Was Rashford interfering with play?

Was Rashford interfering with play?

  • Total voters
    1,565
I honestly have no idea anymore. After the Wolves vs Liverpool game and now this I dont know what the rule is or how it should be applied.

All I know is that if it had been given against us I probably would say it was offside and because it was given for us, I'm inclined to say City's defenders should have played to the whistle
 
Red in STL said:
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
Click to expand...
He clearly is impeding with his ability though, being that he is between the defender and the ball with the ball inches from his feet. To me with the screenshot above with the rule, it's even more clear cut. But I'm not going to argue this anymore, we won and that's all that matters. City could use another handful of incorrect calls against them to make up for all the terrible decisions they have gotten in favor for them.
 
If it happened against us I'd be in uproar.

But I don't give a feckkkkkkkk!
 
SilentWitness said:
If Rashford isn't there then Akanji doesn't run around him to get to the ball and his line to the ball is different. Ederson is clearly not only looking at Bruno but at Rashford also so he can gauge where the ball might be hit.

I have no idea how it can be classed as him not interfering with play.
Click to expand...

It’s been the same for a while though.

There’s only a fuss when United benefit from the rule though!
 
avgp_1 said:
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
Click to expand...
Exactly right IMO. He even admitted to it. See @SilentWitness post quoting him after the game.
 
York said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think that there is enough ambiguity between players, officials and spectators to show that the rule hasn't been explained efficiently and isn't fit for purpose in its current form.
 
CoopersDream said:
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.
Click to expand...

I know it's stupid but if the defender didn't try to move towards the ball or play it then technically he isn't impeding. Akanji moved to the right. Obviously if he had done different he would have risked a penalty so he's feked either way. Stupid rule.

If Rashford had stopped and let Akanji clatter into him his run then yes he would have become active both because he had taken an action and because he impeded Akanji. So he did the right thing. In any sane world he would have been offside either way.
 
Yes, obviously. The goalkeeper is coming out as if it's an offsides, the wingback is jogging casually and the defender isn't focusing on the ball at all. They all thought it was offsides. Then Bruno slots it home and everyone seems very surprised when it counts as a goal. He might not have physically interfered with the game, but every player in that backline expected it to be called - never thought VAR would reverse it.
 
I think the goal was correct and I'm glad to see referees (Peter Walton) agreeing on this on social media. Just terrible defending.
 
No offside, Akanji wasn't even challenging for the ball so Rashford wasn't affecting him getting to it
 
Laurencio said:
Yes, obviously. The goalkeeper is coming out as if it's an offsides, the wingback is jogging casually and the defender isn't focusing on the ball at all. They all thought it was offsides. Then Bruno slots it home and everyone seems very surprised when it counts as a goal. He might not have physically interfered with the game, but every player in that backline expected it to be called - never thought VAR would reverse it.
Click to expand...

Someone stopping play because they "think" it's offside does not mean its actually offside. What the hell kind of argument is that.
 
Talkshite are bringing on every bitter pundit they can to say it shouldnt have been a goal.
It just makes it even sweeter :lol:
 
Laurencio said:
Yes, obviously. The goalkeeper is coming out as if it's an offsides, the wingback is jogging casually and the defender isn't focusing on the ball at all. They all thought it was offsides. Then Bruno slots it home and everyone seems very surprised when it counts as a goal. He might not have physically interfered with the game, but every player in that backline expected it to be called - never thought VAR would reverse it.
Click to expand...
If the goalkeeper thought it was offside he wouldn't have charged out, in football you are taught to play to the whistle, don't assume, if that's what City players were doing then it's their own fault
 
Laurencio said:
Yes, obviously. The goalkeeper is coming out as if it's an offsides, the wingback is jogging casually and the defender isn't focusing on the ball at all. They all thought it was offsides. Then Bruno slots it home and everyone seems very surprised when it counts as a goal. He might not have physically interfered with the game, but every player in that backline expected it to be called - never thought VAR would reverse it.
Click to expand...
Oldest saying in the book is play to the whistle or in this case play to the flag which only goes up after he scores. Can never use " I thought" as an excuse.
 
Just makes the win that much sweeter but yes it should have been disallowed. Think we only scraped by on a small discretionary window where the defender did just less than slightly enough to make it obvious it was interference. Had they played to the whistle there would have been no room for discretion.
 
These days I haven't got the slightest clue, 5-10 years ago it would have been a resounding yes as he was clearly running towards the ball, but with some of the offside and handball decisions these past couple of years just baffle me.
 
I wouldn’t be happy if that happened against United.

That being said, City have had so many decisions go their way over the past few years I’m OK with it :). Also, no spotting of Rashford getting pulled down by the neck of his shirt on the break
 
There is a rule about actually touching the ball nowadays. Rashford did not hence the goal was given.
 
It genuinely never occurred to me at the time that this would be a “controversy”… in fact I’d have been annoyed if it’d been disallowed.

I can completely see the City argument, and I’d similarly be annoyed if we’d conceded it, but also probably have accepted it because as far as controversial offsides go, the one where the guy who actually scored is miles onside and the player “interfering” doesn’t obviously obstruct anyone, is way down the list. I’m pretty ok with these types of goals being given within the wiggle room….

Maybe it’s bias. May well be. But generally didn’t see it as this huge issue, more of an interesting curiosity
 
The piss this is gonna boil on MOTD tonight, in papers tomorrow and from rival fans is glorious
 
Mockney said:
It genuinely never occurred to me at the time that this would be a “controversy”… in fact I’d have been annoyed if it’d been disallowed.

