Was Rashford interfering with play?

Was Rashford interfering with play?

  • Total voters
    1,565
ScarleyUtd said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think your bias might be clouding your judgement in this instance.
I don't think rule changes were intended for such freak outcomes and they will probably get tweaked once more to address such aberrations.
Walker and Akanji will have learnt from yesterday (as have a lot of fans, managers and pundits) and you can't learn something you already know.
 
Rolandofgilead said:
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.
Click to expand...
We've all said it should be offside but it's not by the law.
 
facund said:
I think your bias might be clouding your judgement in this instance.
I don't think rule changes were intended for such freak outcomes and they will probably get tweaked once more to address such aberrations.
Walker and Akanji will have learnt from yesterday (as have a lot of fans, managers and pundits) and you can't learn something you already know.
Click to expand...

Play to the whistle is biased. Ok.
 
ScarleyUtd said:
Who was running to the same spot as Rashford...because that's where the ball was.
Click to expand...

at a different pace, different angle, from a different part of the pitch.. and then Bruno can open up his foot and side-foot it from an entirely different angle and arc the shot differently to how Rashford could do it from where he was

so obviously he isn't in the same position as he would be
 
NK86 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Rashford shields the ball on to Bruno's foot.
Until yesterday most would have thought of that as interference.
Turns out, to the letter of the law, it isn't.
 
facund said:
I think your bias might be clouding your judgement in this instance.
I don't think rule changes were intended for such freak outcomes and they will probably get tweaked once more to address such aberrations.
Walker and Akanji will have learnt from yesterday (as have a lot of fans, managers and pundits) and you can't learn something you already know.
Click to expand...
One of Walker or Akanji should have gone ahead and made a tackle. Literally nothing stopped them from doing so.
 
If the rule is touching or not touching the ball then its a fair goal. End of.
Doesn't matter how "unfair" fans feel the rule is.
The handball rule for a penalty ,where unless your arms are glued to your side its given, does everyone's head in but we are accepting it now as its the rule.
This really isn't any different, just less common.
 
jeff_goldblum said:
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?
Click to expand...
Where did you get that likelihood from? Akanji does change his trajectory that lengthens his path due to Rashford's presence, if he wasn't there, he would have had less space to cover. And he's probably not running at his full speed due to him seeing that it's an offside even though that's completely on him (play until the whistle).

Anyway, how does Rashford's hypothetical absence make Akanji slower? It doesn't make any sense.
 
coolredwine said:
One of Walker or Akanji should have gone ahead and made a tackle. Literally nothing stopped them from doing so.
Click to expand...
Think back to the recent Salah goal.
It is the defenders touch that makes Salah onside by creating a new phase of play. It's a minefield, no wonder they were confused and reluctant.
 
facund said:
Is that all your post said?
Click to expand...

No it isn't, I just don't feel particularly sorry for the defenders like you do. And I would say exactly the same the other way. You get briefed on rule changes and you play to the whistle/flag. Walker, at least, could have got to the ball before Bruno had he not switched off. Why don't you address that?
 
Tarrou said:
run in a different direction... towards Bruno
Click to expand...

Bruno scores by putting the ball to the left of Ederson, and your contention is that Ederson would have been in a better position to save it if he was further to his right?

We could argue for ages about this, which is the point. It's complete speculation, and if Ederson did set himself up to stop Rashford scoring, how is that different from the scenario I outlined? If a goalkeeper concedes from a one-on-one in a situation where there was a chance that the goalscorer might have squared to an offside player instead of shooting, is that offside player not interfering with play? Could we not argue that the goalkeeper might have done better in saving the shot if he'd been able to solely concentrate on the striker, or that he'd had positioned himself differently, had that player not been in an offside position?

In the absence of mind-reading technology, it's a minefield of complete subjectivity and guesswork which will see attackers (like Bruno) punished for great play and defenders get away with poor defending.
 
ScarleyUtd said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is it. For years the benefit of the doubt has been moving from the defenders towards the attackers, people have been lobbying for changes in the offside rules, that they should be relaxed for some cases, and should be much more specific. Yet now that they are very specific, some of these same folk are complaining they don't understand, or it shouldn't be like this.

I'm certain of one thing: if this had happened the other way round between these two teams, then Micah Richards would be crowing for ages about how clever City's attackers were in foxing the defence. Of course, this speculation might be unfair to United's defence, who might not have made this mistake.
 
ScarleyUtd said:
No it isn't, I just don't feel particularly sorry for the defenders like you do. And I would say exactly the same the other way. You get briefed on rule changes and you play to the whistle/flag. Walker, at least, could have got to the ball before Bruno had he not switched off. Why don't you address that?
Click to expand...
I have stated that the defenders could and should have done better in earlier posts, describing their actions as poor.
That doesn't mean the silliness of the law is eliminated.
 
It's weird to see that it's Arsenal fans complaining. They won an FA Cup final by a similar goal and not only that there was a handball in the build up by Alexis.

 
jeff_goldblum said:
Bruno scores by putting the ball to the left of Ederson, and your contention is that Ederson would have been in a better position to save it if he was further to his right?

