this!
Was Rashford interfering with play?
- Thread starter PoTMS
- Start date
this!
Very fair point. I think we all agree that
1. He was interfering with play in the ordinary meaning of the words
2. He was nevertheless within the rules because the rules are stupid
3. It's fekkin funny but we'd be fuming if it happened to us
Pickford ended VVD's career and got away with it.
This just proves it was the right decision.I used cutting edge technology to show that Akanji was never getting to the ball before Bruno anyway
Well it's all speculation of course, but you could argue that the only reason Akanji is running back with any urgency is because Rashford continues the run and he's worried that the linesman won't call it.
The reason it wasn't given is because Rashford didn't touch the ball and he didn't stop anyone else doing so. It's simple as that. Had Akanji tried to get the ball and Rashford had obstructed him in the process, it would have been offside. If Ederson had rushed out early to challenge Rashford for the ball it would have been offside, same if Walker had beaten Bruno to it and ended up challenging Rashford. Obviously though, none of those things happened.
Sometimes stuff like this makes me wonder whether this is actually a United forum. We have got numerous wrong/questionable decisions in the past few years. Don't remember many such threads rolling to 19 pages.
I've never really understood the need to be an apologetic United fan. We'd never hear the end of it if it happened to us, it would have been 'brilliant' play for Pep's 'genius' playbook. Feck em, it was a well worked goal and it tricked us all, which is what you want from your players.
Well to me it means many on here can objectively discuss whether not a ruling is correct without red tinted glasses which is a good thing.
Obviously no Man United fan would have wanted the goal overturned but it doesn't mean we can't discuss the rules and merits of the decision.
I can't be bothered reading through all this, sorry, but for clarity, when attackers stand in offside positions for a free kick, but do not touch the ball or get in the way of the keepers view, or block a defender is a resulting goal disallowed?
Based on current rules, no.
Cheers
Love it. But yes that's it basically. Walker and Akanji were too far away. I can see the Ederson argument but we are outside of the box the whole time, so, it's 50/50.I used cutting edge technology to show that Akanji was never getting to the ball before Bruno anyway
One of the best passes of the season, and not for nothing Casemiro has the same shirt number as Paul Scholes
ArsenalMania.
Morons. We are helping them win the title
I've seen the video, I watched the game, I posted a screenshot that I made.
I have gone as far as to acknowledge that the current rules leave enough room for it to be onside.
The issues I have raised are about whether Rashford's actions cause confusion in the defenders mind and therefore confer an advantage. No one has yet to present a reasonable case that him being there and acting as he did had no impact on the outcome.
The bold is blatantly untrue, see image at link https://imgbb.com/HtLBfgzWhen he starts his run he thinks he is onside. Otherwise why bother.
Looks like he is about to touch it when he probably realises he is off and sees Bruno so he is actually trying his best to stay away from the ball. Just instinct, some great luck and timing and it happened very fast.
I think you are giving Rashy far too much credit to say he planned it all out to run 30 yards, actively shield the ball, know Bruno was coming, not touch it and fake out 2 defenders and the keeper all in this space of 4 seconds.
I know he is in good form but that is some fantasy land shit
You cannot be that close to the ball whilst "trying your best to stay away" from it.
He tries his best not to touch it whilst doing his best to stay as close as possible to it.
Why does he do this? I believe to create confusion and thus procure an advantage.
If an opposition player was there, Rashford would have been in the way.
There were certainly no Chelsea players in the vicinity, that is indisputable.
To repeat myself:
I have gone as far as to acknowledge that the current rules leave enough room for it to be onside.
The issues I have raised are about whether Rashford's actions cause confusion in the defenders mind and therefore confer an advantage. No one has yet to present a reasonable case that him being there and acting as he did had no impact on the outcome.
I'm a United fan, happy with the win. My only confusion is that some seem not to want to except we benefitted from a bit of luck based on poorly conceived updates to the offside law.
There was an advantage gained from having a player in an offside position, most of footballing history would have seen it called offside but as things stand it wasn't. The law needs changing to cover events like this and the Salah goal against Wolves and I imagine it will be.
There aren't many high-profile decisions that can be truly debated, usually it's quite clear cut. Here you have recent rule changes that are extremely open to interpretation that also invite the discussion of the entire concept of passive offside and how it should be dealt with.
Or you can put it all on redcafe's subconscious inner hatred of Manchester United, it's up to you.
Isn’t it clear cut? I haven’t read one ex official or anybody credible saying that was offside.
It seems it’s a lot of fans arguing with vague interpretations of laws when the law itself seems quite clear cut
Case closedI used cutting edge technology to show that Akanji was never getting to the ball before Bruno anyway
I used cutting edge technology to show that Akanji was never getting to the ball before Bruno anyway
Yeah, because Akanji would have ran in the same manner if Rashford wasn't there...
No one has made a case against confusing defenders mind because they don't need to. That doesn't matter. That doesn't come in to play ever. Nobody can read minds. You can't referee based on a player being confused. And besides, a defender being confused is on the defender just being confused.
Besides, as someone else posted previously. Here's the video with Rashford removed. It's normal movement from the defenders. They are just far away from the ball and Bruno is always getting there first.
