United goal

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”​

Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass

This appears to be IFAB's governing principle.
 
May have been said upthread, but I cant be ar5ed to read it all, but, if he’s not interfering with play why is he on the pitch, it’s his job.
 
Can’t believe there is any debate.

There should be an enquiry into the honesty of the officials involved.

The game is becoming more and more manipulated.
 
I thought it was offside yesterday and still do, but the referee has a different interpretation that’s how football works. The black and white bit is that Rashford is offside and the interpretation is whether he’s interfering, so in this instance there isn’t a right and wrong just different interpretations of the laws😉

Btw no way does the referee give that to Man Utd anywhere but Old Trafford😂
 
sherlock1969 said:
If it's interfering with play he was offside.

If it's interfering with an opponent he was offside.

No scenario you are arguing has him onside under the law.
Click to expand...

What I love about this board is that the laws have been quoted (and explained) but there are still people trying to argue that the laws are actually something else, or that people are being pedantic for using them to qualify the decision.

Pembroke said:
2. Offside offence

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
Click to expand...

Rashford didn't touch the ball.

As Liamo has patiently explained - this discounts interfering with play.

Rashford:
  • didn't obstruct anyone's line of vision
  • didn't challenge an opponent for the ball
  • didn't attempt to play the ball
  • didn't make an action to prevent an opponent from playing the ball
Therefore he didn't interfere with an opponent.

In the old days the ref would take everything into consideration in real time and the linesman would flag if someone was in an offside position. In this case offside would have been given and we'd all go home happy.

Nowadays, when a goal is scored where VAR is in use, the offside decision is scrutinised and the laws, in full, are applied.

The one thing that professional refs (and ex-refs) are disagreeing on, is whether Rashford running towards the keeper is an action which impacts on the ability of the keeper to come out and clear it before Fernandes reaches the ball, but that is the sort of 'interpretation' that everyone kicks off about refs making. If the laws were intended to be interpreted that way then there'd be a bullet point for that scenario.

The main problem, yet again, is VAR, and the way laws are removing any room for interpretation, to accommodate VAR.

Personally, I think this should be offside, and the rules should be changed to reflect that. However, the decision to let the goal stand makes perfect sense given the current laws and the use of VAR.
 
Scrote said:
What I love about this board is that the laws have been quoted (and explained) but there are still people trying to argue that the laws are actually something else, or that people are being pedantic for using them to qualify the decision.



Rashford didn't touch the ball.

As Liamo has patiently explained - this discounts interfering with play.

Rashford:
  • didn't obstruct anyone's line of vision
  • didn't challenge an opponent for the ball
  • didn't attempt to play the ball
  • didn't make an action to prevent an opponent from playing the ball
Therefore he didn't interfere with an opponent.

In the old days the ref would take everything into consideration in real time and the linesman would flag if someone was in an offside position. In this case offside would have been given and we'd all go home happy.

Nowadays, when a goal is scored where VAR is in use, the offside decision is scrutinised and the laws, in full, are applied.

The one thing that professional refs (and ex-refs) are disagreeing on, is whether Rashford running towards the keeper is an action which impacts on the ability of the keeper to come out and clear it before Fernandes reaches the ball, but that is the sort of 'interpretation' that everyone kicks off about refs making. If the laws were intended to be interpreted that way then there'd be a bullet point for that scenario.

The main problem, yet again, is VAR, and the way laws are removing any room for interpretation, to accommodate VAR.

Personally, I think this should be offside, and the rules should be changed to reflect that. However, the decision to let the goal stand makes perfect sense given the current laws and the use of VAR.
Click to expand...

The rules state he was offside, the referee used his interpretation to discount interfering, but that is rubbish as Rashford was running onto a pass that was played to him, he dummies to shoot and was clearly shielding the ball. Touching it is completely irrelevant.

All of this influences the positioning of both center backs and stops the keeper running out to clear it, leaving him out of position for Fernández shot.

IFAB rules have been quoted endlessly in this thread, it is clear. The problem is how the referee was able to interpret it as anything other than offside.
 
Chris_Boro said:
The rules state he was offside, the referee used his interpretation to discount interfering, but that is rubbish as Rashford was running onto a pass that was played to him, he dummies to shoot and was clearly shielding the ball. Touching it is completely irrelevant.

All of this influences the positioning of both center backs and stops the keeper running out to clear it, leaving him out of position for Fernández shot.

IFAB rules have been quoted endlessly in this thread, it is clear. The problem is how the referee was able to interpret it as anything other than offside.
Click to expand...
Where do the rules state he was offside?

The referee interpreted the rules EXACTLY as they're written.

