Was Rashford interfering with play?

Was Rashford interfering with play?

  • Total voters
    1,565
I see MOTD2 also analysed this hypothetically and photoshopped Rashford out of the picture to explain how he was interfering.

I wonder what they would think if Bruno hadn't been there and the ball bounced safety through to Edison's hands? Would they expect the flag still to go up and City to get the free kick for offside?
 
Pogba's Barber said:
I see MOTD2 also analysed this hypothetically and photoshopped Rashford out of the picture to explain how he was interfering.

I wonder what they would think if Bruno hadn't been there and the ball bounced safety through to Edison's hands? Would they expect the flag still to go up and City to get the free kick for offside?
Click to expand...

Yeah Chapman can feck off from Utd fans as well,also surprise surprise that ex scouser defending Salah one in FA Cup.
 
BluesJr said:
I do worry about this also. The classic balance move from the officials.
Click to expand...
Isn't it nice that the offside law is such a cut and dry, black and white, binary rule that isn't open to interpretation.
I'm pretty open to the rule on that basis. I think Rashford was distracting and made it harder on the City keeper and i think its one of the more obvious and clear examples of it but i think thats such a wishy, washy grey area to get into that it'll end up going to the home team / whoever isn't in the shitbooks for getting favourable decisions.
I dont know what the reasonable expectation of Rashford or offside players in general is in that situation. Do they stop dead in their tracks and hope they dont obstruct a defender following behind? If the defender is a mile off Bruno and decides to get 'obstructed' is it now a free for the defender? He got out of the way and gave the keeper a clear view of the shot which is the only thing hes required to do. Asking him to do anything else would be kind of weird and unnatural.
 
chisnall_red said:
Interesting how all the balanced, reasonable, and reasoned, posters, who are calmly, lucidly, explaining how obvious it all is; - that at the very most it just needs a quick cursory glance at the new rules to instantly ‘get’ how onside the goal actually was - would have been screaming absolute blue murder about corruption, brown envelopes and ridiculous opaque and non comprehensible rules ruining the game (but only when they can be used to shaft the holy reds) had it been given the other way, are all in fine voice over these pages.

If only all potential ref errors could be so clearly and easily explained away to the baying hordes!

Really cannot understand what the fuss is about anyway, hardly even controversial this one especially also given how dominant city were at the time and how much it literally swung the whole game from one result to another.

Nothing to see here, move on lads
Click to expand...

Absolute shitpost. Wouldn't you be more at home on Blue moon? That's where you get brown envelope and corruption talk, not here.
 
No. Akanji is playing the offside and is relying on the assistant to make the call. But we all know that no call is ever made until the ball is out of play. So he should have played to the whistle. If he had done, he would have forced Rashford to either play the ball or block his movement towards the ball. Instead, he just jogs along thinking the flag will save him. The rule is that he must not touch the ball or stop another player from touching the ball. Ie, playing the ball or blocking for another player to touch the ball. No one challenged him, so they never brought him into the play. They are all at fault for not drawing the offside. The keeper should have run at it. Walker should have run at it. Akanji should have run at it. Any one of them would have forced Rashford to do something, and the off side would have been called or they would have won the ball back by Rashford dropping out. Him just being there isn't against the rules. And they all counted on that bailing them out.

Also, they wouldn't be complaining if it was them. So feck um.
 
All Akanji had to do was keep running and bump into Rashford thus making him interfere with play but he stopped, his own fault. Play to the whistle.

Wasn’t a Varane goal chalked off in similar circumstances last season? A defender ran into Maguire who was in an offside position which prevented him from be able to challenge for the ball
 
All this hypothesising, including by Shearer and Murphy, about influencing or distracting, is irrelevant.

Influencing or distracting, or attempts at fooling if you like, is allowed, and that is all that Rashford did.

Anyone who doesn't believe that should look at all the hop skip or jump hesitation penalty run ups

That didn't use to be allowed, and the goalie wasn't allowed to move about on the line before the ball is kicked, but now they both are.
 
Norman Brownbutter said:
No. Akanji is playing the offside and is relying on the assistant to make the call. But we all know that no call is ever made until the ball is out of play. So he should have played to the whistle. If he had done, he would have forced Rashford to either play the ball or block his movement towards the ball. Instead, he just jogs along thinking the flag will save him. The rule is that he must not touch the ball or stop another player from touching the ball. Ie, playing the ball or blocking for another player to touch the ball. No one challenged him, so they never brought him into the play. They are all at fault for not drawing the offside. The keeper should have run at it. Walker should have run at it. Akanji should have run at it. Any one of them would have forced Rashford to do something, and the off side would have been called or they would have won the ball back by Rashford dropping out. Him just being there isn't against the rules. And they all counted on that bailing them out.

