Man Utd V Man City

[Ori]

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.

Ok firstly, the reason they weren’t in a position to tack him as he was offside!!! ;-)

However, I disagree. The defenders were clearly attempting to run to defend their goals and got pretty close to him. Had he not run covering the ball like that, a defender could and would have easily taken the ball.

This shouldn’t even be in debate. The rules should be clarified. Should be a simple decision.

 

[PinnerPaul]

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.

A player 20 yards away is not affecting anyone's ability to play the ball, as I said above, influence and ability are totally different.

Like others I can see both sides of the argument, can support onside easily, but not by a loose English language definitions of 'ability' and 'interfering'

 

[QuaverRef]

I would argue that him having the ball between his legs makes it impossible for the defender to get the ball

This only applies if there was actually a defender there though, at the time he moved over the ball there’s nobody in reach

 

[Will_A]

Ok firstly, the reason they weren’t in a position to tack him as he was offside!!! ;-)

However, I disagree. The defenders were clearly attempting to run to defend their goals and got pretty close to him. Had he not run covering the ball like that, a defender could and would have easily taken the ball.

This shouldn’t even be in debate. The rules should be clarified. Should be a simple decision.

“pretty close”

If you’re going to argue then use terminology that relates to the LOTG.
Were the defenders within playing distance of the ball at any point? No
Did Rashford physically prevent them from playing the ball? No, they were never within range of playing the ball anyway

The defenders maybe could have got there first, but they didn’t. Fernandes did. Had the defender played to the whistle rather then they wouldn’t have given up running. I was taught from U8’s upwards to always play to the whistle.

For the record, whislt I recognise this goal is permissible in law; I despise the fact that’s the case. Football expects this to be offside but, with the way the laws are currently written, Rashford didn’t commit an offence.

I’d like the law to include penalising any attacker in an offside position who’s movement brings them to within playing distance of the ball.

 

[BAFRA #77]

We should have a pol up who thinks it’s offside based on current rules. Would be interesting.

Ask and ye shall receive

Manchester City vs. Manchester United - Offside or Not?

As someone in the main thread asked for one about the offside/no offside goal - here we go. Based on what is decreed in Law as it stands - Goal or No Goal?

refchat.co.uk

 

[bloovee]

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.

Where's the GK in the still? Where was the GK was the ball was passed to Rashford?

Look at the view from behind the goal...

 

[RustyRef]

Where's the GK in the still? Where was the GK was the ball was passed to Rashford?

Look at the view from behind the goal...

This one is a bit further on, a second before Fernandes strikes it. There is no chance of Ederson getting there.

 

[QuaverRef]

This one is a bit further on, a second before Fernandes strikes it. There is no chance of Ederson getting there.

View attachment 6305

Had Rashford not been there Ederson would have easily made this, he’s held his run due to Rashfords presence. That’s not me saying he’s offside by the way, that’s just me suggesting Ederson would have acted differently had Rashford held the run

 

[socal lurker]

Had Rashford not been there Ederson would have easily made this, he’s held his run due to Rashfords presence. That’s not me saying he’s offside by the way, that’s just me suggesting Ederson would have acted differently had Rashford held the run

I‘d told myself to be done with this, but one last thought. The above really nails the problem with placing the GK not c9ming out as the basis for the interference with the GK as the basis for an interference with an opponent call. The GK gets kept on the line instead of going for the ball, perhaps, but It is because of the presence of the OSP player, which we know is not enough. It’s not because he later runs along the ball, as by that time the GK already had to make that decision to stay back.

 

[GraemeS]

The ref/AR can't be expected to make a call based on the fact City fans think their GK is good at sweeping! We're getting so far into hypotheticals here, when the law as written gives a very straightforward answer.

 

[BAFRA #77]

Had Rashford not been there Ederson would have easily made this, he’s held his run due to Rashfords presence. That’s not me saying he’s offside by the way, that’s just me suggesting Ederson would have acted differently had Rashford held the run

To quote the famous proverb “If my aunt had balls she’d be my uncle”

 

[BAFRA #77]

The ref/AR can't be expected to make a call based on the fact City fans think their GK is good at sweeping! We're getting so far into hypotheticals here, when the law as written gives a very straightforward answer.

 

[QuaverRef]

I‘d told myself to be done with this, but one last thought. The above really nails the problem with placing the GK not c9ming out as the basis for the interference with the GK as the basis for an interference with an opponent call. The GK gets kept on the line instead of going for the ball, perhaps, but It is because of the presence of the OSP player, which we know is not enough. It’s not because he later runs along the ball, as by that time the GK already had to make that decision to stay back.

As my post said, I wasn’t suggesting anything either way about the offside decision, I was just pointing out that the goalkeeper holding his position is because of Rashford.

 

[bloovee]

This one is a bit further on, a second before Fernandes strikes it. There is no chance of Ederson getting there.

View attachment 6305

He wouldn't have been there though, would he? But for Rashford in an offside position, he'd have intercepted the ball long before that still. Whether you think it's a factor in interfering with an opponent (as defined) is arguable, but to think that any competent GK in that position would have waited for an attacker to run 25 yards to get to that ball first is just (to quote the OP) insane.

It would be obvious with the view from behind the goal.

 

[RustyRef]

He wouldn't have been there though, would he? But for Rashford in an offside position, he'd have intercepted the ball long before that still. Whether you think it's a factor in interfering with an opponent (as defined) is arguable, but to think that any competent GK in that position would have waited for an attacker to run 25 yards to get to that ball first is just (to quote the OP) insane.

