United goal

HolgateCorner said:
No I meant the other Man U defender who was tracking back , I think he could have put a tackle in if he had realised Rashford was going to back off at the last second, Rashford was interfering in this respect by being so close to the ball. For that reason definite offside in my opinion even under the current rules. There’s always one ref who stretches the common sense element isn’t there? Hasn’t this one been demoted before?
Click to expand...
In the picture from the post above yours, Walker is to the right of Fernandes, out of shot. I know he's fast but there's no way he's being prevented, by Rashford, from challenging for the ball.
 
Watching the footage in real time I think he would have got a tackle in if he had thought Fernandes was going to shoot rather than Rashford, he probably just thought Rashford will shoot and be offside in which case he was interfering with the thought process of the defenders. Anyway, just my view of how the ref could have given offside under these rules had he wanted.
Scrote said:
In the picture from the post above yours, Walker is to the right of Fernandes, out of shot. I know he's fast but there's no way he's being prevented, by Rashford, from challenging for the ball.
Click to expand...
hing
 
HolgateCorner said:
interfering with the thought process of the defender
Click to expand...
I agree. But until "interfering with the thought process of the defender" gets it's own bullet point in Law 11, the ref was perfectly correct not to give offside.

Had the ref given offside I doubt there'd have been many complaints (and certainly not the level of discussion this has generated). By allowing the goal to stand the ref has drawn more attention to the fact that the rules, as they stand, aren't fit for purpose.

The main driver for that, in my opinion, has been the trend to make the rules compatible with VAR rather than wait until the technology can manage with the rules as they were.

It's not like people weren't warning about this when VAR was first mooted. The only reason it hasn't been even more of a farce is because they've refused to use VAR across the board (making it even worse).
 
Scrote said:
I agree. But until "interfering with the thought process of the defender" gets it's own bullet point in Law 11, the ref was perfectly correct not to give offside.

Had the ref given offside I doubt there'd have been many complaints (and certainly not the level of discussion this has generated). By allowing the goal to stand the ref has drawn more attention to the fact that the rules, as they stand, aren't fit for purpose.

The main driver for that, in my opinion, has been the trend to make the rules compatible with VAR rather than wait until the technology can manage with the rules as they were.

It's not like people weren't warning about this when VAR was first mooted. The only reason it hasn't been even more of a farce is because they've refused to use VAR across the board (making it even worse).
Click to expand...
Totally agree
 
Scrote said:
I agree. But until "interfering with the thought process of the defender" gets it's own bullet point in Law 11, the ref was perfectly correct not to give offside.

Had the ref given offside I doubt there'd have been many complaints (and certainly not the level of discussion this has generated). By allowing the goal to stand the ref has drawn more attention to the fact that the rules, as they stand, aren't fit for purpose.

The main driver for that, in my opinion, has been the trend to make the rules compatible with VAR rather than wait until the technology can manage with the rules as they were.

It's not like people weren't warning about this when VAR was first mooted. The only reason it hasn't been even more of a farce is because they've refused to use VAR across the board (making it even worse).
Click to expand...
I don't think the historical record bears that out. Most of the current offside definitions are more or less 20 years old (attempts to define "rebound" v "deliberate play" are more recent) and part of a 30 year long drive to make the law more precise and favour the attackers.

This is what the 05/06 code, when VAR was not even a glint in anyone's eye, said - more or less as now.

The definitions of elements of involvement in active play are as follows:
• Interfering with play means playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a team-mate.
• Interfering with an opponent means preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or movements or making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent.
• Gaining an advantage by being in that position means playing a ball that rebounds to him off a post or the crossbar having been in an offside position or playing a ball that rebounds to him off an opponent having been in an offside position.

Not all the evils in the game are down to VAR.
 
ForssAwakens said:
‘Clearly attempts’

Running after the ball for 20 yards and shaping to shoot to me is clearly attempting to play the ball

View attachment 51179

What are we saying rashford is doing here. Even if we say he is dummying the ball here, a dummy is a play of the ball. If it isn’t a dummy then it’s an attempt to play the ball.
Click to expand...
If Rashford wasn't there would the MU player have beaten the MC player to the ball. In my mind yes. Offside.
 
Millbrook said:
If Rashford wasn't there would the MU player have beaten the MC player to the ball. In my mind yes. Offside.
Click to expand...
I think you mean no?

Although I'd have said yes, otherwise the MC player would have challenged Rashford and Rashford would have been called offside.

If either Akanji or Walker could have gotten to the ball before Fernandes, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
 
It all comes down to how they define "play the ball". Would you use the narrow definition of passing the ball?

I would say playing the ball includes tackles. "Play the ball not the man". And if you include tackles I don't know how you could not include saving the ball.

