Man Utd V Man City
- Thread starter JamesL
- Start date
- Status
He isn’t running in close proximity with the ball, he is running with the ball. There is no way that his actions aren’t affecting the defenders ability to attack the ball.
He is also affecting the keepers position which is similar to an offside player affecting a keepers line of sight.
Regardless of the technicality which I believe the red could have rules offside (and others disagree), it would be interesting to run another pol and see if everyone agrees that is “should” be offside and the law made clearer.
He is also affecting the keepers position which is similar to an offside player affecting a keepers line of sight.
Regardless of the technicality which I believe the red could have rules offside (and others disagree), it would be interesting to run another pol and see if everyone agrees that is “should” be offside and the law made clearer.
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"!
Does the idea of a player being entitled to his/her position on the pitch go somewhat out the window in an offside scenario? Like this is probably a huge *******isation of the law but could you argue Rashford is impeding without contact because he is in an offside position, therefore he is committing an offside offence. Or perhaps I'm saying that could be a helpful addition. It does feel like the defender behind him has a chance to slide or block the fernandes shot if Rashford isn't there, I'm sure if he went through the back of Rashford it would be offside, ironically...
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.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
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.
There's a reason why the IFAB says (in effect) that in case of any doubt or confusion over the meaning of the law, the English language version must be used. It's because obviously, versions in different languages that might lead to different interpretations can only serve to obfuscate, not illuminate matters.
I’m not saying I don’t see your interpretation, I do and I appreciate your analysis of it. I just interpret it slightly differently.
One of us is wrong and a legal expert might be able to convince a judge one way or another.
I thought VAR would end these debates, but if anything it’s increased.
Agree that there will be unintended consequences to law changes….there always are.
On the decision though, even Man Utd manager said he would be upset at a goal like that against him.
Let’s see if they address this either with clarification or with additional regulation.
One of us is wrong and a legal expert might be able to convince a judge one way or another.
I thought VAR would end these debates, but if anything it’s increased.
Agree that there will be unintended consequences to law changes….there always are.
On the decision though, even Man Utd manager said he would be upset at a goal like that against him.
Let’s see if they address this either with clarification or with additional regulation.
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"?
And by the letter of the law, City should have had two penalties for players being shoved in the back.
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".
You said it better than I could.
You said it better than I could.
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.
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.
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.
If yes - then it would have been an offside offence.
If no - then the defender simply chose not to successfully defend.
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.
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.
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
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 do see your argument, I just don’t agree with the conclusion.
Where's "physically" in the laws?
It's not a fact to say "any defender worth his salt should have been challenging for the ball regardless of a possible offside". In fact it's daft. If he wasn't sure the opponent was in an offside position, he'd be risking DOGSO. True, with ten minutes left, I'd have supported any City defender taking out Rashford or Fernandes (and Walker could easily have carted Fernandes *).
* So that's another scenario - a player in an offside position and with an obvious goal scoring opportunity (except he'd be offside) leaves the ball for an onside team-mate who has been impeding the progress of a defender who could have challenged the "offside" player. The defender barges over the player who's in his way.
This one could run and run.
But they don't even need to actually risk a tackle. You talk about him "shielding" the ball - but if he actually blocked off an opponent while doing that, it would trigger the interfering clause.
I guess what I don't understand is how the perception can be that players were in a position where Rashford managed to stop the defence getting to the ball, but that he did so without touching the ball or the defenders in question. The reality is, the defence were beaten to the ball by Fernandes and that's basically the end of it.
I guess what I don't understand is how the perception can be that players were in a position where Rashford managed to stop the defence getting to the ball, but that he did so without touching the ball or the defenders in question. The reality is, the defence were beaten to the ball by Fernandes and that's basically the end of it.
Influencing a decision is very different from impacting ability to play the ball.
Ederson DECIDED not to come out. Nobody physically prevented him from doing so.
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
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!
- Status