Was Rashford interfering with play?

[Abraxas]

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?

It would be clearer if it was enforced your way but not necessarily better, that's the thing. When they're looking at rules and interpretation it's important that entertainment is at the forefront. The most emotive thing in football is goals going in.

In my opinion if the rule is not some kind of seismic shift in the way the sport is played (which would require far more consideration) then they should err towards ones that allow more goals to stand. Clearly offside is there for a good reason, but there's not particularly a compelling reason for me to say that players not touching the ball should be called.

What was really wrong with that goal today from a structural point of view. Good runs made, City cock up tracking Bruno, goalscorer onside.

 

[ChaddyP]

Nope. Not at all. If the rules are stupid enough to allow situations like that its not our problem today.

THIS


it was absolutely brilliant from bruno and Rashford to read the situation and know the rules.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

It ought to be offside but it wasn't. The offside rule is stupid now, but that's not our fault.

Yeah, this.

It's very hard to argue that he wasn't "interfering" even though he didn't actually touch the ball. But there it is - a rule is a rule, VAR was technically right (as stupid as that is).

And right now - who feckin' cares?

 

[mctrials23]

I don't think it impacted the defenders but may have impacted Ederson

This is probably how I am sitting on this one.

If it wasn't given I wouldn't have been shocked as well.

If a City player had been blocked or interfered with by Rashford then it would have been disallowed. The blame lies with the defenders if they didn't force the issue when they could. If any defender had got close enough to Rashford to have to avoid him, break their stride or whatever else he would have become active and the goal would have been disallowed. The fact they didn't is on them.

 

[York]

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.

This is Akanji admitting he doesn't understand the offside rule. This goal is on him.

 

[FattyFooty]

No doubt.

But thats football. Good work!

 

[TheNewEra]

He was interfering in my opinion because the defender behind Rashford couldn't get to the ball, he was effectively shielding it

 

[SAFMUTD]

His absolutely interfering he even dribbles without the ball, only decides to leave it once he sees Bruno. But I DONT FECKING CARE I'll take it, we've been feck up by VAR way many times now its our turn to feast.

 

[Dansk]

He was interfering in my opinion because the defender behind Rashford couldn't get to the ball, he was effectively shielding it

Watch the clip again. The player behind him makes no effort whatsoever to challenge for the ball and isn't even really in a position to do so. Rashford isn't blocking him. He's just sort of running next to the ball, doing nothing. There's no meaningful interference. In no way does Rashford stop him from doing anything. The City player is never within reach of the ball.

 

[Oranges038]

Nah, great goal.

 

[glazed]

He was interfering in my opinion because the defender behind Rashford couldn't get to the ball, he was effectively shielding it

The rules appear to not disallow that. Stupid but true.

 

[avgp_1]

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:

• 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

I'm just not convinced he impacted Akanji either because Bruno is always going to get there first.

Akanji was never getting there ahead of Bruno, he let the ball run thinking Rashford was off but if he had even tried to challenge him it would have been chalked off

 

[Lee565]

Whether it was or not It all evens itself out over a season

 

[mazhar13]

He was interfering in my opinion because the defender behind Rashford couldn't get to the ball, he was effectively shielding it

The rules appear to not disallow that. Stupid but true.

The rules do disallow this.

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 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
  • ...
  • making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

In situations where:

• 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

Source: https://www.theifab.com/laws/latest/offside/#offside-offence

In this case, Rashford doesn't clearly obstructs Akanji's line of vision, makes an obvious action that affects Akanji's ability to play the ball, and doesn't block Akanji.

The only part of the rule that may apply and result in an offside call is the "making an obvious action" part when we consider the effect on Ederson. That, however, is subject to interpretation.

 

[glazed]

Akanji was never getting there ahead of Bruno, he let the ball run thinking Rashford was off but if he had even tried to challenge him it would have been chalked off

Yeah this bit though - "interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the ball." If Akanji runs into Rashford then the goal would have been disallowed. But he also risks giving away a penalty if Rashford was not offside so it would be a brave thing to do. It's a stupid rule.

 

[Oddboy]

No.

He was running away from a bee. Fair goal. Fair 3 points.

Is this a KP reference? - if so

 

[glazed]

The rules do disallow this.

I don't think Akanji's vision was obstructed or Rashford did anything to impede his movement though. He might have impeded a movement Akanji might have made and should have made, but that's a different story. Akanji just decided he was obviously offside and so didn't do anything to challenge.

Did he move into the way of Akanji though, albeit accidently? Not sure he did but maybe you could make a case for that one. He certainly was moving and was in the way. But it was more Akani that was altering direction. Marcus was going in a straight line.

 

[acnumber9]

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.

You’ve said nothing anyone says can add any weight. So what’s the point talking about it?

 

[Ole's screen]

If the City players had challenged for the ball Rashford would have been forced to interfere with play to protect the ball. But they stayed back. I think the call was the right one.

This changed my mind.

 

[mazhar13]

I don't think Akanji's vision was obstructed or Rashford did anything to impede his movement though. He might have impeded a movement Akanji might have made and should have made, but that's a different story. Akanji just decided he was obviously offside and so didn't do anything to challenge.

Did he move into the way of Akanji though? Not sure he did but maybe you could make a case for that one.

That might have been the case, but I think he either wasn't aware of Bruno or trusted Walker to take care of that. The way he stopped at the end made me think that he considered the situation taken care of by his teammates.

 

[glazed]

That might have been the case, but I think he either wasn't aware of Bruno or trusted Walker to take care of that. The way he stopped at the end made me think that he considered the situation taken care of by his teammates.

