watching how much this pissed of twats like Richard "just banter" Keys and Gaby Agbonlahor made it even more satisfying. If I'm honest if we conceded that goal I'd be furious, but the rules have been changed and technically speaking it's a goal.
Was Rashford interfering with play?
- Thread starter PoTMS
- Start date
It was the correct call, which doesn’t require a degree in rocket science to understand.
But if you think the rule itself is daft, fine. But the moment you try to tweak the rule to hold that Rashford interfered with play in that situation you’ll rewrite the rule so that anytime a teammate of an attacking player is in an offside position will therefore hold that an offside offense was committed.
We see goals scored all the time on free kicks where one attacker is in an offside position but another attacker scored the goal. Attacking players constantly try to drag defenders back by being in an offside position. Do we really want to ban that now? I don’t think so.
But if you think the rule itself is daft, fine. But the moment you try to tweak the rule to hold that Rashford interfered with play in that situation you’ll rewrite the rule so that anytime a teammate of an attacking player is in an offside position will therefore hold that an offside offense was committed.
We see goals scored all the time on free kicks where one attacker is in an offside position but another attacker scored the goal. Attacking players constantly try to drag defenders back by being in an offside position. Do we really want to ban that now? I don’t think so.
All in 3 points the board but lets think, Sancho was denied a penalty 16/10/2022 against Newcastle ( ref Pawson)and a week later 22/10/2022 Bernardo got a penalty for Man City against Brighton for practically the same circumstances (ref Pawson), so yeah its swings and roundabouts. What about De Bruyne controversial penalty against Fulham 5/11/2022 ? and that's just a few.
Akanji was perhaps the most adamant amongst the entitled t***s, but if you watch him throughout the play, he had no idea there was a late runner coming, which is the reason he slowed down. Kids at the U12 level are taught do your job and play to the whistle.
Yes but dont care. Who vote for no need to go for football lesson 101.
This is much more convincing.
It is abundantly clear, that the referee refereed correctly according to the rules of the game.
Some people now think that he should not have used the rules of the game to ref the match , and some think the rules of the game should now be changed.
The only solution I see is that we retrospectively concede the game, and give City the 3 points. This is the only way that people will stop objecting to the game having been played in accordance with the current rules.
Some people now think that he should not have used the rules of the game to ref the match , and some think the rules of the game should now be changed.
The only solution I see is that we retrospectively concede the game, and give City the 3 points. This is the only way that people will stop objecting to the game having been played in accordance with the current rules.
Some of us who voted "No" are certified referees. Are you?
Look at these 3 examples, all not offside.
Physical interference is interference. Mental interference isn't. Defenders being dumb and not using their eyes doesn't make a play offside.
Physical interference is interference. Mental interference isn't. Defenders being dumb and not using their eyes doesn't make a play offside.
Correct, and well illustrated. The AR knew he made a mistake immediately, and he's one of the best around.
Some of the rules are definitely complicated. Even the players and pundits get confused sometimes. Weirdly, the offside one is complained about the least.
And certified referees never make a bad call in their career ?
Or, perhaps you should read the law about this and you'd see that those who voted no are, actually, correct.
I thought the decision to overturn the original offside came from the ref and not the assistant on that side.
Not sure it's defenders being 'dumb'. It's a fundamental shift to everything that's been trained into defenders since they were children and there still seems considerable confusion among officials about its application too.
Also not sure this rule change actually makes the game better.
Yep, exactly. He didn’t interfere with Akanji’s run. Akanji just slows down. That’s not interference.
The goalie has full view of the ball and his vision is not blocked by Rashford in any way. So also not interfering with play.
It was the correct interpretation of the law but takes a bold ref to make that kind of call.
No one twlks about that. They were pissed but did not do the job. You always try to clear the ball, no matter what. They forgot Bruno and got punished for it. It was not a ref mistake but a defenders mistake
Strange how ex refs have said its a goal, Peter Walton. Dermot Gallagher stated he would have went with the safe option and declared it offside, that in itself says its not a clear cut offside decision. He even went on to argue for why the goal was given but would have declared it offside to be safe.
The ref on the day applied the rules as best he could to his own interpretation of them and I honestly think the same ones screaming offside would be screaming its a goal if it was given as offside.
The law is very clear. He can't be offside unless he touched the ball.
I think the rules are too cut and dried but until the rules change the ref made the right call.
I think the rules are too cut and dried but until the rules change the ref made the right call.
Has there been a more contentious and influential decision in the history of football?! Yes. Yes there has. Do posters who use white text talk to themselves?
