BAFRA #77
Member
The IFAB page gives an "Approved Ruling" on something similar to this:
Man Utd V Man City
- Thread starter JamesL
- Start date
- Status
He’s running in line with the ball and is directly in between the ball and Akanji, so is effectively shielding it for Fernandes to run on to. There’s no way in my opinion that he isn’t interfering with Akanji.
BAFRA #77
Member
Thing is though - as we always say - you cannot determine a decision based on a single screenshot.
This is similar to what you see in the NFL with the "Pass Interference" rules.
Did Rashford's presence cause the defender to slow up his stride in an attempt to avoid or make contact - what distance was the defender at the closest point in that phase of play - did the defender have to come "off his route" to attempt to get to the ball?
Those are all key pieces of information needed to come to a decision.
The ball is at his feet for most of the journey.
He is in possession of the ball.
He also looks to play the ball until Bruno stops him.
This would fit under the follow offences:
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 is in possession of the ball.
He also looks to play the ball until Bruno stops him.
This would fit under the follow offences:
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
I didn't base a decision on the screen shot, I used it to emphasise a point. Rashford went beyond moving towards the ball. He is running with the ball and is effectively in possession. He is shielding the ball from the Man City player for his team mate to score.
Dissecting it a bit ...
We know it can't be interfering with play and it can't be gaining an advantage, which leaves interfering with an opponent. There are four criteria to consider for that, so let's look at those.
Preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision
Looks to me like both chasing defenders can see the ball the whole time, so this cannot apply.
Challenging an opponent for the ball
Definitely hasn't done that
Clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent
He hasn't attempted to play the ball so this is out
Making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
This is the only one that I think could possibly apply, but I don't think Rashford actually impacts either of the defender's ability to play the ball. They weren't close enough at any time to play the ball, and even if you took Rashford out of the picture I am pretty sure Fernandes would have got there first anyway.
It's a law I would have absolutely hated when I was playing in defence, but I just don't think the current law supports giving offside here. I'm assuming that Darren Cann though Rashford had touched the ball, once Stuart Attwell tells him he didn't they give the goal. Pretty sure there has been no VAR involvement.
We know it can't be interfering with play and it can't be gaining an advantage, which leaves interfering with an opponent. There are four criteria to consider for that, so let's look at those.
Preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision
Looks to me like both chasing defenders can see the ball the whole time, so this cannot apply.
Challenging an opponent for the ball
Definitely hasn't done that
Clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent
He hasn't attempted to play the ball so this is out
Making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
This is the only one that I think could possibly apply, but I don't think Rashford actually impacts either of the defender's ability to play the ball. They weren't close enough at any time to play the ball, and even if you took Rashford out of the picture I am pretty sure Fernandes would have got there first anyway.
It's a law I would have absolutely hated when I was playing in defence, but I just don't think the current law supports giving offside here. I'm assuming that Darren Cann though Rashford had touched the ball, once Stuart Attwell tells him he didn't they give the goal. Pretty sure there has been no VAR involvement.
If any Man C defender could have tackled Rashford they would have slid in, they just weren't close enough to him so he didn't interfere with their actions. As you say (Ryan) the ball was close to or at his feet for most of the journey, so exactly why all Man C defenders would get to him if they could.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Sure it could. But that is totally irrelevant to any of the 4 criteria for interfering with an opponent. IFAB has deliberately narrowed what it means to interfere with play over the years. “Obvious action” was added in a rare expansion of have a player can be actively involved to address a situation where a player dummied a ball, which without the obcious action criteria wouldn’t be an offense.
this play is close to the line, but I agree with those who say it doesn’t match current OS criteria—though it would have been an offense some years back. IFAB wants more of these not to be an offense.
Use law. Show me which part of law that rashford commits an offence under...
Phenomenal decision by Attwell, from my position in the stands seemed like he called it live on the field without VAR.
It seems the majority of people arguing against it are trying to find loopholes due to the fact that common sense says it’s offside. You can argue the stupidity of the law all you want, the point is the correct decision has been reached, and a lot of Twitter users and pundits have once again been exposed for a lack of understanding.
Am a United fan so willing to take the bias claims but I said same thing for Salahs goal last week which was another part of the offside law/common sense argument.
It seems the majority of people arguing against it are trying to find loopholes due to the fact that common sense says it’s offside. You can argue the stupidity of the law all you want, the point is the correct decision has been reached, and a lot of Twitter users and pundits have once again been exposed for a lack of understanding.
Am a United fan so willing to take the bias claims but I said same thing for Salahs goal last week which was another part of the offside law/common sense argument.
Wouldn't that be DOGSO?
Hmm
If he wasn't "attempting to play the ball" it's the nearest you'd get to "feinting to attempt to play the ball" and the opponent impacted is the GK who has clearly tried to narrow the angle to prevent a shot by the player in an offside position.
I suspect Rashford's leg movements were to give himself a better angle and he didn't intend it to run to Fernandes.
If he wasn't "attempting to play the ball" it's the nearest you'd get to "feinting to attempt to play the ball" and the opponent impacted is the GK who has clearly tried to narrow the angle to prevent a shot by the player in an offside position.
I suspect Rashford's leg movements were to give himself a better angle and he didn't intend it to run to Fernandes.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
the Laws actually have a blurb relating to this below the bullet points:
• 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
but it doesn’t apply here. That defender is not close enough to play or challenge for the ball somit can’t impact his ability to do so.
I think what is intriguing about this play is that it gets close to being an offensue in more than one way, but it doesn’t quite get there under any of them. So I totally get how this “feels” like OS- especially to those of us who have been involved since back when OS interference was more broadly construed.
- Status