United goal

[TeaCider]

Dermot Gallagher has said he would have given offside as a referee this morning on Sky Sports Ref Watch.

This is a man that rarely contradicts other referees unless he has to.

He does defend the referee by saying that he probably had the wrong view of the situation, and that it's still a subjective decision in this instance, which is why VAR didn't get involved as he'd already made his decision.

 

[Muttley]

It is a perfect example of the FA tinkering with rules and making things worse. The rule as it is written can be interpreted either way. They are trying to referee's "opinion" out of the decision making process so that instead of using common sense we get guff like this. I cannot imagine any referee in times gone by thinking that a player running with the ball at his feet is not "interfering with play"! It is beyond ludicrous.

If we must tweak the law I would make it that a player must claim to be "inactive" by raising his hand and either retreating towards the halfway line or standing still, otherwise the player is "active" and therefore can be considered offside.

 

[Nano]

Here's a pic with Rashford removed, how can anyone state that his position is not interfering with Ederson? It's clear and blatant..

The rules don't account for a defender/keeper's decision making process. The only thing that matters is whether or not the keeper is impeded by the attacker. That means either the keeper can't physically get there because the attacker is in the way, which wasn't the case or the attacker is blocking the line of sight to the ball which also didn't happen.

Akanji was nowhere near. He would have had no chance of getting to the ball before Fernandes whether Rashford was there or not so again he wasn't impeded by him.

I think we can all agree that this should be offside but it wasn't. The decision was correct. It's just a stupid situation to be allowed under the rules and one that I expect will cause the rules to be amended to prevent it in future.

 

[dooderooni]

Amending the laws constantly simply because they keep throwing up controversies like this helps nobody.
Just like all the revisions made to the handball laws, it only confuses the issue.
Simplicity in the laws might rule out a lot of goals from the game, but I'd rather have that than have to be discussing these 'loopholes'.
What odds that next Saturday someone tries a Rashford and is penalised for offside? Far more likely than them getting away with it I'd say.

 

[Colgates_shaving_foam]

It is a perfect example of the FA tinkering with rules and making things worse. The rule as it is written can be interpreted either way. They are trying to referee's "opinion" out of the decision making process so that instead of using common sense we get guff like this. I cannot imagine any referee in times gone by thinking that a player running with the ball at his feet is not "interfering with play"! It is beyond ludicrous.

If we must tweak the law I would make it that a player must claim to be "inactive" by raising his hand and either retreating towards the halfway line or standing still, otherwise the player is "active" and therefore can be considered offside.

That's a great idea, it's what lots of players do already so would make sense to add it into the laws.

I reckon rashford thought he was onside until Bruno screamed at him to leave it as he was actually offside.

 

[Scrote]

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.

But he didn't attempt to play the ball. Which is why this bullet-point in the offside rule can be discarded when making the decision.

The ball being close isn't enough to cause you to be offside otherwise it wouldn't be mentioned in this context (or there would be a specific rule for it).

If Hackett would have given offside for that under the current rules, he'd have been wrong

 

[atypical_boro]

If he wasn't interfering with play he shouldn't be on the bloody pitch!

Apologies if someone has already used this Clough-ism.

 

[Caesium137]

If we must tweak the law I would make it that a player must claim to be "inactive" by raising his hand and either retreating towards the halfway line or standing still, otherwise the player is "active" and therefore can be considered offside.

I thought it was already in something along the lines of 'if they made a movement towards the ball'?

 

[ForssAwakens]

It is a perfect example of the FA tinkering with rules and making things worse. The rule as it is written can be interpreted either way. They are trying to referee's "opinion" out of the decision making process so that instead of using common sense we get guff like this. I cannot imagine any referee in times gone by thinking that a player running with the ball at his feet is not "interfering with play"! It is beyond ludicrous.

If we must tweak the law I would make it that a player must claim to be "inactive" by raising his hand and either retreating towards the halfway line or standing still, otherwise the player is "active" and therefore can be considered offside.

Ye common sense is what needs to be applied for sure

 

[Liamo]

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.

Altough, the relevant parts of it have already been quoted more than once, if you'd like the whole law, here it is.

LAW 11

11.1
Offside position
It is not an offence to be in an offside position.

A player is in an offside position if:

any part of the head, body or feet is in the opponents’ half (excluding the halfway line) and

any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent

The hands and arms of all players, including the goalkeepers, are not considered. For the purposes of determining offside, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit.

A player is not in an offside position if level with the:

second-last opponent or

last two opponents


11.2
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

or

gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when it has:

rebounded or been deflected off the goalpost, crossbar, match official or an opponent

been deliberately saved by any opponent

A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent.

A ‘save’ is when a player stops, or attempts to stop, a ball which is going into or very close to the goal with any part of the body except the hands/arms (unless the goalkeeper within the penalty area).

