For me this is the important image. If Rashford isn't there, the keeper is lining up to defend the threat from BF.
Man Utd V Man City
- Thread starter JamesL
- Start date
- Status
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.
"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.
I know it feels odd, but which part of the law is he breaking?
-interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate
No. He didn’t touch the ball.
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
No. He didn’t obstruct defender of GK (defender never in ball playing position)
-challenging an opponent for the ball
No. He didn’t challenge an opponent for the ball. No player in ball playing distance.
-clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent
No. He didn’t clearly attempt to play the ball.
-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.
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.
100%.
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?
Is it just a grey area for those in the forum who are Man City fans or anti Man U fans? If we start giving offside for gaining an advantage or influencing defenders you bring in to ‘offside’ all offside players who are being marked by defenders.
The law is clear you need to play the ball or interfere with an opponent’s ability to play the ball.
The still shows Fernandez was the player next closest to play the ball, all defenders & goalkeeper were further from the ball than Fernandez otherwise they would have intercepted it.
The law is clear you need to play the ball or interfere with an opponent’s ability to play the ball.
The still shows Fernandez was the player next closest to play the ball, all defenders & goalkeeper were further from the ball than Fernandez otherwise they would have intercepted it.
The usual noise again about how players (and everyone else don't knowing the Law). Referees don't know the Law (to a very large extent). How can anyone make sense of the Rules FGS!? The Rules (I hate the misused term Law) are not 100% clear WRT this incident and Lord knows what IFAB intended. More likely, IFAB just didn't think it through, that's their modus operandi
My 'interpretation' of the written word is that the goal was correctly awarded, but surely it can't be that IFAB intended it as such... not with them spouting 'spirit of the law' every time their pamphlet leaves them in a tight corner
Get off this high horse about knowing Law. The Law is garbage, so why should a participant try to decipher it? This is a contentious incident, so it's no surprise people are emotive about it. But it's not pundits or participants who are at fault here, it's the sloppy rules and broader failings of football officiating that's at fault
My 'interpretation' of the written word is that the goal was correctly awarded, but surely it can't be that IFAB intended it as such... not with them spouting 'spirit of the law' every time their pamphlet leaves them in a tight corner
Get off this high horse about knowing Law. The Law is garbage, so why should a participant try to decipher it? This is a contentious incident, so it's no surprise people are emotive about it. But it's not pundits or participants who are at fault here, it's the sloppy rules and broader failings of football officiating that's at fault
Last week's Ref had an EFL AR as his coach. He (the coach) told me that I'd incorrectly awarded HB for contact when the player's arm was above head height. Apparently, the ball had deflected off the player's knee onto the hand
This was a current EFL Official quoting me 'old law'. Very few of us know what the book say's at any given time, because very few of us are that sad. Don't expect people who are not sad to read up on this ever changing nonsense. Do expect people to be quite upset about today's incident
(and yes, I corrected my EFL colleague... who incidentally, I otherwise thought was an excellent coach to the Referee). But I'm making a point about this 'knowing Law crap'
This was a current EFL Official quoting me 'old law'. Very few of us know what the book say's at any given time, because very few of us are that sad. Don't expect people who are not sad to read up on this ever changing nonsense. Do expect people to be quite upset about today's incident
(and yes, I corrected my EFL colleague... who incidentally, I otherwise thought was an excellent coach to the Referee). But I'm making a point about this 'knowing Law crap'
Last edited:
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.
Last edited:
Warning again folks, finger is hovering. It has been deployed once and will be deployed again if necessary, not just for fan related stuff but if you can't just act civil.
It dismays me that people behave this way on what is supposed to be a referee community forum.
It dismays me that people behave this way on what is supposed to be a referee community forum.
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.
Last edited:
- making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
He also does a little shimmy with his left leg like he was about to touch it to the left in order to take it away from the defenders, but Bruno comes in and takes the ball.
So effectively a dummy which affects play.
I maybe wrong as I’m not a level 3 like yourself.
Not a similar example as player A isn’t affecting play like Rashford did.
- Status