I dont disagree, but I find it confusing because if Rashy doesn't chase that ball we don't score. Simple as that. I cant understand how that can be deemed to have had no affect on what happended after.
Was Rashford interfering with play?
- Thread starter PoTMS
- Start date
I dont disagree, but I find it confusing because if Rashy doesn't chase that ball we don't score. Simple as that. I cant understand how that can be deemed to have had no affect on what happended after.
You can’t say that with any certainty though so it’s subjective. The ref felt otherwise.
As far as I know:
- Touch the ball
- Prevent Akanji and Walker from getting/clearing the ball or stopping Bruno
- Prevent Ederson from seeing the ball
Rashford clearly didn't do any of those.
By the laws he wasn’t - but for me he was clearly a distraction to the defenders and got in the way.
Walker switched off.
Of course it's comparable. They are involved in the situation, and do affect the play from an offside position yet it's not offside. At some point they remove themselves from the play and don't touch the ball, yet attacking team still benefited from the move. It is a situation where the same rule should apply to both those decisions. We should agree on that.
It's the age old strict interpretation vs purposive interpretation issue. Ask your local law student. It's more common than we might think and this is where lawyers and lawmakers make most of their money. It will eventually get patched but there's no need to act like it's ridiculous to have it either way. The rules themselves have some issues. Refs have been calling it either way for a while now.
For me yes, but I seen refs not count this type of interference before.
Less than twenty four hours later, this story is now getting very boring. It's become the focus of the entire game, if it had happened at the other end, it would already have been forgotten.
I think there's a couple of things people need to answer to justify ruling it out.
Firstly, who is meant to get there before Bruno? If Rashford stops running and is out of the move, the likelihood is that Akanji would be further from the ball when it's hit, not closer. Walker's is meant to be watching Bruno and shouldn't be affected by Rashford either way, so what's the deal?
Secondly, if the argument is that Rashford's position affects Ederson's decision-making, how does that not become a slippery slope and a minefield of subjectivity? Say I'm a goalkeeper and I concede a one-on-one in a situation where a striker had the choice to either shoot himself or pass to a player in an offside position for an easy tap in. Could I not reasonably claim that my positioning when the shot was hit was affected by the presence of that offside player, and the possibility that the striker might have squared it instead of shooting?
He did, he was going through the motions thinking it was an offside.
If Rashford isn't there he behaves differently.
I agree on this point. I acknowledge, it is a legitimate goal and I am happy about it, but if it had been a goal in a tight game against us, I would be fuming. I'd add to the bolded part, that the pass was played to Rashford in the first place, so you are absolutely right, if Rashford isn't where he is, we don't score. It was a lucky accident. Thats part of football, thank god, we were on the receivers end this time.
True, but if u are confusing the keeper then surely you are involved and therefore affecting the play.
The offside was not given on the basis Rashford was not involved and therefore did not affect the play.
If Rashy doesn't chase down that ball, we don't score, I think that is fairly obvious.
So the ruling may be right as it stands, But surely no-one can argue that Rashy was clearly involved and had a huge influence on us scoring that goal.
This is the bit that'd maddening though for me with the rules as a whole. He plays the offside trap perfectly and the second rashford makes a move for the ball the flag should go up. Offside, defender has done his job. But that's not the rule and the defenders have to adjust for that and they didn't.
This coming from someone who played up front as well.
Your absolutism betrays you. You simply can't know that.
A distraction yes. Got in the way no.
Ha ha ha - some of you lot are moaning about the goal more than the Citeh fans.
Cry me a blue river. It stands as a goal as does the result.
Feck knows the refs have given us some shyte decisions over the last few years, bout time the ledger began to be balanced.
Cry me a blue river. It stands as a goal as does the result.
Feck knows the refs have given us some shyte decisions over the last few years, bout time the ledger began to be balanced.
Yeah, great result and not our problem that Rashy's involvement didn't tick enough designated boxes for the officials to rule it out.
Not the first controversial ruling of it's type, but now it's happened to us -in a big derby game- wouldn't surprise me to see some revisions to those rulings in the not too distant future.
I hope this goal makes up for Drogbas offside goal and we win the league. Imagine we beat them to the title and that goal/win is the difference
Depends on how they're set-up really and what Pep's expectations are.
If Pep's instruction is that they should focus on their own marks on the assumption that the other defenders will do likewise, he's done his bit perfectly and been let down by his fellow defenders who didn't watch Bruno's run.
If they're defending more collectively, his lack of awareness of what's happening elsewhere has led him to make a bad decision, because in stepping up to catch Rashford off, he's handed Bruno the space he needed to score.
Ederson's position is completely wrong because he comes out to block a shot from Rashford
so yeah, it's pretty obvious
so yeah, it's pretty obvious
Bad defending all round then. Which is being glossed over.
