ForssAwakens
Well-known member
Surely that’s offside? If it isn’t the rule needs changing
How is he shielding the ball there’s no city player near him.Offside all day long. He was literally shielding the ball so how that can be classed as not interfering is beyond me.
By definition of running through on goal and the ball being intended for him he’s interfering. The fact that defenders are going with him is also interfering with the phaseIt’s a perfectly good goal, rashford didn’t touch the ball or interfere with a city player.
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.How is he shielding the ball there’s no city player near him.
The rules are terrible I wish they would rewind the rules backcurrent rules allow that as he didn’t interfere directly.
Liverpool benefited last week from the rule.
It didn’t effect the keeper at all Bruno hits it from the same location Rashford was stood in, if the defender had made an attempt attempt to tackle or take the ball I’d agree but they didn’t, it’s poor defending to blame.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.
Both the goalie and the defenders reacted to him moving towards the ball. Had he just stood still, let the ball run past him and Fernandez scored then I'd not be arguing. However, he moved like he had the intention to play the ball wether he then decided to leave it or not.How is he shielding the ball there’s no city player near him.
It didn’t effect the keeper at all Bruno hits it from the same location Rashford was stood in, if the defender had made an attempt attempt tackle or take the ball I’d agree but they didn’t, it’s poor defending to blame.