Man Utd V Man City
- Thread starter JamesL
- Start date
- Status
Absolutely agree here.
I think the decision on the field was correct in law (based on how it is written). My issue is the law itself, that is leaves gaps.
In my opinion (which may be contrary to others) is:
- if they are running towards the ball or making an action towards it, that should count as making themselves active.
- the rule that if a defender makes a move to panic and clear and Mis-hits it and striker (who was in an offside position originally) scores - I think that should be offside as their position offside influenced the defenderS
I think the laws are generally very good - but I hope that these will be amended for next season.
Not sure what other people’s feelings are. But I do feel sorry for Man City, as it does seem quite harsh.
That is THE example diagram. 2 players are moving towards the ball and no opponents ability to play the ball is impacted, irrelevant of how close or far rashford is from the ball.
The defender doesn't get close enough to play the ball so his ability to play it is never impacted/affected.
In my opinion, he gives up on chasing rashford as opposed to having to take any evasive action.
It is not an offence to be offside, so proximity to the ball is not relevant.
And we can't say what else would have happened if rashford stopped as Fernandez's still wins 2nd place in the race so may, based on what ensued, have gotten to the ball before the others.
If no defender is close enough to play the ball then there ability to play it can't be affected/impacted.
And?
He doesn't attempt to play the ball so his ability to play it is not affected/impacted.
Seriously? The GK doesn't attempt to play the ball because there's a player in an offside position looking like he's attempting to play the ball and the GK has to narrow the angle. If that player is not there the GK attempts to clear the ball and succeeds and clears it easily.
You're talking about influence. Rashford position may have influenced the GK decision to not attempt to play the ball, but it did not impact his ability to do so
So how about when goals are disallowed when: a corner has been cleared, a player on edge of the area shoots, goes in, a player on the floor/player to the side of the keeper is in an offside position and it is disallowed. In reality, the goalkeeper had no chance of saving it but complained, and then the goal is disallowed.
What did Rashford do? Ran 10-15 yards(?) with the ball at his feet impacting the keeper (just like the above example, but worse). He makes several attempts to play the ball as it is right under his body - which is a clear offense in itself. He stops the Man City player from making a tackle to prevent Bruno from scoring as Rashford is between the player and the ball.
Unfortunately, this is an example of when delaying the flag is silly. Everyone knew Rashford was offside, it wasn't even close. Blow up and move on.
This doesn't and shouldn't happen. Only if the player is in line of sight, which impacts ability to play ball
Seriously? The GK doesn't attempt to play the ball because there's a player in an offside position looking like he's attempting to play the ball and the GK has to narrow the abgje. If that player is not there it's an easy clearance.
Define "impact" and "ability".
GK says, "There's a player running with the ball who's looking for a chance to shoot, so I am not able to run out and clear that ball, whereas if it was a loose ball, I would be able".
Anyway, I'm more bothered about Mr Atwell's non-punishment of persistent offending, and his use of the "grass-cutting" motion to wave away claims for a foul. That's what I expect as an AR from a CR at an amateur game telling me not to intervene no matter what I think - in the EPL it could look a bit like a signal to VAR not to suggest a review.
Course he is able to. His ability to play the ball is his physical ability to, which is never in question. His decision not to is not a consideration. He could have, if he had wanted to.
In your version every offside player commits an offside offence because a player says couldn't do something because a player was there.
Where does the law say "physical ability"?
Luckily none of the appeals were fouls. I will say the lack of punishment on Malacia for PI was odd. I turned to my friend at the game and said I thought Malacia had about 6 fouls on Mahrez with no warning.
Law is stupid and all that, but surely delaying the flag isn’t important here as he doesn’t interfere with play once.
I take your point. That law and decision creates all sorts of issues for grassroots football. If that had been called offside in grassroots, when Rashford was shielding / in possession, there would have been no complaints. If a goal was awarded, full scale riot. I know technically it was onside, but what does the game expect ?
BAFRA #77
Member
Great post. How the game has changed
Taking this off at a slight tangent, there is an interesting link to a topic that excited some differences of opinion on another thread.
For the record, my view is :
1. Under the Laws as currently written, this is not offside
2. What football wants is this to be offside because Rashford clearly impacts play (dictionary definition) and that's not 'fair'
3. A tiny percentage of players, commentators, coaches and referees could spontaneously quote the 4 tests that currently define 'interfering with an opponent'
Arguably, there are two ways the Laws can go
1. Refine the definition or add more 'tests' that hardly anyone will understand or remember
2. Simplify and let the officials decide whether interference occurred
I know there is a view that laws should be definitive and, with good drafting, can cover any scenario. I respect that view, but I still think it's unrealistic and I think reversion to simpler would serve the game better.
For the record, my view is :
1. Under the Laws as currently written, this is not offside
2. What football wants is this to be offside because Rashford clearly impacts play (dictionary definition) and that's not 'fair'
3. A tiny percentage of players, commentators, coaches and referees could spontaneously quote the 4 tests that currently define 'interfering with an opponent'
Arguably, there are two ways the Laws can go
1. Refine the definition or add more 'tests' that hardly anyone will understand or remember
2. Simplify and let the officials decide whether interference occurred
I know there is a view that laws should be definitive and, with good drafting, can cover any scenario. I respect that view, but I still think it's unrealistic and I think reversion to simpler would serve the game better.
- Status