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.