I can completely see the City argument, and I’d similarly be annoyed if we’d conceded it, but also probably have accepted it because as far as controversial offsides go, the one where the guy who actually scored is miles onside and the player “interfering” doesn’t obviously obstruct anyone, is way down the list. I’m pretty ok with these types of goals being given within the wiggle room….

Maybe it’s bias. May well be. But generally didn’t see it as this huge issue, more of an interesting curiosity
Click to expand...
The interesting curiosity was that the linesman made an error and then told the referee he's cocked it up, that doesn't happen too often
 
Under the law as it stands, it may have been the correct decision, but the modern offside law is a mess. Everything about Manuel Akanji’s positioning and decision-making was conditioned by what Marcus Rashford did. It may make it easier to judge whether a player is on- or offside effectively by interpreting interfering as touching the ball, but that does not mean it is right. Rashford essentially played the most protracted dummy in history. :lol: :lol: :lol:

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...nnot-disguise-shifting-of-sands-in-manchester
 
Can’t wait to listen to every football podcast on Monday.
 
Red in STL said:
If the goalkeeper thought it was offside he wouldn't have charged out, in football you are taught to play to the whistle, don't assume, if that's what City players were doing then it's their own fault
Click to expand...

Exactly. Ederson can see Bruno's run. Its literally right in front of him. Ederson sees Rashford and Bruno. He's fully aware of the fact that Bruno may get to the ball, that's why he runs out. It makes no sense to say Rashford interferes with Ederson. Ederson, as a sweeper keeper, is going to commit to coming out of his goal to get that ball in behind. He would have reacted no differently if it was only Bruno charging towards the loose ball.

Honestly, I don't understand the crying from City. However, its f'n funny. Pep was FUMING postgame. I actually watched his post match presser. :lol: Give Peter Kay a run for his money that.
 
Of course not. By the letter of rules the goal should have stood
 
34% voted no :lol:
if this was a goal against United, this place would explode
edit:typo
 
matsdf said:
Someone stopping play because they "think" it's offside does not mean its actually offside. What the hell kind of argument is that.
Click to expand...
Red in STL said:
If the goalkeeper thought it was offside he wouldn't have charged out, in football you are taught to play to the whistle, don't assume, if that's what City players were doing then it's their own fault
Click to expand...
Rayman96 said:
Oldest saying in the book is play to the whistle or in this case play to the flag which only goes up after he scores. Can never use " I thought" as an excuse.
Click to expand...

I agree - it's City player's own fault for not playing to the whistle. It's also their fault for assuming Rashford was offsides - which he was - and not defending properly. I would however, also be pissed if it happened against us. As a united supporter, in this situation, I'm just happy and don't really care. We won - that's all I need to know.

glazed said:
Under the law as it stands, it may have been the correct decision, but the modern offside law is a mess. Everything about Manuel Akanji’s positioning and decision-making was conditioned by what Marcus Rashford did. It may make it easier to judge whether a player is on- or offside effectively by interpreting interfering as touching the ball, but that does not mean it is right. Rashford essentially played the most protracted dummy in history. :lol: :lol: :lol:

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...nnot-disguise-shifting-of-sands-in-manchester
Click to expand...

:lol: Not the first rule in football to feel counter-intuitive, and it certainly won't be the last.
 
Marcus is lying through his teeth here, bless him. He knew exactly what he was doing...

 
Yes it was offside. Makes it all the more sweeter. Feck these state sponsored, financially doped divers. Look on Pep’s face was priceless.
 
Something is getting lost in all this talk. As a manager I would be absolutely livid with my defenders. We know play continues now, so those defenders simply have to go for the ball and if they do they force rashford into playing it or blatantly interfering.

Far too casual and a fair goal. Tough shit city
 
glazed said:
Wrong as usual. Linesman called off and ref over-ruled.
Click to expand...

Right after the ref talked to the linesman, he seems to be listening to his earpiece and mutter something before giving us the goal. Probably to get a confirmation from VAR that Rashford did not touch the ball.
 
I heard that the rule has been amended recently so I’m happy with the goal. Personally I feel that he interfered with the play. A dummy is fine but dummy till that last second is too much.
 
The modern fad for linesmen to keep their flags down for obvious offsides, has lead to this goal being given today.

Years ago the whistle is blown for Rashford and that's the end of it. But once Rashford doesn't touch the ball you are into the incredible grey area of what is? and what isn't? interfering with play.
 
I really think it should be offside as soon as the attacking player moves towards the ball - as Rashy did (because how can that not affect the play?). However, that’s not how the rule is being enforced at the moment.
 
SER19 said:
Something is getting lost in all this talk. As a manager I would be absolutely livid with my defenders. We know play continues now, so those defenders simply have to go for the ball and if they do they force rashford into playing it or blatantly interfering.

Far too casual and a fair goal. Tough shit city
Click to expand...

This is it really

Surely no coach has abolished the maxim play to the whistle.

Maybe there will be some review of the rule in the close season after this and the Wolves Liverpool game, and some other incidents, but actually maybe not, as the principle of the benefit of the doubt going to the defence was abolished years ago (I believe)

All we discovered is that Rashford and Fernandes, either by design or some preternatural instinct, understood the rule better than the defenders.
 
RuuDCanRun said:
Right after the ref talked to the linesman, he seems to be listening to his earpiece and mutter something before giving us the goal. Probably to get a confirmation from VAR that Rashford did not touch the ball.
Click to expand...

Even if that's true (and Shaw's interview suggests it isn't how it went) it's not the same as VAR giving the goal. Ref clearly saw Rashford didn't play ball and there wasn't time for a proper VAR replay and check. He called it correctly on his own.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.