Two thirds of the voters here as well.
Was Rashford interfering with play?
- Thread starter PoTMS
- Start date
Two thirds of the voters here as well.
So 2/3rds then not half - who cares though, not me
Agreed. But it's kinda funny
Yes fair enough, I just think that they should come out and clarify the rules so that people are not arguing about whether it's offside or not. That's all I was saying.
At the end of the day it tends to even out anyway
I'd have thought by now you'd know that people are going to argue about anything, clarified rules or not!!
If there's a new rule that you don't interfere with the play even if you run towards the ball then fine, even better. Feck city!
The more I watch it, the only player who Rashford in fact has any impact on is Ederson. But nobody forces Ederson to come out like that, that's just dumb decision making. It's not offside at all. Akanji is taken out by the pass and is multiple yards away from the ball at all times. Rashford has 0 impact on him, it just goes past him. Walker is covering Bruno but from the wrong side so again, Rashford has 0 influence there. It's only Ederson who could argue Rashford interfered, but either way him and Bruno were in the same position so it didn't make any difference. That's a definite goal the more I look at it.
By the rules, of course it's a valid goal. But even in the spirit of offside, you're never going to change the rules to make that offside once you analyze it deeper. City defenders are all far away and Ederson just makes a dumb decision.
By the rules, of course it's a valid goal. But even in the spirit of offside, you're never going to change the rules to make that offside once you analyze it deeper. City defenders are all far away and Ederson just makes a dumb decision.
I think Rashford has a duty to move out of the way if the City defender goes for the ball. But other than that, he didn't do much wrong. If he actually stopped and bumped into someone, then it'd be chalked off.
Or it could be Ederson didn't think it was offside and determined he needed to come out, probably not but who knows
Initially I did think it was offside but then if you think about it, there are so many occasions when a striker makes a run and the defenders all move up to catch him offside. Another forward makes a late run and the first forward doesn't touch the ball and the 2nd forward scores.
The actions of the first forward is what creates the opportunity for the 2nd forward to score but it never gets called offside. I think that was the logic used for the Rashford goal.
Having said that, I would be really fuming if it had happened to United though.
The actions of the first forward is what creates the opportunity for the 2nd forward to score but it never gets called offside. I think that was the logic used for the Rashford goal.
Having said that, I would be really fuming if it had happened to United though.
Yeah. I gather the rule defines interfering as impeding / obstructing opposition players from physically playing the ball and excludes any other distraction or influence resulting from a player’s being in an offside position.
Would appear to favour the attacking team. If properly applied, should be the same for everyone. So they may get upset about the rule but shouldn’t blame us or the referee.
My thoughts, too. And you are also right about Rash not affecting the City players. They stop their runs on their own accord. Someone mentioned that if Akanji had tried to get past Rashford to intercept the ball and couldn't, it would have been offside. But he didn't. Anyway (since people mention the pundits in England who say that it was offside), the editor of the biggest sports site in my country, who's very much into VAR and the rules of the game - and a die-hard scouser - replied to dozens of tweets asking for his opinion: "An easy call to make for the officials. A clear goal, clear as daylight. Move on". So, there's that.
Hargreaves suggesting Rashford is interfering with Ake as well 
love those greasy salty tears you feck.
love those greasy salty tears you feck.The verb 'interfering' needs to be revised.
For me the biggest problem is Rashfords proximity to the ball in relation to the City defenders (the ball travels under his feet, and very close to his feet as he chases down the ball) - And more importantly: Rashford is directly inbetween Manuel Akanji and Fernandes, preventing the City defenders from tackling or lunging for the ball.
Its a bizarre set of events and in fairness the goal should have been overruled as Rashford was taking an active part in the play even if he never touched it.
Id like us to win the league without a asterix behind it from salty City fans.
Worst refereeing decision this season tbh Edison doesn't know who is taking the shot would be fuming if it happened to us, but it didn't and its city so feck em.
If Rashford isn’t there Akanji can try and slide in and knock the ball away. Arguably also puts some doubt in Ederson’s mind too, wondering whether it’ll be Rashford or Bruno who takes the shot
I'm old school in my opinion offside is offside when the ball is played wherever you are - but according to the rules and interpretation these days he wasn't so feck 'em
I don't think Akanji is ever really close enough to actually challenge. He's a good 2 yards away at basically all times.
The only City player Rashford might actually influence is Ederson, and that's a judgement call.
They’ll end up changing this rule as more players will soon start taking advantage of it.
Leave one player slightly offside, forcing the defence to hold a line, and get someone with pace running past bemused centre backs with their arms in the air.
Could be argued the defenders shouldn’t stop, but how else do you spring an offside trap? I mean, with the rules as they currently are, the player standing offside could be doing the Hokey Cokey next to the defender without contravening the rules.
Really clever from Rashford and Bruno today. To recognise the situation and take advantage when it’s all happening so quickly is rapid decision making.