We could argue for ages about this, which is the point. It's complete speculation, and if Ederson did set himself up to stop Rashford scoring, how is that different from the scenario I outlined? If a goalkeeper concedes from a one-on-one in a situation where there was a chance that the goalscorer might have squared to an offside player instead of shooting, is that offside player not interfering with play? Could we not argue that the goalkeeper might have done better in saving the shot if he'd been able to solely concentrate on the striker, or that he'd had positioned himself differently, had that player not been in an offside position?

In the absence of mind-reading technology, it's a minefield of complete subjectivity and guesswork which will see attackers (like Bruno) punished for great play and defenders get away with poor defending.
Click to expand...

having looked at it again I doubt Ederson would have rushed out if Rashford wasn't involved in the play

Bruno wasn't beyond the last defender like Rashford was. And in the end it was an easy finish for Bruno because the keeper was out of position.
 
Changed my vote to no because of how the rules are currently worded. The pundits and a lot of people keep talking about interfering with play but that's not what's important anymore.

Even on match of the day they read out the rules which state he has to be preventing an opposition player from playing the ball and then went on about how he has to be interfering with play.

No opposition player attempted to play the ball and he never touched it so he's not offside.
 
facund said:
I have stated that the defenders could and should have done better in earlier posts, describing their actions as poor.
That doesn't mean the silliness of the law is eliminated.
Click to expand...

Glad we agree in that case.
 
facund said:
Rashford shields the ball on to Bruno's foot.
Until yesterday most would have thought of that as interference.
Turns out, to the letter of the law, it isn't.
Click to expand...
If he actually shields the ball from a defender, it's offside. But given the defenders are multiple yards away from the ball at all times, he just follows it and visibly abandons touching it early enough and just tried to avoid it, and city's defenders aren't close enough to affect it.

Ederson is the best shout at being impacted, but as a law analyst stated online, he is simply too far away from the goal so it'd be a stretch. So it's a valid goal. Move 10-15 feet closer to the goal and it's probably offside for interfering with the goalkeeper properly, as is he just rushed out unnecessarily as he tends to do. Get the defenders to actually try and get the ball where they are a few yards closer, and it's offside too. Neither happen. There's not going to be any law change that makes this offside IMO.
 
andy0 said:
This is it. For years the benefit of the doubt has been moving from the defenders towards the attackers, people have been lobbying for changes in the offside rules, that they should be relaxed for some cases, and should be much more specific. Yet now that they are very specific, some of these same folk are complaining they don't understand, or it shouldn't be like this.

I'm certain of one thing: if this had happened the other way round between these two teams, then Micah Richards would be crowing for ages about how clever City's attackers were in foxing the defence. Of course, this speculation might be unfair to United's defence, who might not have made this mistake.
Click to expand...
Abso- freakin- lutely.
I can hear his big stupid laugh already, no doubt backed up by the rest of the UTD hating SKY studio.
Just waiting for the backlash, no doubt lead by Souness if he is there, on Talkshite tomorrow.
 
Withnail said:
Changed my vote to no because of how the rules are currently worded. The pundits and a lot of people keep talking about interfering with play but that's not what's important anymore.

Even on match of the day they read out the rules which state he has to be preventing an opposition player from playing the ball and then went on about how he has to be interfering with play.

No opposition player attempted to play the ball and he never touched it so he's not offside.
Click to expand...
Wheyy! We've broken 400. Sanity is prevailing. (slowly)
 
bosnian_red said:
If he actually shields the ball from a defender, it's offside. But given the defenders are multiple yards away from the ball at all times, he just follows it and visibly abandons touching it early enough and just tried to avoid it, and city's defenders aren't close enough to affect it.

Ederson is the best shout at being impacted, but as a law analyst stated online, he is simply too far away from the goal so it'd be a stretch. So it's a valid goal.
Click to expand...

Exactly, and had the City defender been able to go around Rashford, by being fast enough and/or by putting in the effort, Rashford would have had to either shield the ball and commit a foul or let the defender past him. Either way the defender wouldn't have been negatively affected.
 
This image of Rashford removed is funny. Not sure Bruno would have got there. IDK if it's accurate or not though..

Fmg0d-jWQAE-oQz
 
He was interfering. The goal i think should had been disallowed.

All i can say is HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
 
Well done to the folk who remembered and posted the Alexis Sanchez goal in the Cup Final

This proves the rule change wasn't a secret, and happened rather longer ago than the pontificating bastards against yesterday's decision might dare admit.
 
glazed said:
This image of Rashford removed is funny. Not sure Bruno would have got there. IDK if it's accurate or not though..

Fmg0d-jWQAE-oQz
Click to expand...

From one of our teachers at school, many years ago:

"The ball can travel much faster than any player"

Reimagine that by moving the ball to a fraction of a second later, when Bruno kicks it, and he might already be nearer to that point than the defender, or at least equal
 
Last edited:
TrustInJanuzaj said:
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.
Click to expand...
Spot on

I would absolutely slate our defenders if they allowed De Bruyne to score in a similar fashion.