Also, they wouldn't be complaining if it was them. So feck um.
Click to expand...

Spot on.
 
It’s the comments from the bitters that amuse me, saying we cheated, the ref made the decision FFS. To the letter of the law No he wasn’t, but imho his presence will affect the decision of the city players around him, f the shoe we’re on the other foot then yes I would be pretty miffed, but it’s swings and roundabouts I’m sure some will go against us this season also.
 
andy0 said:
All this hypothesising, including by Shearer and Murphy, about influencing or distracting, is irrelevant.

Influencing or distracting, or attempts at fooling if you like, is allowed, and that is all that Rashford did.

Anyone who doesn't believe that should look at all the hop skip or jump hesitation penalty run ups

That didn't use to be allowed, and the goalie wasn't allowed to move about on the line before the ball is kicked, but now they both are.
Click to expand...
If Rashford doesn’t touch the ball or stop another player from getting it then Ederson is simply looking at an onside Rashford. That argument doesn’t hold any weight
 
The only half-decent comment from the pundits I've heard so far has (unbelievably) come from Jason Cundy! Is Rashford interfering? Yes, undoubtedly. But - by the letter of the law - is it a goal? Yes.

The issue isn't Utd getting an advantage/preferential treatment, it's an issue with how offside is interpreted under the current laws.

Lots of bitter 90s/00s pundits reveling in the perceived unjustness of their playing days towards us, and loving it.
 
He's offside and clearly having an impact on the actions of the City defenders and keeper, but according to the narrow rules for interference, the goal is completely valid.
He wasn't blocking their lines of sight or physically impeding anyone.

Those rules need reviewing
 
Glorio said:
He's offside and clearly having an impact on the actions of the City defenders and keeper, but according to the narrow rules for interference, the goal is completely valid.
He wasn't blocking their lines of sight or physically impeding anyone.

Those rules need reviewing
Click to expand...

What should the rule be though? If you went back to the hard and fast rule of offside is offside it will end up with other goals we think should stand ruled out. Hence we flip flop year after year.

It's such a grey area that it's a tough decision for any ref. If you're the goalie there you're obviously influenced by Rashford though.
 
Smores said:
If you went back to the hard and fast rule of offside is offside it will end up with other goals we think should stand ruled out.
Click to expand...


You also end up with ridiculous cards like RVP against Barcelona.
 
The problem is the constant interference by governing bodies who keep changing the rules of the game season after season.

Really it's proof that the game is in a poor state and in order to make things entertaining is to cause controversy over the rules. Every week whether it's offside or VAR, we are talking more about decisions from officials and the rules rather than the game itself.

That's the debate that we should be having!
 
Evidence for the defence of Rashford your Honour , Every week when free kicks/set pieces are taken, players are running /static in offside position but teammates come from onside position to head/ boot the ball into the net. Decision goal. Argument is they are affecting play as are they are influencing defenders /goal keeper decision making from an offside position however they all stand.
 
maximus419 said:
The problem is the constant interference by governing bodies who keep changing the rules of the game season after season.

Really it's proof that the game is in a poor state and in order to make things entertaining is to cause controversy over the rules. Every week whether it's offside or VAR, we are talking more about decisions from officials and the rules rather than the game itself.

That's the debate that we should be having!
Click to expand...

It's up to team management to study the rules, and coach players accordingly.

Akanji says he paused to play Rashford offside; this is a gamble. Then both he and Walker are running back, and they are doing this because they believe the play is still valid, and the reason they think so at that point is Rashford hasn't touched the ball.

The principle that the ball can appear to be going towards one player, but another runs in instead and kicks it, has been established for at least 5 years, before that Sanchez Cup Final goal.

There are other cases that are valid, which have been argued about. A free kick cross comes in, and is headed back across the goal to a player who was offside when the free kick was taken, but isn't at the time of the header. This might be arguable as unfair, as the defender that wants to challenge the scorer has started behind him or her. But these goals have counted

Plenty of other cases of attackers messing around in offside positions at free kicks, as the post above mine says. And other instances not from free kicks but during open play
 
Last edited:
Pogba's Barber said:
I see MOTD2 also analysed this hypothetically and photoshopped Rashford out of the picture to explain how he was interfering.

I wonder what they would think if Bruno hadn't been there and the ball bounced safety through to Edison's hands? Would they expect the flag still to go up and City to get the free kick for offside?
Click to expand...


