A&H

Man Utd V Man City

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just get rid of interfering with play blurb and replace with 'touches the ball'.

Leave interfering with play to pundits and fans so we don't t have confusion and crossover with it's very specific meaning in law 11.

Also found 'interfering with play' used in reference to referee positioning in the LOTG, where it's met in the more general context.

-
 
The Referee Store
From the FA website.

“
A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:
  • interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or
  • interfering with an opponent by:
    • preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
    • challenging an opponent for the ball or
    • clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
    • making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
The last point is a good one. Making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball.
Can anyone seriously say to me that him running with the ball between his feet didn’t clearly impact the defenders ability to play the ball?

I believe this is also the rule used if someone does a dummy from an offside position.
 
bester said:
Just get rid of interfering with play blurb and replace with 'touches the ball'.

Leave interfering with play to pundits and fans so we don't t have confusion and crossover with it's very specific meaning in law 11.

Also found 'interfering with play' used in reference to referee positioning in the LOTG, where it's met in the more general context.

-
Click to expand...
Pundits use the wrong terminology, but the law is clear that if the offside player affects others ability to play the ball then it’s offside. That’s what they mean by interfering with play.
 
I think the law could be changed to include “being in control of the ball.” Which does not require contact.

We already have this in futsal - for example, the GK does not have to touch the ball for the four second count to begin. Typically, this involves shielding from an opponent. But if it was in black and white, then running with the ball within playing distance would be easy to classify in this case.
 
If specific reference is made to feinting under Law 11, there'd be no discussion. Alas, we're left to rule based on what the Law might or might not imply, hence the furore

Again the absurdity of being wooden and anal WRT to some sections of the book, trying to decipher specifics where in the absence of specifics, whilst tearing out whole chunks of the book that are routinely ignored
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ori
Just a question about attempting to play the ball.

Free kick comes in. Player in an offside position attempts to head it towards goal, but defender heads it away behind the goal. Is a corner or a free kick?
Those saying an attempt doesn’t count, may argue the affecting another players ability to play the ball, but the defender did play the ball cleanly out.
 
Ori said:
Just a question about attempting to play the ball.

Free kick comes in. Player in an offside position attempts to head it towards goal, but defender heads it away behind the goal. Is a corner or a free kick?
Those saying an attempt doesn’t count, may argue the affecting another players ability to play the ball, but the defender did play the ball cleanly out.
Click to expand...
Depends on if that attempt is a challenge for the ball or not.
Attacker stood in a few yards of space and the only one jumping for the ball then I’m going corner kick.
However, if the attackers attempt to head the ball prevent/affects the defenders ability to physically play the ball then we go offside.
 
Will_A said:
Depends on if that attempt is a challenge for the ball or not.
Attacker stood in a few yards of space and the only one jumping for the ball then I’m going corner kick.
However, if the attackers attempt to head the ball prevent/affects the defenders ability to physically play the ball then we go offside.
Click to expand...
Exactly! Which is why Rashford should have been ruled offside. His actions were affecting defenders abilities to reach the ball.
 
Ori said:
Exactly! Which is why Rashford should have been ruled offside. His actions were affecting defenders abilities to reach the ball.
Click to expand...
That's a good example or where this law is going to create all sorts of problems. It was an accident waiting to happen
 
Ori said:
Exactly! Which is why Rashford should have been ruled offside. His actions were affecting defenders abilities to reach the ball.
Click to expand...
At no point in the move are the Man City defenders close enough to play the ball. Rashford’s presence doesn’t alter the length of their legs.
 
Last edited:
In all this the real question is what was Walker doing letting Fernandez run past him?

In the end, you’ve got two City players just not running fast or smart enough, gifting a quality player a chance, two United players playing very smart and a great finish

With an observer hat on, I think the ref and AR can justify this either way. They worked together well, there was no mistake.
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
Will_A said:
At no point in the move are the Man City defended close enough to play the ball. Rashford’s presence doesn’t alter the length of their legs.
Click to expand...
It alters their position. Same way as a dummy would which would be classed as offside. His presence on top of the ball made it impossible for them to get the ball.

Spanner in the works. Say a defender tackles him and gives away a foul. Is it a free kick? I believe under the rules of the game, offside would be given.
 
Ori said:
It alters their position. Same way as a dummy would which would be classed as offside. His presence on top of the ball made it impossible for them to get the ball.

Spanner in the works. Say a defender tackles him and gives away a foul. Is it a free kick? I believe under the rules of the game, offside would be given.
Click to expand...
Not for me. The defenders never got close to the ball. They will know for next time to try to get closer to the ball and, one way or another, it will trigger offside. But in this incident they don’t get close.
 
We should have a pol up who thinks it’s offside based on current rules. Would be interesting. :)
 
JamesL said:
You're talking about influence. Rashford position may have influenced the GK decision to not attempt to play the ball, but it did not impact his ability to do so
Click to expand...
This is the crux of the argument. Are the defenders/GKs tactical, if you like, decisions, affected by MR? - without a doubt, but like Micah Richards implying that just because the defender has "played" the attacker offside, he must be so, the law doesn't back either assertion up IMHO.
 
JamesL said:
You're talking about influence. Rashford position may have influenced the GK decision to not attempt to play the ball, but it did not impact his ability to do so
Click to expand...
I would argue that him having the ball between his legs makes it impossible for the defender to get the ball.
santa sangria said:
You should read law 11 again. This has already been covered in this thread and there are a list of examples to start IFAB’s law 11 here: https://www.theifab.com/laws/latest/offside/#offences-and-sanctions

(Spoiler: no)
Click to expand...
The first offence is what counts according to what I’ve read. So Rashford was offside and if he was tackled the offside would have been given.
 
Ori said:
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.
Click to expand...
Interfering with play as defined in the LOTG is not the same as the general understanding of that phrase by everyone else. You should warn yourself against quoting phrases like that without quoting the specific LOTG definition that goes with it.
 
santa sangria said:
You should read law 11 again. This has already been covered in this thread and there are a list of examples to start IFAB’s law 11 here: https://www.theifab.com/laws/latest/offside/#offences-and-sanctions

(Spoiler: no)
Click to expand...
You’re right. If its before he got the ball then its a foul.

  • a player in an offside position is moving towards the ball with the intention of playing the ball and is fouled before playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the foul is penalised as it has occurred before the offside offence
 
Ori said:
It alters their position. Same way as a dummy would which would be classed as offside. His presence on top of the ball made it impossible for them to get the ball.

Spanner in the works. Say a defender tackles him and gives away a foul. Is it a free kick? I believe under the rules of the game, offside would be given.
Click to expand...
I agree that Rashford’s actions have an influence on the goalkeepers decision making. However, there’s no mention of that in the offside considerations in law.

Had the defenders been within playing distance of the ball then I’d also accept the argument that he affected their ability to play the ball. But they were never within playing distance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top