Man Utd V Man City

[PinnerPaul]

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.

Its THE first criteria - as I often tell people ....................not that they listen to me

 

[PinnerPaul]

If Rashford wasn't running towards the ball then the goalkeeper gets there before Fernandes very easily unfortunately that doesn't mean Rashford has committed an offside defence.

Not sure you can look at Rusty's still and say that the GK gets there "very easily" before the Man Utd scorer - the evidence just doesn't bear that out.

 

[JamesL]

Its THE first criteria - as I often tell people ....................not that they listen to me

I thought it was, and I couldn't be bothered with a double check

 

[JamesL]

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

Look again BC. "Play" is very clearly defined.


I struggle to see how we amend the law t make this certain offside without unintended consequences.

These ones always cause a scene as I discovered in the FA cup earlier this season

 

[RustyRef]

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

That applies in some situations, as it rightly says that laws cannot cover every situation. I would argue that it doesn't apply here though, there are defined criteria for interfering with play and gaining an advantage, and neither apply here. As an aside, playing the ball is defined, at least play is an it talks about the ball ...

 

[RustyRef]

Not sure you can look at Rusty's still and say that the GK gets there "very easily" before the Man Utd scorer - the evidence just doesn't bear that out.

The keeper had zero chance of getting there, but again it is irrelevant. Rashford didn't preventing him from getting to the ball, he chose not to go for it, there is a big difference.

 

[one]

If they'd disallowed this goal, I don't think we'd be talking about it anywhere near as much

I think we would

 

[Big Cat]

I think we would

I very much disagree. We'd be talking about it, but an 'expected fair and safe outcome' would cause a few waves, but not a tsunami

Keep in mind, I've wavered on this subject. In the end, I've merely ended up leaning towards the fair outcome in line with the philosophy of the book

 

[one]

I very much disagree. We'd be talking about it, but an 'expected fair and safe outcome' would cause a few waves, but not a tsunami

If you are talking about a fan or player forum I'd agree. But a referee forum, I would expect even a bigger tsunami if the goal was disallowed as the laws, as they are written, are very heavily on the side of this being a good goal.

 

[bester]

Not sure you can look at Rusty's still and say that the GK gets there "very easily" before the Man Utd scorer - the evidence just doesn't bear that out.

When the pass was played Fernandes was on the edge of the centre circle, he's run at least 30 yards before getting there.

 

[one]

When the pass was played Fernandes was on the edge of the centre circle, he's run at least 30 yards before getting there.

Take Rashford Out and there is no way Ederson is going to come out until it's too late. He would be leaving it to his defenders.

 

[bloovee]

As I said, we can argue the last point, but by any criteria he is NOT "in possession"

Who says?

The laws no longer define what is meant by an outfield player "in possession", but does that mean older definitions are not relevant? For obstruction, "covering the ball" when within playing distance is not obstruction because the player is "in possession" (indeed, even without touching the ball "he is in fact playing the ball"). (That was an IFAB decision going back decades.)

 

[bloovee]

Take Rashford Out and there is no way Ederson is going to come out until it's too late. He would be leaving it to his defenders.

View attachment 6304

What? When the ball is going to end up two yards outside his PA? Of course Ederson would go for it. When the ball was played, wasn't he more or less on the edge of his PA? Fernandes would be nowhere near it.

 

[Big Cat]

Ultimately, the book tells us how to rule on feinting in two scenarios. It does not tell us what to do WRT offside, therefore rule in equity (or the spirit of the game) in keeping with the overall philosophy

And Observers, get a grip!

 

[Ori]

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

Well making at attempt to control the ball counts as has been listed here. Doesn’t actually need to touch the ball. Him running with the ball under his feet is a clear attempt to control the ball. Otherwise a defender can just take it.

The attempt is enough? Otherwise an offside player can fake a shot and the keeper dives, but he doesn’t touch the ball and it runs to another player who scored from an onside position.

On top of that his run was with the ball clearly affected other players ability to get to the ball. So offside on that count too.

What all this highlights is that the laws need further clarification as there shouldn’t be any subjectivity here. It should be clear yes or no.

I also feel that refs at the top level are now less likely to blow the whistle for most things and let var sort it. A perfect example of this was Kane in the World Cup who was clearly fouled. Ref wasn’t sure it was inside the box so didn’t blow. VAR said outside the box and couldn’t give the free kick.
The correct outcome was ref blow and get VAR to check if it’s a penalty.

We are still adapting to the new technology and I’m sure it will get better.

 

[Ori]

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

Spot on. Had it been given offside, this would not be discussed at all. Everyone would be happy.

As an arsenal fan I was very happy the goal stood, but in my opinion and interpretation of the game, I would have ruled offside.

 

[Ori]

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 think a lot here disagree with you and do think he interferes with opponents.
The ball was under his feet while running with it. He is in possession. A player touching the ball doesn’t mean possession either.

 

[JamesL]

Ultimately, the book tells us how to rule on feinting in two scenarios. It does not tell us what to do WRT offside, therefore rule in equity (or the spirit of the game) in keeping with the overall philosophy

And Observers, get a grip!

It does, if it's an obvious action! We don't need anymore adding into the law.

Well making at attempt to control the ball counts as has been listed here.

What page in the law book does it say that??

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

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.

I suspect "touch" is in there to allow for the ball hitting the player concerned, rather than them deliberately making contact with it.

 

[Ori]

It does, if it's an obvious action! We don't need anymore adding into the law.

What page in the law book does it say that??