It's a pointless picture and exercise as the ball is moving away from one player and towards another.

The only way that picture would be useful is of the ball was stationary and it wasn't
 
lsd said:
It's a pointless picture and exercise as the ball is moving away from one player and towards another.

The only way that picture would be useful is of the ball was stationary and it wasn't
Click to expand...
Skysports used the same thing as if it was indistinguishable proof they were right and had finally settled the debate. Got quite annoyed at the use of the photo and the way they kept saying the safest decision would be to call it offside, so that in itself leads to the view it can be ruled in either way.
The ball was stopped closer to Akanji than Bruno but the speed the ball was travelling at there was no chance Akanji was getting to the ball. I do agree that Ederson would've been affected by it and could then be deemed to be interfering with the play. I'm glad the ref was strong enough on the day or we would be arguing the opposite side of this as to why it wasn't given. This would then have the same pundits and presenters in outrage as to why it wasn't just to create ratings and controversy.
 


The moment the ball is passed sets offside position only. A player cannot be offside from where they are on the pitch, it's about their actions in relation to the ball or an opponent.

Rashford cannot be deemed to be "interfering with play," because this applies exclusively to "playing or touching a ball" and is an automatic offside offence. As Rashford didn't touch the ball, he cannot be "interfering with play."

Which leaves us with four tests for "interfering with an opponent." Rashford has to fail one of these to be offside.

1) Preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent's line of vision

While some may argue this applies to Rashford because he is in front of Akanji, this refers to a player blocking another player's line of vision when the ball is played. This is more applicable to a situation where a player is stood in front of the goalkeeper when a teammate shoots on goal.

2) Challenging an opponent for the ball

Akanji and Kyle Walker were never within playing distance of Rashford or the ball itself during the move so, in law, the United striker cannot be deemed to be challenging an opponent. Had Akanji got back to Rashford, it would have been a different judgement.

3) Clearly attempting to play a ball that is close when this action impacts an opponent

Again, in law Rashford doesn't attempt to play the ball and as Akanji is a few yards behind him, he cannot be impacting on him. He cannot be offside purely by running towards the ball, he must be impacting an opposition player.

4) Making an obvious action which clearly impacts the ability of an opponent to play the ball

This is the one clause that Rashford could be deemed to break. However, this usually involves an attacking player either dummying the ball, or attempting to play it, with an opposition player directly impacted from intercepting or clearing the ball. One such example was Bryan Mbeumo's goal for Brentford at Newcastle, which was ruled out through VAR for offside in the buildup against Ivan Toney, who had moved his body to let the ball run through past a defender.

Rashford slows down as the ball reaches the edge of the box. It has been described by some as a "feint," or "shaping to shoot," but it's very much open to interpretation; equally, you could say he is simply stopping his run. In any case, remember this action has to "clearly impact on the ability of an opponent to play the ball." That cannot apply to Akanji, as he is never within playing distance of the ball; as Fernandes is the next player to the ball it's difficult to say that Rashford has directly impacted Walker.

The real case for discussion is about Ederson, and whether his actions would have changed had Rashford not been there. Perhaps, but Rashford doesn't impact the goalkeeper's ability to come and play the ball. He may affect his choice to do so, and how he might shape for a save, but the law doesn't discuss how a player might behave differently if the offside player isn't present; it only discusses the ability of an opponent to play the ball.

Goals like this are rare, and in most cases the offside will be upheld. But subjectively it isn't an incorrect decision by Attwell to allow it, and the independent assessment panel certainly won't say this was a missed intervention.

It's as though Akanji is penalised for playing a good offside trap, as he checks his run initially. But again, this doesn't get taken into account in law.

The majority of referees would likely agree this is onside in law, but it wouldn't be a universal opinion. That's why there is a subjective argument on both sides, but most of the weight is on it being a goal when it's judged after the fact.
Click to expand...
 
chisnall_red said:
Interesting how all the balanced, reasonable, and reasoned, posters, who are calmly, lucidly, explaining how obvious it all is; - that at the very most it just needs a quick cursory glance at the new rules to instantly ‘get’ how onside the goal actually was - would have been screaming absolute blue murder about corruption, brown envelopes and ridiculous opaque and non comprehensible rules ruining the game (but only when they can be used to shaft the holy reds) had it been given the other way, are all in fine voice over these pages.

If only all potential ref errors could be so clearly and easily explained away to the baying hordes!

Really cannot understand what the fuss is about anyway, hardly even controversial this one especially also given how dominant city were at the time and how much it literally swung the whole game from one result to another.