It would be obvious with the view from behind the goal.

And again, what in law supports the view that Rashford prevented Ederson from playing the ball? I'm not disputing that the law is an ass, but we can only apply it as it is written.

 

[bloovee]

And again, what in law supports the view that Rashford prevented Ederson from playing the ball? I'm not disputing that the law is an ass, but we can only apply it as it is written.

He doesn't have to "prevent" Ederson from playing the ball.

Take your pick:

• 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

Did anything Rashford do have an impact on Ederson, i.e. how Ederson reacted (movement, position, anything)?

As above (which no-one answered), what more could Rashford have done as "attempting to play the ball" without actually playing the ball?
(The diagram in the law says runs toward the ball, not run 20 yards with it at his feet.)

Isn't running 20 yards after a ball when in an offside position an obvious action (without which Ederson would have been able to play the ball)?

(My theory - which I can freely state knowing that PGMOL won't deny it! - is that Mr Cann flagged because he'd seen Rashford doing the stepovers - and feinting to shoot - and thought that was enough for interfering, and Mr Attwell overruled him.)

 

[Peter Grove]

Because when the law says interfering with play, it is follow with the word "by"

So yes he is probably interfering with play, in the everyday english language meaning of the phrase, but he doesn't interfere with play through any of the "by" criteria

And the phrase that follows the "by" in the case of interfering with play, is "playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate." So that's the only one that applies, and we know he definitely didn't do that.

I have said this before but I think the IFAB should stop using the phrases, "interfering with play" and "gaining an advantage" altogether. They serve no purpose, and cause confusion. If they just removed them from the law it would still make perfect sense.

Incidentally, the phrase that the law uses, and which means what most lay people think "interfering with play means, is "becoming involved in active play."

If there were a way to get people to always use that phrase instead, it would remove a lot of the disconnect between what the law says and what people think it means. But that's unlikely to happen because "interfering with play" is just so ingrained in everybody's consciousness.

 

[Mr Dean]

I don't know where this "influence" vs "impact" debate has come from but a quick dictionary search tells me that influence and impact have the same meaning. Therefore, those who say Rashford "influenced" an opponent's ability to play the ball but did not "impact" an opponent's ability to play the ball have dug themselves into a bit of a hole.

 

[bloovee]

I don't know where this "influence" vs "impact" debate has come from but a quick dictionary search tells me that influence and impact have the same meaning. Therefore, those who say Rashford "influenced" an opponent's ability to play the ball but did not "impact" an opponent's ability to play the ball have dug themselves into a bit of a hole.

Especially as the German and French versions have "influence" (and Spanish has "affect"). Spanish actually has not "interfering with an opponent" but "interfering with the play of an opponent".

German has what may be helpful in the case that this should be called offside:

"clearly tries to play the ball near him if this action influences an opponent,
or
clearly becomes active and thus clearly influences the opponent's ability to play the ball" (rather than "making an obvious action").

Or the French:

"clearly tries to play a ball that is near when this action influences the reaction of an opponent; or

makes an obvious action that clearly influences an opponent's capacity to play the ball;

[Cue someone to say the English is the definitive version, but this is not about what it says but what it means. It's still a challenge for all those who want to rely on the letter of the law "as it stands" in the English version.]

Is there a "chat de l'arbitre" in French? I didn't get much when I googled...

 

[JamesL]

Especially as the German and French versions have "influence" (and Spanish has "affect"). Spanish actually has not "interfering with an opponent" but "interfering with the play of an opponent".

German has what may be helpful in the case that this should be called offside:

"clearly tries to play the ball near him if this action influences an opponent,
or
clearly becomes active and thus clearly influences the opponent's ability to play the ball" (rather than "making an obvious action").

Or the French:

"clearly tries to play a ball that is near when this action influences the reaction of an opponent; or

makes an obvious action that clearly influences an opponent's capacity to play the ball;

[Cue someone to say the English is the definitive version, but this is not about what it says but what it means. It's still a challenge for all those who want to rely on the letter of the law "as it stands" in the English version.]

Is there a "chat de l'arbitre" in French? I didn't get much when I googled...

English is the definitive version

I'm no language expert, but I know that often translating languages literally is almost impossible, as the way the languages are spoken, sentence construction etc. Changes completely. Your chat de l'abitre is a good example of this in that the two words are switched around... I know the literal translation would be actually be "refchat" but but let's say we want to do referee chat, the translation literally word for word is chat referee, which is just not how we order words and is essentially back to front. So let's not pretend we can find a hidden meaning in another language.

If we do that, then we are creating more offside offences that we know the law specifically doesn't want.

Prime example, player in offside position, ball played towards them, defender intercepts the ball. Had the player not been there the defender could have left the ball.

In that example, the defender is influenced to intercept the ball by the offside player yet we know this is not an offside offence. (Diagram 8)

Influence Vs impact I agree there is some similarity in 1 of the definitions... Such is the complexity of the English language we have several for impact.
But you still over look the fact we're not looking at the one word and it's definition, were looking at what the whole sentence means and you lose sight of "ability to play the ball".

To be able (ability) to play the ball then one needs to be in a position to do so (playing distance). At no point is a city player able to play the ball, so their ability to do so can't have been impacted.

The city defender is not impeded by rashford, he slows and gives up the chase. He will have heard Fernandes calling for rashford to leave it, and the actions of rashford are the natural actions of someone putting the brakes on a sprint, there's no Feinting, just a player running at probably 30+km/h attempting to stop before touching the ball or interfering with his team mate