I think most of the 60% are happy for it to be controversial to add to the bitterness, but the call was right.
 
Last edited:
Jippy said:
They categorically failed on that front. The rules are such a mess after being changed repeatedly that the lino flagged him off and people whose job it is to know the rules better than most - officials, managers, players, pundits etc...all thought it was off.
Click to expand...
He may have flagged him off as he didnt know if Rashford touched the ball or was interfering or not, he done what he could from the side line. VAR applied the laws correctly as per the changes. Its always going to be perceived differently by everyone, going by the rules he was right to allow play to continue and for Bruno to score.
The ones that thought it was off don't matter, the officials in charge of the game deemed it to be a legal goal and as such it stood.
Blame the the likes of Figo and Wenger who make and approve the rule changes to favor the striker.
 
AbusementPark said:
He may have flagged him off as he didnt know if Rashford touched the ball or was interfering or not, he done what he could from the side line. VAR applied the laws correctly as per the changes. Its always going to be perceived differently by everyone, going by the rules he was right to allow play to continue and for Bruno to score.
The ones that thought it was off don't matter, the officials in charge of the game deemed it to be a legal goal and as such it stood.
Blame the the likes of Figo and Wenger who make and approve the rule changes to favor the striker.
Click to expand...

This also illustrates why current practice is the linesman waits to put the flag up

If the defenders see a flag, that switches them off, and we've had past examples of that being found as unfair when the offside then wasn't given on review

The more argument there is about this, the more mulling things over, the more it seems like the pundits on the TV and radio programmes haven't quite caught up to the thinking of the folks doing the rules
 
Last edited:
andy0 said:
Well done to the folk who remembered and posted the Alexis Sanchez goal in the Cup Final

This proves the rule change wasn't a secret, and happened rather longer ago than the pontificating bastards against yesterday's decision might dare admit.
Click to expand...

There was a game a while back, can't remember which one, but the opposition player, clearly in an offside position, ran some half length of the pitch, towards the ball, our defenders assumed it was going to be an offside and didn't pursue, he stopped right when he got to the ball, while his teammate ran from an onside position, took the ball and scored 1 on 1 vs the keeper, the goal stood. So yeah, nothing really new, as the Sanchez goal posted above also shows. From what I understand the rule did change recently, but only to make it more clear what exactly constitutes interference, thus making it less subjective.

This thread really should be locked by now and anyone who voted other than "No", should get a nice tagline: "Facts don't care about my feelings".
 
bosnian_red said:
visibly abandons touching it early enough and just tried to avoid it
Click to expand...
This is a misrepresentation of events
Rashford very nearly touches the ball several times, it's a matter of cms. He shields the ball until the very last moment and there is barely enough room for Bruno to strike it.
The image at the following link may make this clearer: https://imgbb.com/HtLBfgz

If he was trying to "avoid" it and "abandon" his run he doesn't do a good job.
If he was trying to create confusion he did a masterful job and I think this was the case.
 
facund said:
This is a misrepresentation of events
Rashford very nearly touches the ball several times, it's a matter of cms. He shields the ball until the very last moment and there is barely enough room for Bruno to strike it.
The image at the following link may make this clearer: https://imgbb.com/HtLBfgz

If he was trying to "avoid" it and "abandon" his run he doesn't do a good job.
If he was trying to create confusion he did a masterful job and I think this was the case.
Click to expand...
He is right above it but he does clearly also show that he's trying not to touch it. He isn't shielding it from anyone - because there's nobody close enough to him. It is irrelevant how close or far Rashford is to the ball here, because no City defenders are actively involved.
 
andy0 said:
This also illustrates why current practice is the linesman waits to put the flag up

If the defenders see a flag, that switches them off, and we've had past examples of that being found as unfair when the offside then wasn't given on review

The more argument there is about this, the more mulling things over, the more it seems like the pundits on the TV and radio programmes haven't quite caught up to the thinking of the folks doing the rules
Click to expand...

Defenders should be playing to the whistle and ignoring the flag because of VAR. This isn't new. They should be well used to it by now. Any defender pulling up because they see a flag is not doing their job.

As for the pundits etc they absolutely do not go by the rules as they are but rather how they think they should or how they were 'in my day'. It's quite tedious.
 
bosnian_red said:
He is right above it but he does clearly also show that he's trying not to touch it. He isn't shielding it from anyone - because there's nobody close enough to him. It is irrelevant how close or far Rashford is to the ball here, because no City defenders are actively involved.
Click to expand...
He stays as close to the ball as he possibly can.
Why do you think he does this?
 
crossy1686 said:
No we haven’t, it’s not offside by the letter of the law so how can it be offside?
Click to expand...
It should be offside though the second he makes a move for the ball from ab offside position. But it isn't because the law is crap. The same as salah last week
 
You must log in or register to reply here.