United goal

[Jedi boro]

Man City gave up the runner as he was off side.

 

[Scrote]

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...

View attachment 51034

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.

If Rashford doesn't exist at any given point then the whole situation changes.

Rashford does exist. Akanji decided not to make an attempt to play the ball (whether because he was too far away or because he was worried Rashford was, actually, onside (which begs it's own question)).

The rules might be dumb, but they're clear.

Ederson's decision making has no impact on whether or not Rashford is deemed to be offside, unless Ederson actually attempts to play the ball.

If VAR didn't exist then the offside would have been given by the linesman. It's the very existence of VAR which means the rules can be checked so VAR hasn't been removed from the equation. It's the reason we're having the discussion.

Which part of the law "states it is offside"?

The referee has followed the rules to the letter.

 

[FishofContemplation]

I don’t think the last couple of comments are correct. It was the on field decision to allow the goal after consultation between the referee and AR. This wasn’t a case of VAR overruling the AR. Either the ref overruled the AR or the AR had his mind changed.

 

[ForssAwakens]

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.

one could argue that following the ball for 30 yards and being with a quarter of a meter is an attempt to play the ball

As someone else said it could be argued that he was in possession of the football

 

[Chris_Boro]

If Rashford doesn't exist at any given point then the whole situation changes.

Rashford does exist. Akanji decided not to make an attempt to play the ball (whether because he was too far away or because he was worried Rashford was, actually, onside (which begs it's own question)).

The rules might be dumb, but they're clear.

Ederson's decision making has no impact on whether or not Rashford is deemed to be offside, unless Ederson actually attempts to play the ball.

If VAR didn't exist then the offside would have been given by the linesman. It's the very existence of VAR which means the rules can be checked so VAR hasn't been removed from the equation. It's the reason we're having the discussion.

Which part of the law "states it is offside"?

The referee has followed the rules to the letter.

You stating Rashford has no influence on Ederson is your own interpretation, he clearly has an influence on Ederson's ability to play/save the ball which is clearly stated in the laws that have been quoted endlessly in this thread, I'm not going to keep quoting it, you can look back on the thread yourself.

Dermot Gallagher confirmed VAR was not involved in any way in this decision other than to check if Fernandes is onside. Once the referee overruled the linesman it became a subjective decision and not factual which removed VAR's ability to check, that you did not know this says a lot for your opinion on the offside.

 

[Sheriff_John_Bunnell_ret]

I basically cleared all this up in the other thread.

It should have been disallowed.

 

[Scrote]

I don’t think the last couple of comments are correct. It was the on field decision to allow the goal after consultation between the referee and AR. This wasn’t a case of VAR overruling the AR. Either the ref overruled the AR or the AR had his mind changed.

Every goal is checked by VAR. I've no idea what the VAR person said to the ref but there will have been some input. Even if just to say there's nothing that VAR needed to look at (and even if that is an absence of communication).

If the decision on-field was incorrect then VAR would have over-ruled it.

one could argue that following the ball for 30 yards and being with a quarter of a meter is an attempt to play the ball

As someone else said it could be argued that he was in possession of the football

One can argue whatever one wants. Rashford didn't attempt to play the ball. He was therefore not interfering with play.

I'm not sure that "possession" is explicitly defined in the laws of the game but the way it's used implies that you can't have possession without having touched the ball.

You stating Rashford has no influence on Ederson is your own interpretation, he clearly has an influence on Ederson's ability to play/save the ball which is clearly stated in the laws that have been quoted endlessly in this thread, I'm not going to keep quoting it, you can look back on the thread yourself.

Dermot Gallagher confirmed VAR was not involved in any way in this decision other than to check if Fernandes is onside. Once the referee overruled the linesman it became a subjective decision and not factual which removed VAR's ability to check, that you did not know this says a lot for your opinion on the offside.

The only influence Rashford can have on Ederson is covered in the four bullet points pertaining to interfering with an opponent.

That has been covered and as far as the rules go, the interpretation used isn't incorrect (even if it COULD be interpreted differently).

VAR is used to check EVERY GOAL. If there's nothing clear and obvious that needs changing VAR isn't required to intervene. The on-field decision is made with the knowledge that there's nothing clear or obvious wrong with the decision being made. Otherwise VAR would raise it as an issue.

If Rashford had attempted to play the ball, then the subjectivity is removed and VAR could have asked the ref to check the monitor. Because he didn't, there is nothing to check and the decision is sound.

I'm glad we finally agree.

 

[Chris_Boro]

Every goal is checked by VAR. I've no idea what the VAR person said to the ref but there will have been some input. Even if just to say there's nothing that VAR needed to look at (and even if that is an absence of communication).

If the decision on-field was incorrect then VAR would have over-ruled it.


One can argue whatever one wants. Rashford didn't attempt to play the ball. He was therefore not interfering with play.

I'm not sure that "possession" is explicitly defined in the laws of the game but the way it's used implies that you can't have possession without having touched the ball.


The only influence Rashford can have on Ederson is covered in the four bullet points pertaining to interfering with an opponent.

That has been covered and as far as the rules go, the interpretation used isn't incorrect (even if it COULD be interpreted differently).

VAR is used to check EVERY GOAL. If there's nothing clear and obvious that needs changing VAR isn't required to intervene. The on-field decision is made with the knowledge that there's nothing clear or obvious wrong with the decision being made. Otherwise VAR would raise it as an issue.

If Rashford had attempted to play the ball, then the subjectivity is removed and VAR could have asked the ref to check the monitor. Because he didn't, there is nothing to check and the decision is sound.

I'm glad we finally agree.