The next thing is has it Impacted their ability to play the ball. ie pass tackle or save the ball. Looking at the goalkeeper alone the presence of rashford means he is unable to set himself properly for the save. Does he look at rashford or Fernandes body shape? This impacts his ability to make the save. His ability to play the ball.

Finally has rashford made an obvious action. Yes he has. He ran towards the ball as if he were going to run onto it and shoot. That is an obvious action - as opposed to say stopping his run.

Offside.

I have used the same method here that a barrister would when breaking down an indictment for the jury. The ongoing lawyerfication of football is down to the money involved in the game in my opinion.

I just made the word lawyerfication up. It's a F***ing brilliant word if I do say so myself. Couple of years time it will be word of the year. Mark my words.
 
Ha ha ha this is an absolute joke.

Have a look at the disallowed Cardiff goal just now v Leeds.

Fukk knows it seems to be check to see who's at home...
 
Scrote said:
I think you mean no?

Although I'd have said yes, otherwise the MC player would have challenged Rashford and Rashford would have been called offside.

If either Akanji or Walker could have gotten to the ball before Fernandes, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Click to expand...
I got my MC and MU the wrong way round. Without Rashford in the way the MC player would have got the ball IMHO. SJBs comment about the keeper is relevant too.
 
Millbrook said:
I got my MC and MU the wrong way round. Without Rashford in the way the MC player would have got the ball IMHO. SJBs comment about the keeper is relevant too.
Click to expand...
The keeper is irrelevant given the wording of the law. It's dumb but as soon as you rely on technology for decisions you have to make them black & white. Having the referee trying to process the thoughts of the keeper is the bit they've removed as per FishofContemplation's earlier post: "...which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent". I'd imagine that without Rashford, the keeper just decides to run out and clear the ball.

Watching the clip at full speed, I'm pretty sure Akanji could have got into a position to challenge Rashford but he either couldn't or chose not to. Walker was never close enough to be involved.
 
Scrote said:
The keeper is irrelevant given the wording of the law. It's dumb but as soon as you rely on technology for decisions you have to make them black & white. Having the referee trying to process the thoughts of the keeper is the bit they've removed as per FishofContemplation's earlier post: "...which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent". I'd imagine that without Rashford, the keeper just decides to run out and clear the ball.

Watching the clip at full speed, I'm pretty sure Akanji could have got into a position to challenge Rashford but he either couldn't or chose not to. Walker was never close enough to be involved.
Click to expand...
I’ve got to say that the law is subjective, as not all definitions are objective. You are presenting your interpretation of the offside law as the correct one, but as there is an element of subjectiveness that ultimately we find ourselves debating as we are

I think one thing we can all agree on is that we need laws to as objective as they can be, it would benefit the offside law.

Under the law rashford could have be classed offside or onside depending on how it is interpreted
 
ForssAwakens said:
You are presenting your interpretation of the offside law as the correct one
Click to expand...
Not quite right.

I'm saying that the referee's interpretation of the law was correct.

ForssAwakens said:
Under the law rashford could have be classed offside or onside depending on how it is interpreted
Click to expand...
Exactly. Whether there is another valid interpretation which would contradict the one given is irrelevant, as long as the one given is itself a valid interpretation.

I'm arguing against people saying that the interpretation was incorrect, not that it is/was the only correct interpretation.

I think the laws need clarifying but then they always do, as people find ever smaller loopholes. The problem in this case, to my mind, is that the laws have been slowly amended to cater for the introduction of VAR.

VAR deals in absolutes so Rashford can only be onside or offside due to his own actions. Not the actions or decisions made by other players.


Sheriff_John_Bunnell_ret said:
What do you disagree with?
Click to expand...
Your definitions mainly. And then the fact you ignore the actual laws in your summing up; preferring your own versions - which sound quite sensible, by the way...
 
Scrote said:
Not quite right.

I'm saying that the referee's interpretation of the law was correct.


Exactly. Whether there is another valid interpretation which would contradict the one given is irrelevant, as long as the one given is itself a valid interpretation.

I'm arguing against people saying that the interpretation was incorrect, not that it is/was the only correct interpretation.

I think the laws need clarifying but then they always do, as people find ever smaller loopholes. The problem in this case, to my mind, is that the laws have been slowly amended to cater for the introduction of VAR.

VAR deals in absolutes so Rashford can only be onside or offside due to his own actions. Not the actions or decisions made by other players.



Your definitions mainly. And then the fact you ignore the actual laws in your summing up; preferring your own versions - which sound quite sensible, by the way...
Click to expand...
Ye fair enough, I think I’ve been guilty of thinking that your stance was onside, and arguing my interpretation of the law
 
Scrote said:
Your definitions mainly. And then the fact you ignore the actual laws in your summing up; preferring your own versions - which sound quite sensible, by the way...
Click to expand...
From the FA site

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:

making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

That's the part of the law that I've broken down, so I don't see why you think I've ignored the laws and made them up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top