Yeah, because Akanji would have ran in the same manner if Rashford wasn't there...
You're missing the point. This is only to show that Rashford did not obstruct Akanji physically.
Akanji himself said that he played Rashford offside, so why didn't he move differently anyway, towards Bruno, who was not offside?
How would he have ran? Magically teleported 5 yards closer to the ball? He was never getting there before Bruno.Yeah, because Akanji would have ran in the same manner if Rashford wasn't there...
Uhm you just said it yourself. If Rashford wasn't there then he wouldn't be playing anyone offside and he'd be running quicker. It's quite clear why he didn't run towards Bruno.
You can clearly see Akanji slowing down. Why would he be slowing down if Rashford isn't there?
Clear offside. Ederson isn't even looking at BrunoI used cutting edge technology to show that Akanji was never getting to the ball before Bruno anyway
Thank you for making it. It's too obvious when we see it this way
They were too far away (especially Akanji) because they believed Rashford was offside and they weren't trying to get the ball ahead of him. They wanted him to touch the ball instead. It would have been totally fine if Rashford either continued running towards the corner flag as he was doing initially or just stopped on his tracks. Instead he changed direction, protected the ball, and was about to kick it when Bruno shouted at him from behind to leave it.
In essence, it may not be an offside if we consider the letter of the law but definitely an offside if we consider the spirit of the law. The law was changed so that a single player not effecting the game can't be the reason for a legitimate goal to be chalked off. In this case though, the keeper was definitely influenced and so was Akanji.
I would be fuming if this was given against us. City were unlucky to concede that goal but it wasn't an illegal decision.
That's Ederson's fault mate.
Ok, since Rashford was offside and Akanji knew it (as he admitted), why didn't he run towards Bruno instead? Enlighten us.
Slowing down when he is about 3 yards away from the ball as Bruno is shooting it you mean?Uhm you just said it yourself. If Rashford wasn't there then he wouldn't be playing anyone offside and he'd be running quicker. It's quite clear why he didn't run towards Bruno.
You can clearly see Akanji slowing down. Why would he be slowing down if Rashford isn't there?
But Rashford was there. Akanji should've played to the whistle.You can clearly see Akanji slowing down. Why would he be slowing down if Rashford isn't there?
Ye. It's fault for checking out invisible ghost there. No argument
Because Rashford is in front of him. It's fine to make these gifs to try and do a 'gotcha' moment but it doesn't work when doing so removes all context of why people have made decisions.
Because Walker is covering Bruno / Because in his words it was explained to him that this would be an offside offence and thus he believed it was offside. If Rashford isn't there then he obviously doesn't have any thought of this, and runs towards the ball and Bruno.
The whole situation is so controversial because there is too much ambiguity in the rules which is why so many players, pundits and fans are divided. I don't think it works as a rule if it's so ambiguous. Same with the handball rule currently, far too ambiguous.
Doesn't matter what they wanted to do though? They wanted him to touch it, but that's them fecking up isn't it? Akanji played an offside trap without knowing Bruno was running in. He doesn't protect the ball from Akanji getting to it, he is hovering above it but doesn't actually do anything to stop a City defender from acting on it.
I don't think there will ever be a spirit of the law change that makes what Rashford did offside agianst Akanji, because Akanji was too far away from it and therefore is out of the equation. Against Ederson, I can see the argument and it's a judgement call based on how far the ball and players are from the goal.
I agree. I watched the actual clip many times, both real time and replay, and I just don't think Akanji was aggressive enough to involve himself in the play, or to convince the ref he was obstructed by Rashford.
Even if he's sprinting towards the ball, he isn't getting there before Bruno. That's the point of it. It isn't a gotcha moment, it's just he is too far away from the ball and isn't getting there before Bruno. Whether he slows down or not is irrelevant here. If he was a bit slower and had to slow down due to a player being in front, then sure. But he slowed down because of something he "thought" would happen. Not because an offside player forced him to because he was directly in his stride so had to adjust it.
Akanji not fast enough to beat Bruno to the ball. He only slows down when Bruno is about to shoot.
As far as to why he didn't rush to Bruno, that is himself beating his own argument. He had no reason to run behind Rashford if he knew Rashford was offside, and Bruno was heading to the ball too. Case closed.
We don't know that because we don't see him sprinting and sliding for the ball. Why? Because Rashford, in an offside position, is influencing his decision. We will have to agree to disagree. In the current rules it isn't offside but I think that this decision and the Salah one vs Wolves means that in the summer we should see a rule change.
I know what you are saying. But it is inconceivable that a player who was so close to the ball, ran with it, shielded it, and then let his teammate take the shot was not interfering with play irrespective of where the opposition players were. Either way who cares. I would take this everyday.
That’s the issue really. It’s all assumption and opinion. The decision is a subjective call that you can argue either way.
There’s always going to be some subjectivity in the application of rules in such niche situations. I don’t think this is anymore controversial than other decisions this season. Plenty of people arguing either way including top officials who have agreed with the referee.
Its not some kind of horrendous feck up. Infact it’s not a feck up at all. It’s just the referees opinion.