Well then he shouldn't have expected the offside and played to the whistle. The flag didn't go up until Bruno scored. If Walker plays to the whistle he probably catches up or at least forces Rashford to touch the ball and spark the offside. Akanji shouldn't have stopped either, he can see Rashford is offside so should have kept his run going so he was closer to Rashford.
The powers that be have been trying to move football into a more proactive mindset and create more flow in games, mainly to help incorporate VAR (which is ironic as so far waiting for VAR calls is taking a lot of flow out of games), and the change to the offside/handball interpretation has been in place since the start of the season, at least.
I don't personally agree with it, and think it's overcomplicated in many respects, but the incident yesterday was just a high profile example of those rules being interpreted. It didn't help that it favoured Man Utd at OT, which was always going to rile up the turds like Chris Sutton.
If it had been Southampton at home to Fulham no one would have batted an eyelid, and the decision would have just been begrudgingly accepted as the new way that offside works.
Totally agree. Gone are the days when we could smugly mansplain the offside rule to the female members of the household. Nowadays we just scratch our heads with an equally blank look and say I don't fecking know anymore!
The thing is it's not. It's inherently unprovable that his bad positioning was a result of Rashford's presence. His positioning for when Rashford went round him earlier in the game was dreadful without needing an offside player to distract him.
And if we do say Rashford confuses him, how is it any different to any situation in which a goalkeeper concedes when the goalscorer could have theoretically passed to an offside player for a tap-in instead of shooting themselves?
Players will always influence the game if they are on the pitch. Offside players will always influence the behavior of the defenders and the goalkeeper. They are allowed to play on, and a simple pass will make them onside again. The offside rule is not about the player influencing other players or distracting them. It is about touching the ball or hindering the opponent.
United fans don't help themselves.
Just say. Yeah we got away with one. Happy days, we're owed a decision or two to be honest. Law needs fixing.
It's not hard man.
This. And unless we want to disallow goals for players distracting goalkeepers (ridiculous) that's the way it is.
Akanji saying he played an offside trap and then was out of position is an absolutely idiotic argument. What if he played the trap and rashford stood stock still and the ball went to Bruno ? Rashford would have intererfered by akanjis definition because he caused akanji to stop.
The answer to the riddle is the new rules means you cannot play an offside trap and stop playing the game.
Now... Rashford influenced ederson for me. Nobody else but he must have influenced ederson.
The answer to the riddle is the new rules means you cannot play an offside trap and stop playing the game.
Now... Rashford influenced ederson for me. Nobody else but he must have influenced ederson.
Not much I can disagree with.
The only sympathy I would offer to the defenders is that for most of their careers, and footballing life, the incident would have been a clear offside.
It must be difficult to fully digest changes to the rules until you have seen them exemplified a few times, especially in such a fast paced, dynamic environment.
he runs out towards Rashford
What would be have done differently if he was running out towards Bruno?
He didn’t play the offside trap perfectly though because he’s let an on-side player run in behind him to score. What a weird opinion. Not offside for me and I’d say the same given agaisnt is. For me I have a far bigger issue with the the offside goal city scored a couple years ago (agaisnt Villa maybe?) when the defender clearly only plays the ball because the offside city player is behind him. In that instant the offside player was clearly involved because otherwise the defender doesn’t play the ball and mess up the clearance. In this insistence, I don’t see how Rashford has actually inhibited any of the defenders because Akanji is never getting there after he steps up.
Not really, the offside rule has been moving this direction for years now. The City defenders would also have been made very aware of the rule change. And the cardinal rule is play to the whistle, that doesn't change.
Exactly he's running out to where the ball is!
run in a different direction... towards Bruno
Who was running to the same spot as Rashford...because that's where the ball was.
So basically Walker was expecting Rashford to touch the ball thus getting called offside and didn't bother to sprint back to Bruno? That just shows how stupid the entire City defense was to just hope that Rashford would touch and Bruno won't be reaching there.
I have voted Yes but the more I read the explanations given by experts, the more it seems it was a valid goal.
Distraction to who? By that logic anything is a 'distraction', fans, linesman, pigeon, what's a distraction exactly?
The law clearly states interfering with play, not "was there a distraction". The defenders didn't do their job, they allowed him to run, unchallenged, from the half way line to the goal without anyone even so much as touching him because they were all waiting for the whistle.
Piss poor defending is what it is. If that was us we'd all be livid with the defender.
That's very true, and something that probably wasn't considered for even a moment when they made these changes.
I guess on the flip side, younger players still in the academy will learn these changes, and it'll make them better players. You have to be far more switched on and an overall better defender to survive in the PL these days, which can only be a good thing.