In situations where:

a player moving from, or standing in, an offside position is in the way of an opponent and interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the ball, this is an offside offence if it impacts on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball; if the player moves into the way of an opponent and impedes the opponent’s progress (e.g. blocks the opponent), the offence should be penalised under Law 12

a player in an offside position is moving towards the ball with the intention of playing the ball and is fouled before playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the foul is penalised as it has occurred before the offside offence

an offence is committed against a player in an offside position who is already playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the offside offence is penalised as it has occurred before the foul challenge

*The first point of contact of the ‘play’ or ‘touch’ of the ball should be used.

11.3
No offence
There is no offside offence if a player receives the ball directly from:

a goal kick

a throw-in

a corner kick

11.4
Offences and sanctions
If an offside offence occurs, the referee awards an indirect free kick where the offence occurred, including if it is in the player’s own half of the field of play.

A defending player who leaves the field of play without the referee’s permission shall be considered to be on the goal line or touchline for the purposes of offside until the next stoppage in play or until the defending team has played the ball towards the halfway line and it is outside its penalty area. If the player left the field of play deliberately, the player must be cautioned when the ball is next out of play.

An attacking player may step or stay off the field of play not to be involved in active play. If the player re-enters from the goal line and becomes involved in play before the next stoppage in play or the defending team has played the ball towards the halfway line and it is outside its penalty area, the player shall be considered to be positioned on the goal line for the purposes of offside. A player who deliberately leaves the field of play and re-enters without the referee’s permission and is not penalised for offside and gains an advantage must be cautioned.

If an attacking player remains stationary between the goalposts and inside the goal as the ball enters the goal, a goal must be awarded unless the player commits an offside offence or a Law 12 offence, in which case play is restarted with an indirect or direct free kick.

However nothing that I've posted goes against anything in any part of Law 11.

You need to re-read what I've written. I never once said that you need to touch the ball to commit an offside offence (and I would never say that, as it would be incorrect. What I said is that you need to touch the ball to be guilty of what the Laws of the Game document refers to as, "interfering with play."

There are three separate ways to commit an offside offence: "interfering with play", "interfering with an opponent" and "gaining an advantage".

If Rashford was guilty of any of these, it has to be "interfering with an opponent."

It's a point I made earlier but what you and others seem to think is meant by "interfering with play" is what the laws (and the IFAB) refer to as, "involved in active play."

If you want to say that Rashford was involved in active play (under the sub-heading of "interfering with an opponent") you would have a point, and a number of referees - though by no means all of them, would agree with you.

However what he didn't do was either gain an advantage (since that requires the ball to rebound off the frame of the goal, a match official or an opponent) or interfere with play as the law defines it, since that requires a player to touch the ball.

As the law (fully quoted above) says, there is only one way for a player to interfere with play, which is:

interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate

 

[Pembroke]

But he didn't attempt to play the ball. Which is why this bullet-point in the offside rule can be discarded when making the decision.

The ball being close isn't enough to cause you to be offside otherwise it wouldn't be mentioned in this context (or there would be a specific rule for it).

If Hackett would have given offside for that under the current rules, he'd have been wrong

Loading…

thirdblindmouse.files.wordpress.com

Being close to the ball is a consideration. Its in IFAB's guidance - – this wording is designed to prevent a player in an offside position who runs towards the ball from quite a long distance being penalised (unless he gets close to the ball)

 

[Scrote]

Loading…

thirdblindmouse.files.wordpress.com

Being close to the ball is a consideration. Its in IFAB's guidance - – this wording is designed to prevent a player in an offside position who runs towards the ball from quite a long distance being penalised (unless he gets close to the ball)

Being close to the ball in and of itself isn't a consideration, though.

The extensive examples given in the PDF make it clear that the referee was correct not to penalise Rashford for being in an offside position.

The only thing that could have changed that would have been if Akanji had made an attempt to play the ball and was restricted or actively blocked by Rashford.

As this didn't happen, the decision was correct.

It might be stupid, and an extreme example that ends up in the next version of that PDF, but it falls well within the rules as explained there.

 

[Rofesleg]

If he wasn't interfering with play he shouldn't be on the bloody pitch!

Apologies if someone has already used this Clough-ism.

It's a good quote but isn't open to much analysis.

 

[atypical_boro]

It's a good quote but isn't open to much analysis.

Ha true

 

[ForssAwakens]

Being close to the ball in and of itself isn't a consideration, though.

The extensive examples given in the PDF make it clear that the referee was correct not to penalise Rashford for being in an offside position.

The only thing that could have changed that would have been if Akanji had made an attempt to play the ball and was restricted or actively blocked by Rashford.

As this didn't happen, the decision was correct.

It might be stupid, and an extreme example that ends up in the next version of that PDF, but it falls well within the rules as explained there.

