Yes and I love it. Its like when you pass an exam god knows how. Its even sweeter.
Was Rashford interfering with play?
- Thread starter PoTMS
- Start date
Neither of the defenders did anything different because of Rashford being there. The ball came in perfectly and Bruno was always going to get there first. So he wasn't impacting them.
The one that he might have impacted was Ederson, but who cares
The one that he might have impacted was Ederson, but who cares
Anyone voting option 2 gets banned BTW.
Not according to the rules as they are but the rules are wrong if that’s a goal. Still, who gives a feck.
According to the rules, no. But the offside rule with regards to interference is subjective.
If it was given against us, we would be fuming. Having said that, feck city.
If it was given against us, we would be fuming. Having said that, feck city.
I don't think it impacted the defenders but may have impacted Ederson
Technically fine is the best kind of fine as far as I'm concerned.
Who was he eventually interfering with? Genuine question.
If Rashy wasn't there I doubt it would have been a goal, but its about time we got the rub of the green.
The rule doesn't make sense when Akanji couldn't get to the ball anyway.
Hence the VAR believed that, if Rashford doesn't exist, people would still chase the ball and it will only fall down to Bruno regardless.
It wasn't offside. It was an odd one, but I'm sure that is a valid argument from the officials.
Hence the VAR believed that, if Rashford doesn't exist, people would still chase the ball and it will only fall down to Bruno regardless.
It wasn't offside. It was an odd one, but I'm sure that is a valid argument from the officials.
He did not interfere. What should he have done, stopped running. No striker does that. Competent refereeing for once
This is why linos don't flag. He could easily have threw it up right away but he allowed it to go on when he seen Bruno credit to him
I'd be fuming too, but it shows the rules keep changing so much no-one has a clue.
If Rashford never ran for the ball, then it should be no offside. He did run and only "give up" at the last moment. City's CB were also at fault for making assumption.
Lets not kid ourself there is no such thing as player in offside having no impact on the game, offside rule in this sense is plain dumb.
But Bruno was first
Definitely offside but makes it even better
Yes for me, but I'm okay with the decision. Surely him chasing the ball and even (fake?) lining up for the shot confused Ederson.
How can people say he's interfering with the play when the ball was basically his own in most of the run ?
It's not up for a debate, clear offside.
Still, will take it just to piss of Man City fans.
Yes but
On the rules, if he doesn't get in the way of the keeper, it's onside. I think that's wrong but these are the rules, same as Rashford's disallowed goal against Wolves.
It should be offside but it's not basically.
It should be offside but it's not basically.
Makes up for his Rashfords disallowed goals vs Everton and Wolves for handball
Going by the letter of the law, it was legit.
But I disagree with the lettering of the law. How can he not be interfering?
But I disagree with the lettering of the law. How can he not be interfering?
Yes but it’s an issue with a rule, not the decision of the ref. Same as the Liverpool one vs Wolves in the cup.
Also, who gives a feck
Also, who gives a feck
This is karma for that fecking Boro player clearly handballing last year and still getting the goal.
Was offside for sure, but I don't care
Under the current offside laws he most definitely wasn’t interfering (as confirmed by Dermot Gallagher on BT)
I don't really understand how he didn't affect the defender though. We got a break on a loophole, but will take it.
Neither of the defenders did anything different because of Rashford being there. The ball came in perfectly and Bruno was always going to get there first. So he wasn't impacting them.
The one that he might have impacted was Ederson, but who cares
Yep, the ball was always going to get to Bruno, nothing the defenders could do.
I would be fuming if we conceded a goal like that. BUT I absolutely love winning against a rival with a controversial decision, makes them even more angry.
Ofcourse he was. But what about City cheating on their financials and buying trophies for the last decade? Where's the outrage about that?
To the whataboutism thread!
To the whataboutism thread!
Akanji and Ederson. Akanji doesn't run in that line if Rashford isn't there, Ederson doesn't need to concentrate on two players if he isn't there.
The goal should stand. Doesn't touch it or stop an opponent touching it, that's it. Cry more everybody, you know we're coming back when everybody else is in meltdown
No. Because Akanji and Ake were not interested to catch the ball.
Akanji actually didnt do anything. He absolutely was in no position to interfere once the ball went past him
If that's technically fine the offside law is even more broken than I realised, and I already thought it was silly. It's a truly appalling decision happy new year.
happy new year.No one cares, they had one shot on target all match. Justice was done.
That goal should never be given. If that happened against us, I'd be enraged. If Rashford isn't there, Akanji easily takes the ball and Ederson positions himself differently.
Don't give a feck, though. We've had so many shit decisions against us over the years.
Don't give a feck, though. We've had so many shit decisions against us over the years.
I thought so, and was surprised it was given. Don't care. Call it even for City's umpteen dives to try and win a penalty, none of which they saw a booking for.