Man Utd V Man City
- Thread starter JamesL
- Start date
- Status
I don’t understand how anyone can say he is not interfering with play which even under current guidelines is clearly off side. He runs with the ball for 20 yards and makes gestures that he is about to shoot before leaving it for Bruno to score.
It will be interesting to hear the verdict after the panel review it. I know they have highlighted 5 decisions VAR got wrong so far this season so let’s see.
It will be interesting to hear the verdict after the panel review it. I know they have highlighted 5 decisions VAR got wrong so far this season so let’s see.
For interfering with an opponent, all that's needed is an attempt to play the ball that impacts an opponent. What could Rashford have done more to attempt to play the ball other than play it? Did it have an impact on Ederson?
Last edited:
He doesnt attempt to play it though. Its just in playing distance. There is some slowing down and some clever soul has freeze framed this to make it look a feigned shot but at no point does rashford make an obvious action to impact the opponents ability to play the ball
I think there are two ways to look at this. The first is that it just didn't feel right and should be offside, unfortunately though that way of looking at it isn't supported by law. The other is that he factually, and this cannot be argued with, hasn't interfered with play or gained an advantage. Which can only leave did he interfere with an opponent, i.e. were any of the 4 criteria for that met.
If I was observing and this happened but the goal was disallowed I would be asking the officials why they had given offside. If they said the attacker's actions had prevented the defenders from being able to play the ball I would probably back that, even if I didn't really agree with it. At least they have demonstrated they understand the offside law and used it to try and come to a decision. If they said he had interfered with play or gained an advantage then the discussion would go downhill rapidly. I'd be asking if they thought the attacker played or touched the ball if they said he interfered with play, or who or what the ball had rebounded off if they said he gained an advantage. Unfortunately they would then be looking at an incorrect KMD, as if he clearly didn't touch or play the ball (not sure why both words are in law as the glossary defines play as "action by a player that makes contact with the ball", so exactly the same as touch), and it clearly didn't rebound off of anything.
If I was observing and this happened but the goal was disallowed I would be asking the officials why they had given offside. If they said the attacker's actions had prevented the defenders from being able to play the ball I would probably back that, even if I didn't really agree with it. At least they have demonstrated they understand the offside law and used it to try and come to a decision. If they said he had interfered with play or gained an advantage then the discussion would go downhill rapidly. I'd be asking if they thought the attacker played or touched the ball if they said he interfered with play, or who or what the ball had rebounded off if they said he gained an advantage. Unfortunately they would then be looking at an incorrect KMD, as if he clearly didn't touch or play the ball (not sure why both words are in law as the glossary defines play as "action by a player that makes contact with the ball", so exactly the same as touch), and it clearly didn't rebound off of anything.
Having watched this again on MOTD, I'm now inclined to say 'Rashford feinted to play the ball'
Everyone in the game wants this goal disallowed. I'm now inclined to think this feinting was what the Ref needed to do the right thing (in Law and for the game). I'm not at all surprised people are losing their marbles over this incident
Everyone in the game wants this goal disallowed. I'm now inclined to think this feinting was what the Ref needed to do the right thing (in Law and for the game). I'm not at all surprised people are losing their marbles over this incident
OK, so let's say he feinted to play the ball. What specifically are you giving offside for?
Is “what the game expects” tho more relating to a subjective nature. Here it is objectively a fact he hasn’t interfered with play. No referee on here should be disagreeing with that.
The subjective element comes more from whether he’s interfered with an opponent, and most of those points can be argued against.
I agree with the decision because it’s to the Letter of the law, I think a far better debate is the fact the law is stupid
I agree with you, it’s something I was guilty of before coming to this forum and improving my law knowledge.
At grassroots I used to blow when they made a play for the ball in a loose sense when I started. Now I delay the whistle until one of the criteria is met, and whilst a qualified ref praised me for it after a match once I know a few managers haven’t been best pleased.
Other week two players were running towards the ball with one just offside in U15 game. I’m waiting to see if other player plays it but offside player gets there first and slots in the shot. I blow for the offside before ball hits back of net. Cue angry calls from the goalscorers manager who accuses me of waiting for the goal before I blew offside. No, I waited until he played the ball. Would hate this situation to come up on the pitch
PinnerPaul
RefChat Addict
Totally neutral as well, I think point 4 is arguable, but on balance as per LOTG, its offside.
PinnerPaul
RefChat Addict
PinnerPaul
RefChat Addict
As I said, we can argue the last point, but by any criteria he is NOT "in possession"
And it wouldn't matter if he was as the word possession doesn't appear once in the offside law.
Football must have Laws which keep the game ‘fair’ as a crucial foundation of
the beauty of the ‘beautiful game’ is its fairness – this is a vital feature of the
‘spirit’ of the game.
Football’s Laws are relatively simple, compared to other team sports, but as
many situations are ‘subjective’ and referees are human (and thus make
mistakes) some decisions will inevitably cause debate and discussion.
For some people, this discussion is part of the game’s enjoyment and attraction
but, whether decisions are right or wrong, the ‘spirit’ of the game requires that
referees’ decisions are always respected
The book is intentionally concise and is not intended to cover every scenario. The book does not define terminology such as 'playing the ball'. It does define 'feinting' and it treats it as significant action...
An action which attempts to confuse an opponent
Every ounce of common sense and surely what the game expects, is to treat feinting in this circumstance, as at least equivalent (if not the same thing) as playing the ball
I think it's a failing of Observers to rigidly try to stick with the limited and incomplete wording in the book in such unusual circumstances
It's possible, given that this incident will significantly influence who wins the title, that IFAB will add another clarification off the back of this
If they'd disallowed this goal, I don't think we'd be talking about it anywhere near as much
BAFRA #77
Member
In that case then - to take it to extremes - I’d be demanding a flag for an attacker standing in an offside position 20 yards away raising his arms and shouting at a team mate to keep going - causing the goalkeeper to mistakenly think that he might be getting the ball and glancing at him for a split second instead of concentrating on trying to close down the ball player.
- Status