After Salad’s (not the worst auto correct) goal against Wolves last week, I thought we’d start seeing some more unusual goals given due to the new offside rules. Didn’t think we’d see players directly exposing the flaw so quickly; well done Bruno.
Leave one player slightly offside, forcing the defence to hold a line, and get someone with pace running past bemused centre backs with their arms in the air.
Could be argued the defenders shouldn’t stop, but how else do you spring an offside trap? I mean, with the rules as they currently are, the player standing offside could be doing the Hokey Cokey next to the defender without contravening the rules.
Really clever from Rashford and Bruno today. To recognise the situation and take advantage when it’s all happening so quickly is rapid decision making.
After Salad’s (not the worst auto correct) goal against Wolves last week, I thought we’d start seeing some more unusual goals given due to the new offside rules. Didn’t think we’d see players directly exposing the flaw so quickly; well done Bruno.
That's not true. Ederson is hesitating as he doesn't know whether Rashford or Fernandez will shoot. Thus Rashford is very well interfering.
Little bit like a free kick when two players pretending to execute the free kick to confuse the keeper as he doesn't know who will eventually the one who really shoots.
100% agree - if that was allowed against us we would be going mental.
I think after the ridiculous offside for Wolves at Liverpool the other night, there must have been a remit to ensure that the strikers are given every opportunity…..if you are not directly interfering then it’s play on!
Beautiful that it came against City……
I say it's not offside and also an unrelated point, feck city, the brass neck on them to talk about cheating
He was committed to the run before he knew it was offside and took him time to put on the brakes he had no intention of being near the ball, how nobody but me seen this is beyond me.
Still no offside. All defenders are too far away to be blocked or anything. right call
I thought Kyle Walker (i think) was also confused by it. He wasn't sure if he should be defending a possible square pass to Bruno or going for the block. Akanji should have played to the whistle and done more so that an actual interference materialized. It's his fault there's even this much room for "I thought they thought".
To the common sense definition of interfering, yes. By the current rules, no, hence why the goal was allowed.
Based on how the rule is being interpreted, no. Based on common sense, yeah.
de gea has had some shockers with people stood in front of him, blocking his view of shots. we were owed one.
It's the age old play to the whistle. The defenders slowed. That's their problem.
Spot on
Last edited:
Agreed. What a win
No he wasn't.
If he was, then every single freekick would be flagged offside.
At least there is consistency in the rules.
Also, the players know full well to play on regardless of flags, whistles etc.
Only citeh scum would complain.
If he was, then every single freekick would be flagged offside.
At least there is consistency in the rules.
Also, the players know full well to play on regardless of flags, whistles etc.
Only citeh scum would complain.
There’s obviously a debate to be had about the decision, and the wider issue of how offside is interpreted.
But it does make me laugh how the ABU BBC is, of course, leading with this story on their website, rather than United winning a huge, potentially season-defining victory against a previously dominant rival. There have been times when United have suffered shock defeats due to dubious decisions, but the dubious decision is never the key issue for the Beeb, not when they can gloat about United losing.
But it does make me laugh how the ABU BBC is, of course, leading with this story on their website, rather than United winning a huge, potentially season-defining victory against a previously dominant rival. There have been times when United have suffered shock defeats due to dubious decisions, but the dubious decision is never the key issue for the Beeb, not when they can gloat about United losing.
I think he does because him being there completely impacts Ederson and walker’s positioning.
The problem is the rules say interfering when it's actually trying to say influencing (broader in scope). In practice refs use the latter as it's more in line with the spirit of the text but then you have days like today where a ref might stick to a more literal interpretation. Football bodies might want to clean that one up.
Hypothetically speaking, if a player is wandering aimlessly off to the side in an offside position, but the keeper, or defender has a brain fart and decides to wander off towards them, leaving an onside player free, should that be offside because the defensive side’s positioning was affected?
Obviously a facetious argument, but at what point do we decide where the line is, if it isn’t Rashford not touching the ball, or Akanji not actually being able to get there?
Obviously a facetious argument, but at what point do we decide where the line is, if it isn’t Rashford not touching the ball, or Akanji not actually being able to get there?
If Walker, Bruno and Akanji are running for the same ball, Walker 100% busts his gut to get infront of Bruno and challenges for the ball. Walker lost focus and concentration, was that Rashford's fault? No. Does Rashford running after the ball the entire time affect the phase of play? Id say definitely. Do i care? No! 
Amigos, there is no prohibition on “affecting” play from an offside position. The prohibition specifies “interfering” with play. Rashford did not interfere with the keeper or any of the defenders. The defenders switched off, no question, but that’s on them, not Rashford or the referee.
We see all the time a goal scored — and allowed — on a free kick when a teammate is an offside position when the free kick is taken but another player scores the goal.
We see all the time a goal scored — and allowed — on a free kick when a teammate is an offside position when the free kick is taken but another player scores the goal.
Liverpool benefited from this exact rule against Wolves a couple of weeks ago and there wasn't a peep.
With United, the media will want us brought before The Hague.
With United, the media will want us brought before The Hague.