Exactly! Physical interference is interference. Mental interference isn't. City's defenders made a mistake, they did not notice that Bruno is coming, they were sure that Rashford will touch the ball or do something, and they did not try to play the ball. As Norman Brownbutter explains above, they could force Rashford do something, and push him to make a physical interference. They didn't. It is a good goal.
(And we learned something. I had no idea that the "interference" is now only physical interference. I thought that "interference" is open to interpretation, well ... it isn't. )
One thing that has probably been mentioned in here but I’ll repeat it anyway is that in all of these edited versions where they’ve removed Rashford to show how close Akanji was to the ball, they’ve stripped it of one vital piece of context that allows that to be really misleading: the fact that the ball was moving faster than Akanji for much of the time. It’s being presented as fact that he’s a cert to clear it, even though it’s moving away from him into Bruno‘s path, which is being wilfully ignored to make the argument.
It all comes from the late flag rule, other seasons play would have been stopped anyway, another unintended consequence of idiot referees making rule changes without looking at all the possible ramifications.
But who cares we deserved the win.
What annoyed me most was Pep's comment about we know where we play etc.... the old "big clubs get the decisions", like City are a minnow and are not a beneficiary of the same bias (if it exists which I am not convinced it does). I perfectly understand that he will feel aggrieved but a pathetic response, really, really wound me up, he has never got any right to that comment after the 11-12 QPR game, ignore stoppage time, just keep playing until City score debacle.... still bitter
But who cares we deserved the win.
What annoyed me most was Pep's comment about we know where we play etc.... the old "big clubs get the decisions", like City are a minnow and are not a beneficiary of the same bias (if it exists which I am not convinced it does). I perfectly understand that he will feel aggrieved but a pathetic response, really, really wound me up, he has never got any right to that comment after the 11-12 QPR game, ignore stoppage time, just keep playing until City score debacle.... still bitter
Funny that you'll bring up that game. I remember being mighty pissed off that we let our 8 points(?) gap slip between games against Wigan/Everton and themselves, although I thought they had a game in hand or something.
But more to the point, the QPR game itself wasn't corrupt and I'm surprised you imply that given we all know QPR were shit bags who let up after they knew they were safe late on. Just goes to show fans reaction (or interpretation) will always sway towards whether or not a decision directly benefits their team.
If this was given as a goal against us I'd be mad, but wouldn't necessarily think there was a conspiracy against us, but more that referees are incompetent. And I can definitely see the side where Rashford is not interfering with play, at least by the law, so goal should stand. One takeaway from all this for me is that the rules need looking at, looks like every week we see one of this big calls in the premier league with the potential to massively influence the overall outcome of the league.
The referees are not incompetent if they produce a decision that fits the rules as they are.
I don't see why people, including Shearer, are clamouring that the rules need looking at.
The rules have evolved to where they are now as a result of previous remarks that they aren't clear enough and need to be more specific
Now they are carefully and precisely stated, arguably less ambiguity than in previous versions, but the complaints are coming from people who haven't read them, or haven't thought through them, or don't understand them, or haven't coached their players about them, or have coached the players but don't want to admit in public that the players made a mistake, or want some other new version instead, even if they haven't thought this through yet themselves.
None of that list of issues is the fault of the rulemakers.
This may lead to some reviews, but maybe it won't. It is allowed in plenty of other aspects of the game to play in a way that tries to trick the other team. It's surprising in the middle of all this that a famous striker Shearer is sticking up for socialising the risk of a goalkeeper Ederson having a dilemma about what he can see.
Whatever the rest of the argument, Akanji had the right to tackle or intercept, and the offside rule would in effect indemnify him against committing a foul, because the offside would then be called. If he didn't do this, either his decision was wrong or slow, or it might be down to not unfairness but the brilliance of the Casemiro pass.
Wow is this still being talked about in the media. Can tell that Liverpool had TWO dodgy goals in their game. Have to jump on ours to make people forget about that. If the goal was scored against us it wouldn’t be talked about half as much.
He wasn’t interfering with play, he was distracting the defender in the same way he would have if he was stood on the touch line waving his arms and asking for the ball. The rules weren’t broken, the goal stands. We won. Get over it. Can tell they fear our revival properly now.
He wasn’t interfering with play, he was distracting the defender in the same way he would have if he was stood on the touch line waving his arms and asking for the ball. The rules weren’t broken, the goal stands. We won. Get over it. Can tell they fear our revival properly now.
Hardly, after having a chance to watch the situation 10+ times, in slow motion, from 6 angles, in the calm of their home
I wouldn’t say Rashford is interfering with play. More that he was active when the ball is played in his direction and still actively participating in the passage of play when he crossed the balls path to step over for Bruno.