‘Useful definitions
In addition to the two additional bullet points for interfering with an opponent, the following working definitions have been provided:
 ‘clearly attempts’ – this wording is designed to prevent a player in an offside position who runs towards the ball from quite a long distance being penalised (unless he gets close to the ball)
 ‘close’ is important so that a player in an offside position is not penalised when the ball goes clearly over his head or clearly in front of him
 ‘impact’ applies to an opponent’s ability (or potential) to play the ball and will include situations where an opponent’s movement to play the ball is delayed, hindered or prevented by the offside player
However, just because someone is an offside position it does not always mean that they are having an impact. e.g:
o
o
if the ball is on the right-hand side of the field and an ‘offside’ player in the centre of the field moves into a new attacking position he is not penalised unless this action affects an opponent’s ability to play the ball
where a player tries to play the ball as it is going into the goal without affecting an opponent, or situations where there is no opposition player near, he should not be penalised’

You read the above from the excerpt and to me rashford should be penalised

I also think bullet point 2 (ajk) on page 8 show a example of how rashford is offside

It’s offside if the definition of interfering with an opponent

In other examples the atrackers are behind the defender but going towards the ball and are deemed offside.

 

[HolgateCorner]

Being close to the ball in and of itself isn't a consideration, though.

The extensive examples given in the PDF make it clear that the referee was correct not to penalise Rashford for being in an offside position.

The only thing that could have changed that would have been if Akanji had made an attempt to play the ball and was restricted or actively blocked by Rashford.

As this didn't happen, the decision was correct.

It might be stupid, and an extreme example that ends up in the next version of that PDF, but it falls well within the rules as explained there.

I think Rashford actions impacted on the no 3 (Walker I think) who could and would have put a tackle in if Rashford had not been so close to the ball.

Bit of a joke decision by the ref in all reality who interpreted the complex rules in favour of Man U at Old Trafford in a couple of seconds.

I wonder if teams will now start putting balls through to a deliberately offside attacker to effectively confuse a defence whilst somebody from deep runs onto the ball?

 

[Scrote]

who could and would have put a tackle in if Rashford had not been so close to the ball.

So why didn't he (and I assume you mean Akanji as there was no-one closer)?

He was never within playing distance and therefore Rashford wasn't preventing him from getting to the ball.

I'd fully expect the examples to be updated to reflect this situation, but the decision was a correct interpretation of the current rules.

You read the above from the excerpt and to me rashford should be penalised

I also think bullet point 2 (ajk) on page 8 show a example of how rashford is offside

It’s offside if the definition of interfering with an opponent

In other examples the atrackers are behind the defender but going towards the ball and are deemed offside.

"Clearly attempts" - Rashford made no attempt to play the ball.

"Close" - the examples make it clear that "close" can in actual fact be a lot closer that Rashford was, at any point, and still be onside where there is no clear attempt to play the ball.

The example on page 8 (AIK v Helsingborg) shows the attacker actively blocking a much closer defender. "Restricting ball playing options of the opponent" means that the opponent has to be within ball-playing distance - as covered in the examples elsewhere. No Man City player ever got close enough to be able to play the ball - with or without Rashford being there.

There is nothing in that document that categorically shows the decision to be incorrect.

 

[ForssAwakens]

So why didn't he (and I assume you mean Akanji as there was no-one closer)?

He was never within playing distance and therefore Rashford wasn't preventing him from getting to the ball.

I'd fully expect the examples to be updated to reflect this situation, but the decision was a correct interpretation of the current rules.


"Clearly attempts" - Rashford made no attempt to play the ball.

"Close" - the examples make it clear that "close" can in actual fact be a lot closer that Rashford was, at any point, and still be onside where there is no clear attempt to play the ball.

The example on page 8 (AIK v Helsingborg) shows the attacker actively blocking a much closer defender. "Restricting ball playing options of the opponent" means that the opponent has to be within ball-playing distance - as covered in the examples elsewhere. No Man City player ever got close enough to be able to play the ball - with or without Rashford being there.

There is nothing in that document that categorically shows the decision to be incorrect.

‘Clearly attempts’

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



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.

 

[HolgateCorner]

So why didn't he (and I assume you mean Akanji as there was no-one closer)?

He was never within playing distance and therefore Rashford wasn't preventing him from getting to the ball.

I'd fully expect the examples to be updated to reflect this situation, but the decision was a correct interpretation of the current rules.


"Clearly attempts" - Rashford made no attempt to play the ball.

"Close" - the examples make it clear that "close" can in actual fact be a lot closer that Rashford was, at any point, and still be onside where there is no clear attempt to play the ball.

The example on page 8 (AIK v Helsingborg) shows the attacker actively blocking a much closer defender. "Restricting ball playing options of the opponent" means that the opponent has to be within ball-playing distance - as covered in the examples elsewhere. No Man City player ever got close enough to be able to play the ball - with or without Rashford being there.

There is nothing in that document that categorically shows the decision to be incorrect.

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?

 

[Scrote]

What are we saying rashford is doing here.

Running.

What is Corbyn doing here?

There was a manufactured furore when these pictures emerged to show Corbyn 'dancing' at the Cenotaph on Remembrance Sunday. It turned out he was just walking and talking but a photo taken at a point in time and shown without context can be damning.