Nothing to see here, move on lads
Click to expand...

The fact you’re so worked up about it over 24 hours later is brilliant!
 
Pogba's Barber said:
I see MOTD2 also analysed this hypothetically and photoshopped Rashford out of the picture to explain how he was interfering.

I wonder what they would think if Bruno hadn't been there and the ball bounced safety through to Edison's hands? Would they expect the flag still to go up and City to get the free kick for offside?
Click to expand...

Removing Rashford and showing a freeze frame is stupid as it takes no consideration in to the pace on the ball or that of the defender.

Such a fuss over this :lol:
 
AbusementPark said:
Skysports used the same thing as if it was indistinguishable proof they were right and had finally settled the debate. Got quite annoyed at the use of the photo and the way they kept saying the safest decision would be to call it offside, so that in itself leads to the view it can be ruled in either way.
The ball was stopped closer to Akanji than Bruno but the speed the ball was travelling at there was no chance Akanji was getting to the ball. I do agree that Ederson would've been affected by it and could then be deemed to be interfering with the play. I'm glad the ref was strong enough on the day or we would be arguing the opposite side of this as to why it wasn't given. This would then have the same pundits and presenters in outrage as to why it wasn't just to create ratings and controversy.
Click to expand...
That picture is extremely misleading because it gives people wrong perception that the ball is within reach of Akanji. In fact, the ball moves cross field very fast, Akanji had to turn his run so he would always be the last to even catch it.
 
sullydnl said:
Click to expand...


Having read the rule just before seeing this post that was also my interpretation of how the law works. It wasnt offside by the letter of the law because whilst ederson may have been confused, Rashford did not stop him from playing the ball. Once Bruno kicks it that phase of play is over.

I think they will change the law in light of this incident because although the referee interpreted it correctly as written, its clearly not within the spirit of what is intended.

Couldnt care less that City are upset by it though
 
  • Like
Reactions: oates
sullydnl said:
Click to expand...


Agree with basically everything here, besides the line about Akanji being punished for playing a good offside trap. Akanji plays a good offside on Rashford. Then he goes to sleep. He never, ever, checks his shoulder to see that there's another United player, Fernandes, racing into the space between himself and Walker. That's poor defending. Say Rashford had just jumped over the ball and gone to the right, would Akanji have suddenly got his head on the swivel and noticed Bruno? I'm not sure. The author's basically putting responsibility for him not scanning at the feet of the referee. Ultimately Akanji could've prevented all of this if he'd have just checked whether Rashford was the only United player he needed to worry about.
 
Pundits etc complaining about it and using that picture which doesn't tell the story at all. When you watch it back, the pace of the ball is beating akanji easily whether rashford was there or not, akanji wasn't getting to it.

However edersons position would IMO change if rash wasn't there and Fernandes was getting to it first
 
UnsungHero said:
I think we have to say yes, he unequivocally was interfering - but who cares. We get major arguments about refereeing decisions almost every game now - some go for you, some don't.
Click to expand...

Well, the definition of interfering with play is blocking or coming into contact with an opposition player preventing them from getting to the ball, or standing in front of a keeper and blocking their line of sight when a ball is struck.

Rashford did neither of these things. Akanji wasn't trying to intercept the ball, beacuse he thought he'd played the offside, but that only works if Rashford touches the ball and he didn't. This is why you see Walker desperately lunging in to block Bruno, because he knows that Rashford hasn't touched the ball and Bruno is onside. Another factor that isn't very clear on many of the still photographs online. The ball was moving diagonally and at pace. It was moving away from Akanji and into the path of Bruno/Walker.
 
I do think Rashford was interfering with play and City have a right to feel aggrieved.
However I can’t believe how much this particular incident has been spoken about tbh. There are dozens of these shit ref decisions throughout a season, some much more brazen than this, and I don’t think any of them have been discussed this much.
Refs made an error, acknowledge it and move on ffs
 
Ole'sattheWheel said:
I do think Rashford was interfering with play and City have a right to feel aggrieved.
However I can’t believe how much this particular incident has been spoken about tbh. There are dozens of these shit ref decisions throughout a season, some much more brazen than this, and I don’t think any of them have been discussed this much.
Refs made an error, acknowledge it and move on ffs
Click to expand...

The refs didn’t make an error according to a strict interpretation of the rule.

The conversation has moved on to whether the rule should be amended or kept as is so as to be more aligned with the ‘spirit’ (which sounds a lot like our collective most recent understanding of offsides).

It seems like such a corner case though so I’m not sure amendments are necessary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.