United goal

It's not being pedantic, it's literally something that's absolutely essential to understanding, interpreting and applying the offside law correctly - something that I've been doing as a referee for over 30 years now.

Interfering with play and interfering with an opponent are two totally different things under the offside law. If you don't realize that, and differentiate clearly between them, you can't possibly interpret or apply the law correctly.
You’re losing this argument I’m afraid. People have quoted the law and provided evidence to show the law has been broken. It’s littered throughout the thread
 
Read rule 11 again.


I posted this earlier. You do not have to touch the ball to be offside.

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
You've just literally quoted from the law that shows that interfering with play and interfering with an opponent are two separate and distinctly defined clauses under the law. As the wording you've just quoted above shows, interfering play must involve a player "playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team mate."

There's an old saying, "I can read it for you, I can't understand it for you."
 
You've just literally quoted from the law that shows that interfering with play and interfering with an opponent are two separate and distinctly defined clauses under the law. As the wording you've just quoted above shows, interfering play must involve a player "playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team mate."

There's an old saying, "I can read it for you, I can't understand it for you."
I don't understand what you are trying to prove.

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.
 
You’re losing this argument I’m afraid. People have quoted the law and provided evidence to show the law has been broken. It’s littered throughout the thread
OK, but I'm not sure what argument you think I'm trying to make. I haven't made a claim that this was or wasn't offside. What I've done is quoted from the law and provided accurate explanations of it, which as I say is something I've been doing for over 30 years now.

If you think I've mis-stated any part of the law please indicate which part you think that is.

Let me just reiterate what my two main points are.

1. Rashford did not interfere with play because he did not touch the ball.

2. There is a debate to be had as to whether he interfered with an opponent or not.

While the on-field referee, his assistant and the VAR in the game decided there was no offside offence here, at least one former referee (Dermot Gallagher) thinks that there may have been an offense under the category of interfering with an opponent - namely the goalkeeper.

Since different referees and/or former referees have varying opinions on this, it's obviously not a crystal-clear decision.
 
OK, but I'm not sure what argument you think I'm trying to make. I haven't made a claim that this was or wasn't offside. What I've done is quoted from the law and provided accurate explanations of it, which as I say is something I've been doing for over 30 years now.

If you think I've mis-stated any part of the law please indicate which part you think that is.

Let me just reiterate what my two main points are.

1. Rashford did not interfere with play because he did not touch the ball.

2. There is a debate to be had as to whether he interfered with an opponent or not.

While the on-field referee, his assistant and the VAR in the game decided there was no offside offence here, at least one former referee (Dermot Gallagher) thinks that there may have been an offense under the category of interfering with an opponent - namely the goalkeeper.

Since different referees and/or former referees have varying opinions on this, it's obviously not a crystal-clear decision.
The debate of this thread is should it have been a goal or shouldn’t it
 
I don't understand what you are trying to prove.

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.
Yes, if he had interfered with play, he would have committed an offside offense.

Similarly if he had interfered with an opponent he would also have been guilty of an offside offense.

However the fact that a number of different referees/ex-referees and match officials (including all those involved in the game) have judged that there was no offside offence here while some others appear to have doubts over it shows that the question of interfering with an opponent here is indeed debatable.
 
I don't understand what you are trying to prove.
And I'm not trying to "prove" anything, I'm stating for a fact (as known by every referee at every level throughout the world) that Rashford could not have interfered with play as he didn't touch the ball.

And I'm saying that it's debatable as to whether he interfered with an opponent or not, which once again, is self evident by the fact that different current and former match officials have different opinions on it.

If you won't take my word for it on the definition of interfering with play, here's a direct quote from the IFAB when they first defined it.

Screenshot_2023_0114_230501.png
 
And I'm not trying to "prove" anything, I'm stating for a fact (as known by every referee at every level throughout the world) that Rashford could not have interfered with play as he didn't touch the ball.

And I'm saying that it's debatable as to whether he interfered with an opponent or not, which once again, is self evident by the fact that different current and former match officials have different opinions on it.

If you won't take my word for it on the definition of interfering with play, here's a direct quote from the IFAB when they first defined it.

View attachment 50974

Quote it all or don't quote it at all.

You do NOT need to touch the ball to be deemed offside, Rashford clearly is interfering with play and is offside.
 
Peter Walton hasn't got a clue.

He was getting things wrong every match at the World Cup.

He's just there to defend the referees.
That may be so but it was the referee and 4th official Michael Oliver who made the decision and their interpretation is what counts. The interpretation guidance needs changing. It clearly does because it’s causing so much angst, frustration and confusion
 
IFAB FAQ's...

Screenshot_20230114_171311_Chrome.jpg

Rashford definitely interfered with the movement of the City defenders and 'keeper, especially when shaping to shoot.

How the officials deemed otherwise is beyond me.
 
Is the rule still “interfering with play” as rashford was certainly doing that.

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."
Llama was originally replying to a specific question asking what 'interfering with play' means. He said that a player needs to touch the ball to be interfering with play.

People said that this was incorrect but he was in fact correct.

The argument then changed to say that llama said he couldn't be offside if he didn't touch the ball. He didn't say that, and in fact covered that point in his original reply.
 
The VAR official interpreting it as not.

The linesman flagged for offside immediately and was overruled.

Just bad refereeing.

Obviously it needs changing to remove the grey area where daft b***ds will get it wrong.
Overruled firstly by the referee and then confirmed by the VAR official in fact.
 
Doesn't this just sum up a large part of the problem with how football is officiated at the minute.

Pretty much anyone else involved with or interested in football: "how on earth can that not be offside, he's clearly influenced the play".

Referees: "ah but have you read the laws? They've been changed"

Everyone else reads the laws: "erm I dunno like, the laws still seem to suggest that should be offside mate".

Referees: "ah but have you read the FA directives? And do you know the difference between interfering with play and interfering with an opponent? Anyway the ref got it right. There were 2 of them looking at it after all. Although if you push us on it there's a small chance he got it wrong. But that probably would only be the case if you applied common sense....."

🤯🤦‍♂️😂
 
Back
Top