stupid if they are making out he's not interfering with play there. he's totally distracted akanje and Ederson
Given he gets everything else wrong why would you anyone think he's right on this@
Technically thats the rule. Only way he's interfering would be if he was blocking the goalkeeper's vision.
City players fault for not going through him.
Years ago the offside rule was different
We've had so many bad refereeing and VAR decisions in the past, it's just great to have 1 go in our favour. It was a 50/50 call that was open to interpretation from the ref.
Watch the clip again. The player behind him makes no effort whatsoever to challenge for the ball and isn't even really in a position to do so. Rashford isn't blocking him. He's just sort of running next to the ball, doing nothing. There's no meaningful interference. In no way does Rashford stop him from doing anything. The City player is never within reach of the ball.
Edit: I've watched the clips a few more times, I don't think Rashford stops Akanji at all, Akanji is letting Walker chase Bruno.
The ball would have reached Bruno even if Rashford wasn't there ahead of Akanji, it's not offside.
Tricky one though.
This is pretty much what it comes down to. Fernandes definitely completely got it and took advantage of the rules. Akanji I don't think has a clue of how the offside law changes work based on the quotes he has come out with.
You can't just use an imaginary scenario. This is like playing to the whistle, you play as if he wasn't offside. if there was contact, then I'm sure Rashford would be called offside.
They need to clear this up because it's quite clearly interfering with play. Sort this out before it happens to us and we all burst a blood vessel!
Akanji wasn't even challenging for the ball, if he got anywhere near it and Rashford is in the way then he would of been offside
Can I just say f... City?
No they don't, you need to find out what interfering with play actually is
Really? Wow, that's mental then
The rules are clear. It was a fair goal, although I am enjoying FC Oilers spitting their plastic dummies out of their pathetic mouths.
It was.
Not really because VAR was involved, it's involved in ALL goals, the ninesman madre a mistake and corrected it to the referee and, confirmed the goals was OK
Yes they do, because you've got a massive split of pundits / fans who are clear it's either onside or offside. There's no general consensus regarding the correct decision here and the caf poll shows that fans are pretty split but with most of us believing that Rashford is interfering with play. It also doesn't help when the rules are not applied consistently by the refs and whoever is on VAR.
The Salah incident last week was far worse.
Salah was offside, but then ends up scoring because the centre back couldn't risk just leaving the ball as he's not got eyes in the back of his head.
Rashy wasn't affecting what the centre backs were doing in anywhere near the same way, wasn't obstructing the keeper, and didn't touch the ball.
Surprised it's even any sort of debate with the current rule.
Should the rule be changed? Yes to stop the Salah incident, but I'm not even sure with this one.
Salah was offside, but then ends up scoring because the centre back couldn't risk just leaving the ball as he's not got eyes in the back of his head.
Rashy wasn't affecting what the centre backs were doing in anywhere near the same way, wasn't obstructing the keeper, and didn't touch the ball.
Surprised it's even any sort of debate with the current rule.
Should the rule be changed? Yes to stop the Salah incident, but I'm not even sure with this one.
The more I watch the goal, the more I actually do think Rashford doesn't affect any of the City players.
I do think, in the spirt of offside, it should be offside because he's making a beeline for the ball - but as that's not actually in the rules, then yeah....
I do think, in the spirt of offside, it should be offside because he's making a beeline for the ball - but as that's not actually in the rules, then yeah....
Half the pundits and half the fans have no idea what the current rules actually are, some are basing it on how it was years ago or when they played, that's like saying "officer I wasn't speeding, this was a 40 zone last year and I'm only doing 30 in a 20 zone