Dermot Gallagher stated VAR was not involved in determining the offside decision, this was purely the referee.

No point in debating further if you're going to ignore this fact to base your opinion.

 

[Cardiffdaffs]

Dermot Gallagher stated VAR was not involved in determining the offside decision, this was purely the referee.

No point in debating further if you're going to ignore this fact to base your opinion.

If you are right and VAR wasn’t called on to judge Rashford position as interfering then that makes the situation very unsatisfactory. The referee made a big call to overturn his linesman’s decision. No way would he have been able to make a reasoned decision without a review.

 

[Scrote]

Dermot Gallagher stated VAR was not involved in determining the offside decision, this was purely the referee.

No point in debating further if you're going to ignore this fact to base your opinion.

Why would VAR be involved at that point?

VAR checks to see if there are any black and white errors (e.g. offside, ironically) or clear and obvious errors in terms of what happened.

Rashford didn't play the ball.

That is the only thing VAR could have overturned the refs decision on.

The interpretation of the rules by the referee was correct.

VAR was involved in so far as VAR is involved in every single goal.

VAR wasn't able to overturn the ref's decision as to whether Rashford was 'interfering'.

VAR was used to check the goal.

What are you arguing elsewise?

The debate is whether the rules should have allowed the goal to stand. I think it's been made pretty clear that they should. Whether you like it or not (and I, personally, don't like it).

 

[rbmfc1985]

If you are right and VAR wasn’t called on to judge Rashford position as interfering then that makes the situation very unsatisfactory. The referee made a big call to overturn his linesman’s decision. No way would he have been able to make a reasoned decision without a review.

Of course he could. He'd have asked the assistant referee if he'd judged Fernandes or Rashford offside. If this assistant referee said Rashford then they'd have discussed whether Rashford touched the ball or directly interfered with an opponent. If they agreed the answer to the second question is no then they'd give the goal.

Considering a lot of referees have differing opinions on this, VAR isn't going to overrule either decision. It's not a clear and obvious error if you give or don't give the goal. VAR is clearly going to go with whatever the on field decision is.


If Boro had this decision in our favour, most of us would praise the officials. If Boro had it against us, we'd berate them. It's just one of those decisions that is going to be challenged whichever way the referee decides.

 

[Cardiffdaffs]

Of course he could. He'd have asked the assistant referee if he'd judged Fernandes or Rashford offside. If this assistant referee said Rashford then they'd have discussed whether Rashford touched the ball or directly interfered with an opponent. If they agreed the answer to the second question is no then they'd give the goal.

Considering a lot of referees have differing opinions on this, VAR isn't going to overrule either decision. It's not a clear and obvious error if you give or don't give the goal. VAR is clearly going to go with whatever the on field decision is.


If Boro had this decision in our favour, most of us would praise the officials. If Boro had it against us, we'd berate them. It's just one of those decisions that is going to be challenged whichever way the referee decides.

My guess is that he asked the assistant did Rashford touch it. On hearing the answer no he gave the goal and overturned the flag. I suspect he didn’t give a thought to the positioning and action of Rashford and that’s where VAR should have stepped in.

 

[sherlock]

If Boro had this decision in our favour, most of us would praise the officials. If Boro had it against us, we'd berate them. It's just one of those decisions that is going to be challenged whichever way the referee decides.

I think most of us would be pleased the goal was given but realise it's a shocking decision. There'd be no praise from me.

This is pretty much the view on the United board. They did a poll. Two thirds think Rashford was interfering and the goal shouldn't have stood, but they are glad it did obviously.

 

[Colgates_shaving_foam]

I think most of us would be pleased the goal was given but realise it's a shocking decision. There'd be no praise from me.

This is pretty much the view on the United board. They did a poll. Two thirds think Rashford was interfering and the goal shouldn't have stood, but they are glad it did obviously.

Exactly, never look a gift horse or a bewildering peice of incompetent reffing in the mouth.

At the same time we would still be scratching our heads saying how on earth has that been allowed to stand.

 

[TeaCider]

If Boro had this decision in our favour, most of us would praise the officials. If Boro had it against us, we'd berate them. It's just one of those decisions that is going to be challenged whichever way the referee decides.

I wouldn't have, the officials got it wrong in my view.

I'm not so biased that I'll pretend bad decisions are good ones just because they favour us.

I'd be happy they got it wrong, but I'd still accept it was wrong.

Millwall should have had a penalty on Saturday, I'm not going to praise the ref for ignoring the blatant foul.

 

[hewielewie]

Man City gave up the runner as he was off side.

Play to the whistle.

 

[hewielewie]

I wouldn't have, the officials got it wrong in my view.

I'm not so biased that I'll pretend bad decisions are good ones just because they favour us.

I'd be happy they got it wrong, but I'd still accept it was wrong.

Millwall should have had a penalty on Saturday, I'm not going to praise the ref for ignoring the blatant foul.

When was that?

 

[TeaCider]

When was that?

Second half, when Giles just smashed in to their player in the box and completely missed the ball.

Their player managed to stay on his feet, and tried to continue with the attack.

If he'd went down, it would have been given immediately.

 

[Millbrook]

Rashford was deemed to be inactive as he did not touch the ball.

Keith Hackett (former referee) believes Rashford was offside under the rule which states

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

I would agree with this otherwise a defender will always be hesitant about playing a player offside in case this scenario is repeated.

 

[sherlock]

Second half, when Giles just smashed in to their player in the box and completely missed the ball.

Their player managed to stay on his feet, and tried to continue with the attack.

If he'd went down, it would have been given immediately.

Definite penalty, we got away with one there.