Was Rashford interfering with play?

[avgp_1]

He was off but City were naive, nobody actually challenged him would have been more clear cut

 

[tenpoless]

It was offside? who cares
We were without Dalot
Martial was most likely not ready because he was reportedly in doubt yesterday
Rashford got.. injured.. in the middle of the match.. temporarily?
While they can just sub one top attacker for another. Immense depth that it's almost shameless

Feck off City, feck off Pep

 

[Fortitude]

Of course he was.

Would be furious if that stood against us.

 

[Red the Bear]

Yes.

 

[jem]

It was dodgy but who cares!

 

[Stadjer]

I think it should be offside, would be very annoyed if that was scored against Manchester United. I take the goal today though

 

[cyberman]

No, the only players who can get to the ball are the defenders following Bruno

 

[Red Royal]

Yes he was.... filly expected that to be chalked off but makes it sweeter

 

[SlothIsLove]

Yes of course he was that makes it even sweeter

 

[arnie_ni]

There wasn't a defender close to him. A goal is the correct call I think.

Edit but yes I'd be fuming if that stood against us

 

[GifLord]

 

[youmeletsfly]

Ref was bent, but that makes victory even sweeter.

 

[Kostov]

No offside clear goal, feck them

 

[Ollie Derbyshire]

He might have been but he didn’t touch it or block anyone.

It’s no worse than a defender trying to clear a ball cause the attacker is in an offside position and it leads to a goal.

 

[Zen86]

No.

 

[charlenefan]

Of course he was but who the feck cares

 

[MarylandMUFan]

"no touch on the ball, no impact on the defender" is the ruling from the professional refs association. Bad call but I will take it. If Rash pulled up then the other defender would have cleared it before the goal.

 

[saik]

BEIN have got the rules out and discussing why it's an offside.

Probably is but who cares, as far as I'm concerned it's not offside seeing as how Liverpool got those decisions against Wolves.

 

[sullydnl]

I thought the rule was he had to touch the ball or be preventing someone from playing the ball for it to be offside. But then what constitutes that?

But realisitcally it should be offside and if it isn't then the rules are fecked.

Which is great.

 

[Scottynaldinho]

No he wasn't, he only shielded the ball for Bruno to arrive.

 

[soccerMad]

3 points in the bag, does it matter?

 

[CoopersDream]

Obviously. It's basically ridiculous that the goal was allowed. They should scrap the rule all together (if you don't touch the ball you aren't offside), because if running along the ball deciding not to take a touch when you're about one centimeter off it isn't interfering, nothing is.

 

[Scandi Red]

Yes but feck City.

The only correct answer.

 

[Rex Banner]

I definitely thought he was. Really surprised when Peter Walton said he thought it was gonna be given. Just makes it all the sweeter though!

 

[Varun1]

The rules are clear, but unfair imo. Even if an offside player doesn't physically interfere with the ball, he creates enough confusion that it affects the other teams decision making.
It worked in our favour but the rules need to change imo.

Same with the hand ball rule.

 

[adexkola]

No he wasn't, he only shielded the ball for Bruno to arrive.

That's interfering with play

 

[Lecland07]

He is a Manutd player so no.

Seriously, I think that was the right decision. He doesn't touch the ball; he doesn't block the goalkeepers view. There is nothing stopping the City defenders and goalkeeper from blocking that goal.

 

[strandty]

No, because Akanji completely ignored him and no City player was hampered by him before Bruno took control of the ball.

This!

 

[mu4c_20le]

OP be like

 

[BerryBerryShrew]

By the rules of the game, it's a legitimate goal. Similar to the Salah goal against Wolves in the FA Cup last week.

However it's a stupid rule that should be changed because the goal wouldn't have been scored had the offside player not taken up the position he did, regardless of whether or not he touched the ball.

TLDR: Goal should stand but rule needs to be changed at the end of the season to ensure that such a goal would not stand in the future.

 

[SilentWitness]

If Rashford isn't there then Akanji doesn't run around him to get to the ball and his line to the ball is different. Ederson is clearly not only looking at Bruno but at Rashford also so he can gauge where the ball might be hit.

I have no idea how it can be classed as him not interfering with play.

 

[Zlaatan]

Yes he was, I'd be livid if that had been given against us.

 

[Yorkeontop]

I think we got lucky.

 

[Man-United]

I vote No. How many times should city get the decisions going for them?

 

[Jippy]

I thought the rule was he had to touch the ball or be preventing someone from playing the ball for it to be offside. But then what constitutes that?

But realisitcally it should be offside and if it isn't then the rules are fecked.

Which is great.

Apparently the rules is actually impeding the defender so it was fine technically. Looked ropey though.

 

[VeevaVee]

Not by the rules of the game. In actuality, a little. Not arsed

 

[Santoryo]

There is a reason the saying "play to the whistle exist". It's City players problem for assuming and stopping instead of just playing to the whistle.

Ref hadn't blown the whistle therefore they should have played the ball.

 

[NotoriousISSY]

If the Salah one counts, this one counts. I like the consistency.

 

[arnie_ni]

"no touch on the ball, no impact on the defender" is the ruling from the professional refs association. Bad call but I will take it. If Rash pulled up then the other defender would have cleared it before the goal.

What other defender? Walker was closest to play but he was outside of bruno

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Nope. The defender couldn't catch up with Bruno. Nothing to do with Rashford