United goal

[Fat_Dragon]

Take him out of the equation and the defender behind him gets to that and clears. His presence also affected the movement and thinking of the other City players including the goalkeeper.

If that's the case then every goal that is given in this scenario should be disallowed as just the presence of the offside player will always make defenders think twice about what they do, therefore interfering with play.

 

[Teesste]

Either way.. What a mess they’re making of such a simple game. For what It’s worth I think the ball is clearly played to Rashford who is offside. If he held his run knowing he was offside would a City defender be able to clear it? Probably. The fact he has continued his run makes it much more difficult for the City defender.

 

[sherlock]

It didn’t effect the keeper at all

Don't be daft.

 

[sherlock]

If that's the case then every goal that is given in this scenario should be disallowed as just the presence of the offside player will always make defenders think twice about what they do, therefore interfering with play.

Except mostly those players aren't deliberately running along with the ball to give the impression they are going to shoot....

 

[LowMoorBoro]

For me because Rashford has gone towards the ball he’s interfering with play, it’s not as though the defenders have ignored him because he’s offside.

 

[Cardiffdaffs]

It’s a perfectly good goal, rashford didn’t touch the ball or interfere with a city player.

How much was Rashford clearly in an offside position and looking like he is about to strike it affecting the judgement of the City defence to act. Its a goal in the terms of the rule but as the OP states - it doesn't seem quite right

 

[Quicksilvera]

How much was Rashford clearly in an offside position and looking like he is about to strike it affecting the judgement of the City defence to act. Its a goal in the terms of the rule but as the OP states - it doesn't seem quite right

May not seem right but in the rules it’s a goal. People may not like it but that is the rules.

 

[ForssAwakens]

It doesn’t matter on the degree in interfering does, you either aren’t or you are

 

[ForssAwakens]

May not seem right but in the rules it’s a goal. People may not like it but that is the rules.

Wrong,

• clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or

That part of it is on the law on the fa site

 

[breakthewallsdown]

Remember when we use to take the micky about women not understanding the offside rule?



Have we become the women?

 

[Fat_Dragon]

If you take the example of a player offside and blocking a goalkeepers view then that has interfered with the GK directly.

In today's example Rashford was offside but he did not interfere with any Man City player directly. Yes his presence may have made defenders think twice about what to do but he didn't directly interfere with any player ie blocking a player, unlike the goalkeeper example.

 

[Cardiffdaffs]

May not seem right but in the rules it’s a goal. People may not like it but that is the rules.

Of course its a goal. The point of the thread though I believe is should the rule interpretation be changed.

 

[sherlock]

 

[TeaCider]

If you take the example of a player offside and blocking a goalkeepers view then that has interfered with GK directly.

In today's example Rashford was offside but he did not interfere with any Man Utd player directly. Yes his presence may have made defenders think twice about what to do but he didn't directly interfere with any player unlike the goalkeeper example.

Except the part where he clearly interfered with the goalkeeper, of course.

 

[goalscrounger]

Letter of the law = not offside.

It's certainly opened the title race up.

I'd be well and truly ***ed off of it was awarded against Boro though.

 

[Pembroke]

current rules allow that as he didn’t interfere directly.

Liverpool benefited last week from the rule.

In that position Rashford is interfering with an opponent. He has possession of the ball and is impeding the defender behind him.

 

[TeaCider]

Of course its a goal. The point of the thread though I believe is should the rule interpretation be changed.

I don't think it is a goal, and I think they've failed to follow the laws correctly.

 

[ForssAwakens]

I don't think it is a goal, and I think they've failed to follow the laws correctly.

After reading them just now I have to agree

 

[Liamo]

Is the rule still “interfering with play” as rashford was certainly doing that. You may as well just have someone standing on the goalie all game if that is the case

The law says that interfering with play requires the player to touch the ball. Rashford didn't touch the ball so he hasn't interfered with play.

There's a better argument to be made that he interfered with an opponent, which includes "making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball."

However, even that's debatable. For instance Dermot Gallagher, who's just analyzed this on the channel I'm watching, says that in his judgment, neither of the outfield defenders had a chance of playing the ball, but he's not so sure about the keeper. So there's a debate to be had but it's not crystal clear one way or the other.

One thing is for certain though - Rashford did not interfere with play as the law defines it.

 

[ForssAwakens]

The law says that interfering with play requires the player to touch the ball. Rashford didn't touch the ball so he hasn't interfered with play.

There's a better argument to be made that he interfered with an opponent, which includes "making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball."

However, even that's debatable. For instance Dermot Gallagher, who's just analyzed this on the channel I'm watching, says that in his judgment, neither of the outfield defenders had a chance of playing the ball, but he's not so sure about the keeper. So there's a debate to be had but it's not crystal clear one way or the other.

One thing is for certain though - Rashford did not interfere with play as the law defines it.

I don’t think you’ve read the law