There’s hundreds of examples of players standing still, facing away from the goal and hands up in the air to let everyone know they know they’re offside and they’re not going to do anything. This is the complete opposite of Rashford and coming out and defending himself when his own manager said it was offside shows he is either really dumb or just full of shit.
That being said, as a neutral I really couldn’t give a flying feck. But I wish your players would have the decency to admit they were let off massively with that decision.
There’s hundreds of examples of players standing still, facing away from the goal and hands up in the air to let everyone know they know they’re offside and they’re not going to do anything. This is the complete opposite of Rashford and coming out and defending himself when his own manager said it was offside shows he is either really dumb or just full of shit.
That being said, as a neutral I really couldn’t give a flying feck. But I wish your players would have the decency to admit they were let off massively with that decision.
Exactly this. The goal could have been prevented had Akanji just looked over his shoulder and blocked off Bruno. He stopped because Rashford was offside. As you say, that's a schoolboy error. How can you just stop running when there could be other opposition players making a run on your blindside, which is exactly what Bruno did.
That has been hysterical to see. Its like someone taking a freeze frame of themselves next to a Ferrari and saying: 'See, I could have caught that Ferrari over 5m. Look how close I am when you freeze the picture.' To ignore how fast the ball travelled in real time, is to ignore a massive part of the context that meant Rashford never interfered with Akanji at all.
The goal Alexis Sanchez scored against your lot in the 2017 FA Cup final was much worse, as Ramsay actively moved towards the ball before Alexis struck it. I think if Rashford had stopped then Akanji would've run into the back of him and then he definitely would've been interfering with play. I believe the only thing he could have done differently would have been to run to the right instead of the left. Either way Akanji wasn't fast enough to catch up to the ball, given the force with which Casemiro hit it, so its kind of incidental. The player with the most cause for complaint on the opposition side is Ederson. However, given Ederson's inclination to sweep in behind and the fact he has a full frontal view of both Rashford and Bruno, its a toss up as to how much Rashford interferes with his play. One thing I can guarantee is Ederson is not going to stay rooted to his line when a ball is played at pace in behind City's centre halves.
Ok then, why does “football 101” say this was offside?
I’m not sure exactly what was said between the center ref and the AR, but based on the AR’s body language toward Bruno, it looked to me like he knew he made the wrong decision.
You wonder if this rule will get 'patched' or if teams will try to exploit it
I can see a situation where the striker deliberately makes an early run, the ball is then played toward him but the defenders stop with their arms in the air because they can see he's yards offside only for the runner from deep to exploit the hesitatation
I can see a situation where the striker deliberately makes an early run, the ball is then played toward him but the defenders stop with their arms in the air because they can see he's yards offside only for the runner from deep to exploit the hesitatation
It’ll be patched until the next rule has an extreme example of it falling down and the crying will start again.
Every law will fall down somewhere. There gets to a point when we have to accept laws or we’ll be forever changing them. Does this happen in any other sport?
If you listened to the pundits, they eulogise over past laws as if the frustration of those laws didn’t lead to the many changes we got to now.
I say it has to be changed but how do you frame it? You can’t make a movement after the ball if you’re offside? Then what about the offsides that have the attacker move towards the ball and has the defender cut it out. Is that offside or does it being cut out not make it count? What about the offsides on set pieces that has the defender run back after the offside player on the far post this playing everyone on in the middle but the ball just falls short of the offside player?
of course he was, but who actually give a toss.
The City defenders should have played to the whistle, dealt with it.
The City defenders should have played to the whistle, dealt with it.
Refs followed the rules to a T, which means goal stands. It’s funny how people react to this and are more upset than when the ref makes a mistake.
Heard a pundit use the term "shepherding the ball" on The Weekend Wrap in regards to Rashford. Literally inventing new terms now to justify their saltiness over the result.
Either he’s interfering with the play by blocking the defender’s movement or he’s not offside. Make up your mind about it.
This is the relevant paragraph from FIFA:
“a player moving from, or standing in, an offside position is in the way of an opponent and interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the ball this is an offside offence if it impacts on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball”
Akanji chooses to slow down expecting it to be offside, Rashford doesn’t interfere with his ability to play or challenge for the ball.
Obviously, it was a legitimate goal and Rashford is a genius and rival clubs can’t handle that but I understand if the laws now need to be changed to assist City’s stupid defenders.
It is very funny that even after having the rule explained almost two thirds of voters are still insisting he was interfering with play. The caf is never knowingly right about anything (except that time we all voted for ETH to be the next manager.)