Rashford can run where he wants as long as he doesn't actually touch the ball or directly impede an opposition player from playing the ball. No Man City player got close enough to the ball to attempt to play it.

Dummying to shoot is a lot different from attempting a shot (and in real-time I'm not convinced he even does the dummy). The latter would have led to an offside decision.

The problem is that the referee couldn't interpret it as anything other than onside without speculating as to how Ederson MIGHT have reacted differently. Something not covered in the rules.
 
Scrote said:
Where do the rules state he was offside?

The referee interpreted the rules EXACTLY as they're written.

Rashford can run where he wants as long as he doesn't actually touch the ball or directly impede an opposition player from playing the ball. No Man City player got close enough to the ball to attempt to play it.

Dummying to shoot is a lot different from attempting a shot (and in real-time I'm not convinced he even does the dummy). The latter would have led to an offside decision.

The problem is that the referee couldn't interpret it as anything other than onside without speculating as to how Ederson MIGHT have reacted differently. Something not covered in the rules.
Click to expand...

He clearly interfered with the an opposition players movement towards the ball, this rule has been quoted numerous times in this thread why are you choosing to ignore this?

Ederson is very clearly effected by Rashford's movement with the ball, this alone should've been sufficient to call it off side...

Screenshot_20230115_172718_Twitter.jpg

Screenshot_20230115_173338_Twitter.jpg

Akanji's run is also effected by Rashford as he can't run towards Fernandes to effect the shot.

Everything about this is offside, but it's not the rules that are in question, it the referee making a decision that he never influenced it which makes the rules (and VAR) redundant.
 
Im only surprised that anybody thinks this decision was correct. Its a travesty of a decision and the law guidance to referees need to change to ensure the error is never repeated.
 
Chris_Boro said:
He clearly interfered with the an opposition players movement towards the ball
Click to expand...
How?

If Akanji was moving towards the ball and was being impeded by Rashford then he would have collided with Rashford, the game would have stopped and the offside would have been given.

The fact he either couldn't, or chose not to, catch up with the ball and/or Rashford means there is no need to worry about that part of the rule when interpreting the decision.

It's stupid, I agree, but it is the correct interpretation, given the current rules.
 
Zoophonic said:
Im only surprised that anybody thinks this decision was correct. Its a travesty of a decision and the law guidance to referees need to change to ensure the error is never repeated.
Click to expand...
The decision was correct.

The laws are stupid.

VAR has ruined football as a spectator sport.

Whodathunkit...
 
Scrote said:
How?

If Akanji was moving towards the ball and was being impeded by Rashford then he would have collided with Rashford, the game would have stopped and the offside would have been given.

The fact he either couldn't, or chose not to, catch up with the ball and/or Rashford means there is no need to worry about that part of the rule when interpreting the decision.

It's stupid, I agree, but it is the correct interpretation, given the current rules.
Click to expand...
I disagree.

He couldn’t run through Rashford as that would have risked a red. If Rashford is not there he can move more quickly. Therefore he is impeded.
 
Scrote said:
How?

If Akanji was moving towards the ball and was being impeded by Rashford then he would have collided with Rashford, the game would have stopped and the offside would have been given.

The fact he either couldn't, or chose not to, catch up with the ball and/or Rashford means there is no need to worry about that part of the rule when interpreting the decision.

It's stupid, I agree, but it is the correct interpretation, given the current rules.
Click to expand...

If Rashford doesn’t exist, Akanji can fully track the run of the ball at full speed, Rashford's position prevents this, at the very least he would be much closer to Fernandes to effect his shot or decision to shoot. Rashford is following the ball for 99% of its path to the point he almost runs into Fernandes.

Akanji cannot take Rashford out in any way as he will not know for sure if anyone behind him is playing him onside.

You also completely ignore the key point of my post, Ederson is the most effected by Rashford, he has to stop running out (removing his ability to attempt to clear the ball with his feet) which leaves him in an awkward position and right until Fernandes shoots, he has to focus on Rashford who is still shaping as if to shoot. Ederson's position makes it much easier for Fernandes to make the decision to take the first time shot.

Here's a pic with Rashford removed, how can anyone state that his position is not interfering with Ederson? It's clear and blatant...

Screenshot_20230115_191112_Twitter.jpg

The fact the referee can make this decision is ridiculous, especially as it then removes VAR from the equation.

The referee has used parts of the law to allow this goal, but in doing so has ignored other parts of the law that states it is offside (see TAA being given offside for the same thing).

The rules are not right or wrong here, it is the reasoning of the referee in coming to the incorrect conclusion that Rashford had no influence on the goal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top