It's definitely a rule issue. I think by the rule its a goal but really the flag should go up right away as the pass was for him and that would have been that.
Was Rashford interfering with play?
- Thread starter PoTMS
- Start date
He would have thought he would give away a penalty. Can see why he wouldn't do that.
I just don't think he's close enough to him based on the the rule
Whether or not he's *interfering*, it's also just properly shit defending from Walker.
The rules say he wasn't so feck up
Obvious offsides to me which makes it even better
If they took out " by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision" then the rule would work better and it would have been disallowed. In this case the defender could see the ball fine he just couldn't get to it. So using offside players to block defenders is apparently allowed if that's all they do.
He was if he picked up the ball and throw it at Ederson's face
Flag can't go up until he does something with it though, so throwing it up as soon as it was played would have been stupid.
The goal was correctly given, as was Salah’s against Wolves, but personally I think the current offside rules are flawed.
I’ve never been and to get my head around the interfering with play nonsense. If you’re in the pitch, you’re interfering in some way! The game moves so quickly now that it’s impossible to determine who’s active and who isn’t.
In this instance the defenders hold a high line in an effort to catch Rashford offside; they wouldn’t be doing that leaving space in behind if he wasn’t there.
Thought it would be given as that’s the right interpretation of the rules, but wouldn’t it just be clearer if offside always meant offside?
I’ve never been and to get my head around the interfering with play nonsense. If you’re in the pitch, you’re interfering in some way! The game moves so quickly now that it’s impossible to determine who’s active and who isn’t.
In this instance the defenders hold a high line in an effort to catch Rashford offside; they wouldn’t be doing that leaving space in behind if he wasn’t there.
Thought it would be given as that’s the right interpretation of the rules, but wouldn’t it just be clearer if offside always meant offside?
Aye but that's how it should be. Ball to offside player,.just throw the flag up. Same as salahs goal last week. Would make the whole thing alot easier for refs
If we’re going off the rules and that’s how football works then no he wasn’t interfering with play. Therefore it’s a perfectly legitimate goal. 
There was a worse one recently where it wasnt ruled offside..
In this case, Rashford wasnt interfering with the defender covering Bruno or the keepers vision..
My interpretation would be that its interference and should be ruled offside, but I think VAR + refs are trying to make it black and white and there isnt much to do with interpretation of the refs anymore.. if it checks the boxes, its off, if not, its on.
They have something similar for handball from attackers that lead to goals..
Whatever it is, it should be reviewed at the end of the season and there should be consistency through the season..
This season, they are allowing goals for some reason.. has happened before today.. I dont agree with it, but they have to be consistent with their implementation
In this case, Rashford wasnt interfering with the defender covering Bruno or the keepers vision..
My interpretation would be that its interference and should be ruled offside, but I think VAR + refs are trying to make it black and white and there isnt much to do with interpretation of the refs anymore.. if it checks the boxes, its off, if not, its on.
They have something similar for handball from attackers that lead to goals..
Whatever it is, it should be reviewed at the end of the season and there should be consistency through the season..
This season, they are allowing goals for some reason.. has happened before today.. I dont agree with it, but they have to be consistent with their implementation
Glad we cleared that up. Let’s shut the forum.
But the point of the offside rule isn't intent, it's what actually happens. If the flag goes up and the ref blows without the offside player doing anything then it fecks the game up.
If we’re going off the rules and that’s how football works then no he wasn’t interfering with play. Therefore it’s a perfectly legitimate goal.
Correct. Amusingly two thirds of the voters think it was offside. And they say only women don't understand offside rules
(jokes neither did I)I think his movement towards the ball was probably enough to have it ruled out.
Definitely couldn't care less. Stupid rules have been going against us for a while, particularly handball decisions
Definitely couldn't care less. Stupid rules have been going against us for a while, particularly handball decisions
Yeah when I meant a new rule change I meant this season. Personally I think they mess with the offside rule too much but today I don't care. Sometime in the future I probably will.
Aye but intent is subjective. Its what causes this grey area. It needs to be pure black and white I think but today I'm glad it's not.