His post match comments seem to suggest he just assumed Rashford was offside. He was the one who played him offside. But then as you say he hadn't accounted for Bruno and this weird rule.

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."

 

[mazhar13]

His post match comments seem to suggest he just assumed Rashford was offside. He was the one who played him offside. But then as you say he hadn't accounted for Bruno and this weird rule.

Yeah, I got you. In the heat of the moment, a bunch of players would come up with justifications to avoid any bit of the blame, so I'm taking that quote at face value.

 

[SilentWitness]

This is Akanji admitting he doesn't understand the offside rule. This goal is on him.

I mean, if you're briefed about something prior to the season and then it isn't enforced during the season how is that Akanjis fault?

 

[Scottynaldinho]

The most impressive thing was that Bruno knew the rule and got to the ball. His reaction to the initial offside call convinced me it would be given.

 

[InspiRED]

I would be mega pissed if the same decision went the other way. I think he should be off in that situation he is clearly influencing the situation by running for it. Like no way does Ederson come rushing out for it if he doesnt think Rashford is the threat, so it would be a much harder chance for Bruno.

But we need some fecking luck who cares.

 

[glazed]

Interesting rant from Keith Hackett

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/footbal...liser/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr


They will argue that he has to touch the ball to be active. The law is awful and requires a complete re-write.

In the laws, a player is active if he is “clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent” - just like Rashford did. That is why he is offside.

But it's completely clear Rashford could easily have played the ball and deliberately didn't. So no attempt was made.

 

[Nickelodeon]

No. Two reasons:

1) The only way he influences play is if a City player runs at the ball and he makes a movement to come in the way of a defender. The City players did not make that effort.

2) We see this situation more frequently but from a bit more deep when there’s an obviously offside player due to which the returning players stop. Only for another player running from the deep to get to the ball first.

 

[Red in STL]

I mean, if you're briefed about something prior to the season and then it isn't enforced during the season how is that Akanjis fault?

n
Is there any proof it hasn't been enforced?

It's moot anyway because this time it was enforced, it's like cops and speeding, you ca getaway with doing 35 in a 30 zone 9 times out of 10 but the 10th time the cop does you - he's not wrong it's your own fault

 

[Adnan]

You’ve said nothing anyone says can add any weight. So what’s the point talking about it?

Exactly, hence I've refused to discuss it and came into this thread to agree with another poster.

 

[RedIan]

You could see straight away the linesman was conceding he had made a mistake. The ref and VAR said he wasnt interfering. Id have been livid if it was against us but hey who gives a feck.

 

[Grylte]

The most impressive thing was that Bruno knew the rule and got to the ball. His reaction to the initial offside call convinced me it would be given.

Bruno said after the match that he didn't know if any of them were offside, but he thought that Rashford had let him shoot because he was in better position.

 

[Dannn411]

According to the rule and the way the rule is interpreted that is a good goal.

Nobody was prevented from playing the ball.

Nobody's line of sight was clearly obstructed.

Rashford did not attempt to play the ball. Running with the ball does not an attempt constitute. A wind up would be a clear attempt to play the ball and there was no wind up.

Nobody's ability to play the ball was clearly obstructed.

Good goal.

Plus the referees have made it a point to only blow the whistle for offside if the player in question touches the ball or the ball goes out of play. Every defender who has paid attention in the last 18 months would know that. You play to the whistle.

 

[CoopersDream]

So, do the rule state that it's offside if the offside player interfers with an opponents attempt to play the ball or his ability to play the ball? If it's the former, then it isn't offside since Akanji never made an attempt to play the ball, but if it's the latter it can't be deemed anything else than offside since he clearly impedes with Akanji's ability to play the ball seeing Rashford is between Akanji and the ball and he's running alongside the ball.

 

[glazed]

So, do the rule state that it's offside if the offside player interfers with an opponents attempt to play the ball or his ability to play the ball?

Ability but it has to be accompanied by an action or blocking vision. It's a stupid very unclear rule though. By any commonsense value Rashford was interfering with play.

 

[CoopersDream]

Ability but it has to be accompanied by an action or blocking vision.

Are you implying that the action Rashford is doing (running alongside the ball, with the ball like 10 centimers from his feet) isn't impeding on the defenders ability to play the ball? If he'd had just stopped his run but stood in Akanji's way, would he have impeded then?

I agree that the rule as it is is stupid , and needs changing/clarifying, but I can't see when reading the rules that this wouldn't be deemed offside.

 

[SirAnderson]

From Bein Sport right now. Screen grabbed

 

[Red in STL]

Are you implying that the action Rashford is doing (running alongside the ball, with the ball like 10 centimers from his feet) isn't impeding on the defenders ability to play the ball? If he'd had just stopped his run but stood in Akanji's way, would he have impeded then?

I agree that the rule as it is is stupid , and needs changing/clarifying, but I can't see when reading the rules that this wouldn't be deemed offside.

he's not impeding anyone if they don't make an attempt to win the ball, if they had done that then the goal wouldn't have stood

 

[York]

I mean, if you're briefed about something prior to the season and then it isn't enforced during the season how is that Akanjis fault?

You really think this exact scenario was the topic of discussion? Did they give him the date too? In all likelihood he misinterpreted what was explained at the beginning of the season.

 

[Giggsyking]

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.

The VAR gave the goal. It was called off in the beginning.

 

[Godfather]

Probably yes but I'm not sure on the rules so feck it. About time we had some decisions go our way.