For me this is the important image. If Rashford isn't there, the keeper is lining up to defend the threat from BF.
For me this is the important image. If Rashford isn't there, the keeper is lining up to defend the threat from BF.
I know it feels odd, but which part of the law is he breaking?For me this is the important image. If Rashford isn't there, the keeper is lining up to defend the threat from BF.
Its not an offence to be there though. In fact, it's one of the first criteria of offside. It is not an offence to be in an offside position.For me this is the important image. If Rashford isn't there, the keeper is lining up to defend the threat from BF.
100%.Its not an offence to be there though. In fact, it's one of the first criteria of offside. It is not an offence to be in an offside position.
It doesn't matter whether people have played before, we can only look at the laws. And I have played both keeper and defence, so your argument falls a bit flat there.Any person who thinks Rashford did not have an effect on the defense has never played defense or goalie before. He ran over top of the ball how was the goalie or defense not thinking he was going to play the ball. That in itself is affecting the play.
"preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision"
"clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent"
Either one of these could be used.
No I get that. In law it is all acceptable, but it doesn't quite sit right for me in reality. There is no interference, however there is definitely influence, and I would argue that the influence creates the opportunity for a goal that probably wouldn't be there otherwise.Its not an offence to be there though. In fact, it's one of the first criteria of offside. It is not an offence to be in an offside position.
Biggest thing for me is when one referee thinks because he disagrees with anothers opinion they call them “foolish”. Bless lol.
Good point, you’re correct he can’t do what he likes, that was poorly articulated. I suppose I meant, he could do what he wants, as long as it doesn’t infringe the laws in this area.
OkCall me old fashioned, but I try not to make claims that the laws completely contradict.
It's okay that you're wrong. Do try and wear it with a bit more grace though. I'd hate for you to come off a fool...
Sorry, but in that still Fernandes is maybe 20 yards further forward than when the ball was played, and he strikes the ball just outside the PA. But for Rashford's intervention, Ederson would easily have cleared that ball.It doesn't matter whether people have played before, we can only look at the laws. And I have played both keeper and defence, so your argument falls a bit flat there.
I would turn that around by asking which defender's vision did he obstruct? And which opponent did his action impact? Neither defender were getting anywhere near it, nor the keeper. He's not even in shot here, how on earth is he going to get to the ball before Fernandes?
View attachment 6300
As soon as he chased the ball he impacted on the GK's ability to play the ball. (What's a "ball playing position" for a GK?)...
-making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
No. He didn’t impact the GK ability to play the ball. The GK was never in ball playing position.
How has he interfered with an opponent?
Not a similar example as player A isn’t affecting play like Rashford did.