This. He started off angling and positioning himself for Rashford to get on the ball. He was affected by Rashford at the end of the day, so that goal shouldn't have stood.
Oh well, what goes around comes around. We've gotten screwed over by multiple terrible calls over the past few years, so this makes up for all of that.
This one is so, so close. The only way Rashford is interfering is if Akanji has to change his stride to accommodate him. Otherwise, Ake is certainly not interfered with.
Law 11 - Offside (thefa.com)
Relevant portion for me:
Law 11 - Offside (thefa.com)
Relevant portion for me:
- 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; if the player moves into the way of an opponent and impedes the opponent's progress (e.g blocks the opponent) the offence should be penalised under Law 12
Where's the "Should Rodri have been sent off"thread for the Rashford incident?
The only way he’d have interfered is if he’d touched the ball or blocked off one of the defender’s runs! Neither happened so it’s onside- that simple! Jesus seems like some of our fans wanted it to be given!
Of course he was. The whole City team followed his run.
Don’t give a shit though.
Don’t give a shit though.
It is black and white, if the offside player does something such as touch the ball or interfere with play then it's offside. That's as black and white as it can get.
It's one of those that you can moan about until the cows come home when it goes against you but I think the officials have the correct interpretation. They should just make it clear in my opinion. You're off if you touch it, you're not if you don't. We want rules to work for scoring goals. In which case it wouldn't be off anyway, it would simply remove that grey area about interference.
I'd be pissed if it was given against us. But it wasn't so I'll take it.
Can we ban those 20 voters calling it a disgrace. We getting all rawk up in this bitch!
Yeah of course. But the flag never goes up until an offside player touches the ball.
I don’t think it’s a fair rule. But by the rules, it was a fair goal.
I don’t think it’s a fair rule. But by the rules, it was a fair goal.
That's a strange response because I haven't said you or anyone else shouldn't discuss the incident in question and neither have I argued against anyone in this thread. I'm talking about myself.
But City lost that game because their manager's ego got the better off himself. And the controversy with the offside has probably deflected attention away from Guardiola.
Manchester City defender Manuel Akanji talking to BBC Match of the Day: "To be honest the first goal is a joke, that is allowed like this. I saw Rashford, he was clearly offside, so I played him offside. He runs until the last second and he stops when the ball is in front of him and he's right in front of Eddy, ready to score the goal, because Bruno Fernandes is shouting him.
"I understand he doesn't touch the ball but he's running for 30 metres and until the last second. For me it is clearly offside. The referee doesn't even look at the situation, it got explained at the start of the year this would be clearly offside."
Sounds like the referees need to explain themselves.
"I understand he doesn't touch the ball but he's running for 30 metres and until the last second. For me it is clearly offside. The referee doesn't even look at the situation, it got explained at the start of the year this would be clearly offside."
Sounds like the referees need to explain themselves.
I don't know exactly what the rules say, but in terms of common sense, he obviously was. But if the rules say you can do that as long as you don't touch the ball, the goal was legitimate. The thing is that if you're allowed to just hover over the ball and prevent opposing players from taking it, as long as you avoid touching it, then the rule is daft.
Couldn't_care_less_Solsjkaer.gif
It seems that according to rules - he wasn't, so goal was correctly given. But that rule is stupid as Rashford really was interfering and it's extremely unlucky for City to have a goal given against them.
So I'll vote yes, though current rule says otherwise.
So I'll vote yes, though current rule says otherwise.
It ought to be offside but it wasn't. The offside rule is stupid now, but that's not our fault.
Either way - we won
Either way - we won
Rashford didn't touch the ball but clearly moved towards the ball and imitated a dribbling obviously irritating Ederson.
Unbelievable the goal stood even after the VAR check. If this goal would have been given against my team, i would be absolutely livid. As it is Oil City i couldn't care less.
Unbelievable the goal stood even after the VAR check. If this goal would have been given against my team, i would be absolutely livid. As it is Oil City i couldn't care less.
Nope. Not at all. If the rules are stupid enough to allow situations like that its not our problem today.