Read the paragraph before it, they are linked..I can’t agree with your last paragraph. Rashford was running with the ball and that is different to standing in an offside position.
Just because it's the definitive version doesn't mean it's perspicuous.English is the definitive version
I'm no language expert, but I know that often translating languages literally is almost impossible, as the way the languages are spoken, sentence construction etc. Changes completely. Your chat de l'abitre is a good example of this in that the two words are switched around... I know the literal translation would be actually be "refchat" but but let's say we want to do referee chat, the translation literally word for word is chat referee, which is just not how we order words and is essentially back to front. So let's not pretend we can find a hidden meaning in another language.
If we do that, then we are creating more offside offences that we know the law specifically doesn't want.
Prime example, player in offside position, ball played towards them, defender intercepts the ball. Had the player not been there the defender could have left the ball.
In that example, the defender is influenced to intercept the ball by the offside player yet we know this is not an offside offence. (Diagram 8)
Influence Vs impact I agree there is some similarity in 1 of the definitions... Such is the complexity of the English language we have several for impact.
But you still over look the fact we're not looking at the one word and it's definition, were looking at what the whole sentence means and you lose sight of "ability to play the ball".
To be able (ability) to play the ball then one needs to be in a position to do so (playing distance). At no point is a city player able to play the ball, so there ability to do so can't have been impacted.
The city defender is not impeded by rashford, he slows and gives up the chase. He will have heard Fernandes calling for rashford to leave it, and the actions of rashford are the natural actions of someone putting the brakes on a sprint, there's no Feinting, just a player running at probably 30+km/h attempting to stop before touching the ball or interfering with his team mate
Just because it's the definitive version doesn't mean it's perspicuous.
I wouldn't want to go into detail on your last paragraph - way too much assumption - but are you really happy with a player in an offside position running with the ball at his feet knowing he's offside and just shielding the ball until a team-mate shouting "leave it" gets there? "Spirit of the law", "What football expects" and all that?
And of course the literal translation of "le chat de l'arbitre" is "the referee's cat"!
Err, that would be me. I'm sorry, but the fact that foreign language versions might suggest a different shade of meaning is totally and completely irrelevant - especially on an English language forum with an (almost exclusively) English language-speaking membership.[Cue someone to say the English is the definitive version, but this is not about what it says but what it means. It's still a challenge for all those who want to rely on the letter of the law "as it stands" in the English version.]
What it actually says is that decisions are made "according to the Laws of the Game and the ‘spirit of the game’" (not as an alternative). And whether an opponent is "impacted / influenced / affected" is likely to be a subjective decision. But at least one opponent clearly was influenced (Ederson in going to close the angle on a player in an offside position) so the only question is whether any of Rashford's movements qualify as "attempting to play the ball" or "making an obvious action" that influenced the opponent.Spirit of the game is only for where law does not cover a scenario.
It is not there for a referee to apply subjectivity where ever they feel like.
Its not assumption, it is describing what I see. You have also made a lot of assumptions in the thread about what might have happened.
Its no matter what the words mean, and I think you well know that wasn't my point. Whether it is discuter de l'arbitre or le chat de l'arbitre, when you translate that literally to English your speaking backwards.
"The cat of referee" say what now?
Its not about if I am happy with it or not. My interpretation of law says this is a good goal, so if you want the law changing, rally the troops and canvass IFAB, but be prepared for unintended outcomes.
Did Rashford physically stop a defender getting to the ball?What it actually says is that decisions are made "according to the Laws of the Game and the ‘spirit of the game’" (not as an alternative). And whether an opponent is "impacted / influenced / affected" is likely to be a subjective decision. But at least one opponent clearly was influenced (Ederson in going to close the angle on a player in an offside position) so the only question is whether any of Rashford's movements qualify as "attempting to play the ball" or "making an obvious action" that influenced the opponent.
