He blocked the view of the ball of the defender and also faked a shot. Offside but United got lucky and without luck you can't win games.
Was Rashford interfering with play?
- Thread starter PoTMS
- Start date
The answer is...
I think he is interfering but I think according to the rules it stands. There’s been loads of cases over the years whereby an attacker has gained an advantage in an offside position through making runs or simply being the target of a pass but for whatever reason the ball doesn’t get to that player but the rules don’t actually recognise it as interfering for some reason. I don’t like the interpretation, I think it punishes defenders for playing to the whistle when encouraged to do so and City have fallen foul of it today. But whatever, we’ve fallen foul of it in recent seasons so it’s nice that it’s our turn to benefit from it today and even sweeter that it’s City.
It undoubtedly affected the GK, though. Will it be a left from Rashford or a right from Bruno?
The more I watch it the more I have no fecking idea what Walker is doing. It's pretty obvious he just totally switches off, but you can't give offside just because Walker *thinks* that it is.
Why doesn't he throw his body across Bruno the minute he sees he is through?
Why doesn't he throw his body across Bruno the minute he sees he is through?
Nothing Peter Walton says adds any weight to anything.
Just by him running after the ball and being so close threw off both Citeh defenders....I think we were lucky.
No. He was merely chasing the ball. Didn't touch it or impede any defender, so how can he be interfering with play? The ref made a very good decision under pressure.
No
I've changed my mind on this one. I originally thought it should be disallowed but then Rashford didn't actually interfere with play. He might have interfered with the City players' decision making, but play is what's going on on the actual pitch, not what's going on in the players' minds.
This.
He's not interfering but it's a new rule change that hasn't been properly explained. Before the change in the rules he would have been offside because he perused the ball making him active but with the new rules as long as he doesn't hamper somebody else's access to the ball then he's not offside.
Do I think he should be offside? Yes but the offside rules are a mess.
That prick Peter Walton said its a goal and he hates us so...
Unless he touches the ball or impedes the actions of others . So as per the law, no
but, for me whilst he doesn’t impede Emerson he certainly has an impact on his movement. If it was against DeGea I’d be somewhat frustrated.
but, for me whilst he doesn’t impede Emerson he certainly has an impact on his movement. If it was against DeGea I’d be somewhat frustrated.
Nothing anyone adds anymore adds anymore weight to a goal that was given.
Yup and a fecking love it
City fans crying everywhere
City fans crying everywhere
Defo - but who the feck cares?
Utd Utd!!
Utd Utd!!
No real point in discussing then.
It's one of those instances where common sense is at odds against the rules. Similar to a lot of handballs. By the letter of the law Rashford isn't interfering, but we all know him simply making a move towards the ball affects the play around him. But if Salah's goal against Wolves and Coady's goal against us aren't offside, then this one isn't either.
He was 100% interfering. I don't see why it needs to be said City have had their share of luck. Either he's interfering or not. If the rules say that is not interference then it's a joke and needs to be changed.
Hmm not sure about Akanji but I can take the argument that the gk might have reacted better. I think I'd be annoyed if that was given against us.
The refs have got the tech and they're the ones whose job it is to know the laws, follow the laws, and enforce the laws.
I don't know what actually qualifies as offside or not these days, same as I can't keep up with the handball laws. If they've allowed it, I'm celebrating it. City can suck it.
I don't know what actually qualifies as offside or not these days, same as I can't keep up with the handball laws. If they've allowed it, I'm celebrating it. City can suck it.
No there isn't any point because the rules are the rules and Rashford was deemed not to be interfering with play. Rashford actually deserves credit for showing restraint and leaving the ball for Bruno.
Don't recall his name but there was a player right behind Rashford who had to hold up because of him.
“Affecting the play” is so utterly subjective it’s a useless standard to attempt to apply, which is why the standard is “interfering with play”.
ETH actually sounding like he can't believe it wasn't given offside.
If it was against us I’d be fuming, it wasn’t so had at!!
Wife just now: "shouldn't it just be that any player who is offside is just...offside? Why's it so complicated?"
Should just put her in charge.
Should just put her in charge.
Under the current rules, no.
But in an ideal world, you want that rule to recognise that if the defenders have to treat him as anything other than an offside player who is not going to take part in the play/or are unable to just ignore him and act as if he isn’t there then the offside is triggered, as the defender is in a disadvantageous position as a result.
But in an ideal world, you want that rule to recognise that if the defenders have to treat him as anything other than an offside player who is not going to take part in the play/or are unable to just ignore him and act as if he isn’t there then the offside is triggered, as the defender is in a disadvantageous position as a result.
He would have faced the same decision if Rashford had been onside though. Personally don't see how it massively alters the outcome.
Would you not say Akanji is forced to slow down because Rashford is blocking his access to the ball, allowing Bruno a clear shot? He kind of veers off to the right in a way he wouldn't if Rashford wasn't there.
A few years ago, that play would have been flagged offside as soon.as the pass was made, but now we get a continuation of the play and late flags. Most times, it results in non-goals but this is an instance where a goal stands based on current laws. Might've been better looking if Rashford pulled up sooner as he looks to be 'escorting' the ball until l laying it off for Bruno. In the end, it's the equivalent of a brilliant dummy.
I can also imagining Bruno screaming at him
Yes but we've had the last 3 or 4 goals disallowed for incorrect handball so feck City, Pep, and Var.
No, nobody was close enough from the City team for him to block, and if Ederson decided to focus on him instead of seeing both players then that's his fault.
It's been a rule since the start of the season, I was watching US coverage and right after the game Rebecca Lowe read out the rule, so it's obviously easily available so if the players and managers don't know it that's their problem
It's a crap rule but so is the hadball one and today the referee got it spot on as per the current rule
Just imagine if this was a City goal. Would you have said it was offside? Put your Utd glasses off.
Hmm I'm wrong. Looking at rule book, Rashford wasn't technically interfering with play...
2. Offside offence
A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:
2. Offside offence
A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:
- interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or
- interfering with an opponent by:
- preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
- challenging an opponent for the ball or
- clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
- making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
He should have just ran into him if that's the case. I just don't think he was getting there
feck city