As I understand the "onside" argument, a player in an offside position can run with the ball for 20 yards, attempting not to play the ball but simulating that he is going to play the ball, and other players are expected to deal with the "offside" opponent and also onside opponents (but are not thereby "impacted"). Does anyone really think IFAB envisaged this "scenario"?
Your big closing argument is two subjective decisions didn't go your way? You can't refute something that is objectively correct by pointing out two unrelated subjective incidents that didn't go your way.And by the letter of the law, City should have had two penalties for players being shoved in the back.
But....he wasn't challenged.By being on top of the ball for 20 yards I would argue he is physically stopping a defender getting the ball. I fail to see how he isn’t.
You are right though…..there is a HUGH chance that all the defenders would have just stood back and let the ball roll for 20 yards unchallenged and let it reach another striker.
The defence were prepping for a Rashford shot. They don’t want to risk a tackle and a free kick in a dangerous position.But....he wasn't challenged.
I struggle to see why this is difficult to be honest. If an opponent had gone for the ball and Rashford had interfered with them , easy offside call. So all they had to do in order to defend well is....try and get the ball. Which is what they would have done if possible regardless of if he was there or not.
So for me, the only possible conclusion is that Fernandes would have got there ahead of the defence regardless. So all Rashford did was correctly decide he was probably in an offside position and therefore not play the ball and get out of the way in order to avoid becoming active.
Where's "physically" in the laws?Did Rashford physically stop a defender getting to the ball?
If yes - then it would have been an offside offence.
If no - then the defender simply chose not to successfully defend.
How was the defender 100% confident that Rashford was offside? Maybe his judgement of the line was wrong. Maybe his right back had pulled up with a hamstring injury 5 seconds earlier and was therefore playing him onside outside the CB's cone of vision. Fact is, any defender worth his salt should have been challenging for the ball regardless of a possible offside.
The fact that didn't happen shows us that the defender either failed to defend properly, or would have been unable to get to the ball regardless. Which immediately nullifies all the excessive hypotheticals about "maybe the defender would have done x" or "the GK would have done Y". Thy didn't, full stop.
Your big closing argument is two subjective decisions didn't go your way? You can't refute something that is objectively correct by pointing out two unrelated subjective incidents that didn't go your way.
Influencing a decision is very different from impacting ability to play the ball.I don't know where this "influence" vs "impact" debate has come from but a quick dictionary search tells me that influence and impact have the same meaning. Therefore, those who say Rashford "influenced" an opponent's ability to play the ball but did not "impact" an opponent's ability to play the ball have dug themselves into a bit of a hole.
Er ... despite the stills, it's obvious that, when the pass was made, Ederson was less than 10 yards from where Fernandes eventually struck the ball, and could have run out and cleared the ball well before Fernandes got there from 25 yards away - but for the player in an offside position. Regardless of whether Rashford should be given offside because of what he did, if he wasn't there at all the ball would never have reached Fernandes (Match of the Day 2 actually simulated this).But....he wasn't challenged.
I struggle to see why this is difficult to be honest. If an opponent had gone for the ball and Rashford had interfered with them , easy offside call. So all they had to do in order to defend well is....try and get the ball. Which is what they would have done if possible regardless of if he was there or not.
So for me, the only possible conclusion is that Fernandes would have got there ahead of the defence regardless. So all Rashford did was correctly decide he was probably in an offside position and therefore not play the ball and get out of the way in order to avoid becoming active.
I refer you back to my first post in the thread. If we're giving decisions based on what players should or might have done, may as well just accept that City have the best players, they should win the league and so it's pointless playing the game at all!Er ... despite the stills, it's obvious that, when the pass was made, Ederson was less than 10 yards from where Fernandes eventually struck the ball, and could have run out and cleared the ball well before Fernandes got there from 25 yards away - but for the player in an offside position. Regardless of whether Rashford should be given offside because of what he did, if he wasn't there at all the ball would never have reached Fernandes (Match of the Day 2 actually simulated this).