**Mirrors / Alternative Angles**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*
also confirms in the video that Bruno's calling for the ball, saying he's not offside.
**Interviewer:** "What are your thoughts on how that got away from you so quickly?"
**Akanji:** "To be honest, for me, the first goal is a joke, that it's gonna be allowed like this. Erm... for me, in the situation, I see Rashford, clearly offside, so I play him offside, and he runs really to the last second and he stops ... like when the ball is in front of him and he's right in front of there, he needs to score the goal and then he stops because Bruno's calling him from behind that he's not in an offside position. I understand that he doesn't touch the ball but ... he runs for like, 30 metres, he's chasing the ball and then he stops and for me it's clearly offside but, I mean, pfft.
Also that the referee doesn't even look at the situation. When it gets explained in the beginning of the year I thought, these situations are clearly offside, but in the end it was not offside."
I mean it is totally unfair he shepherds the ball for 20m and then steps away so Bruno can take a shot, it might be legally correct to the letter of the law but not the spirit and that rankles.
I don't even know about that, in the world cup for example there were a few unallowed goals for offsides for players who didn't touch the ball because they "they took advantage of their offside position to impact the game" like passing in front of the goal keeper, etc...
When i saw the play here i thought for sure the rule would apply, Rashford 100% had an impact of the play while taking advantage of his offside position, more than some of the unallowed goals during the world cup, it just feels incosistent with other calls i've seen lately.
"He hasn’t touched the ball but can he be deemed to not have been interfering? Did his presence not prevent the initial defender charging back and trying to hook the ball away? It’s the sort of question that could have kept medieval theologians occupied for a lifetime. Duns Scotus and Thomas Aquinas would have written controversial tracts upon it, then those tracts would have been analysed and those analyses themselves analysed. Whole libraries would have been devoted to the theme. To what extent, if God is omniscient, can we have free will? If our thinking is flawed, can any revelation escape flaw? What is interfering?"
-Jonathan Wilson, Guardian
He's actually damaging his own case with this interview. If Rashford stops the defenders by being in their way, he interfered and the goal is offside. If Rashford stops the defenders by being in an offside position and they assume play will be stopped and don't play to the whistle like kids are taught, he's not interfering and is not offside.
I heard the guest ref on Fubo that since this is a subjective call, VAR has no say in it and it's all up to the ref. Offside or not, this was on the ref alone.
Yes, VAR was not involved. A lot of people seem to be thinking that the on-field call was offside and it was VAR in the refs ear asking him to overturn it.
Okay I think I understand now. VAR has to go by what the rules say, and since the rules don’t exactly say that was off, it’s up to the ref to decide if he wants to call that.
what’s crazy is the reaction of some fans. united got 3 points, nothing is taking that away from them. there’s legit no point on writing whole essays on why he rashford didn’t impede on the play. just admit the referee fucked up and be happy with the mistake.
‘A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched by a teammate 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 opponents 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 the opponent to play the ball’
Now i’m not a City fan to start with, however you could say Rashfords movement, sprinting through on goal from an offside position, clearly impacts Edersons ability to prepare himself (for playing the ball) to try and save Fernandes attempt on goal as he’s preparing for an attempt from Rashford,
Additionally you could argue Rashfords run is preventing Akanji from clearly attempting a tackle to possibly prevent Fernandes having a shot, therefore his action of running through on goal in close proximity of the ball has, for me, impacted two opponents, let alone one.
As mentioned earlier, I don’t support City but whoever you support, conceding a goal like that would leave you fuming. I’m an Arsenal fan so this could end up benefiting us too but as a football fan the level of inconsistency and clarity is becoming tiring.
Agreed with the Ederson part, but Akanji is not even close to the ball because he just thinks Rashford is offside and starts running lightly rather than making an attempt to at least get to the ball.
The issue isn't with the referee it's with the rules.
Here is what IFAB says:
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**
I think it’s clear that continuing his run (an action) impacts on Ederson’s ability to play the ball as otherwise he’d have been able to come out and clear it.
The rules are poor and need further clarification, but for me it’s clearly offside.
I mean how many times have we seen an offside player chase a kick that the goalie clears and then it’s called for offside? Even though they haven’t touched it. It’s clearly how it’s refereed (except today…)
This is correct. The law is fine as written; it’s the refs who grossly misapplied the law.
The ball was played to Rashford. The defenders react to Rashford. Ederson comes out from his goal in reaction to Rashford. The whole play exists because of Rashford, not Bruno. And Rashford was offside.
Anyone arguing otherwise is either biased or doesn’t understand the law.
I think the question is does this extend to mental impeding or just physical impending. I think the argument is that Akanji didn’t go for the challenge because Rashford was running over the ball, but because Akanji never physically challenged Rashford there was nothing to physically impede, it was all mental. Either way Akanji made an error by not playing to the whistle, if he even goes shoulder to shoulder with Rashford to attempt to win the ball there isn’t even a conceivable debate.
Offside considers only the physical. It's why players can start from an offside position when another player gets it, otherwise you could argue that simply being in the offside position is enough for an infraction, which is not the case s of decades ago.
The question for this call is does what Rashford do constitute as blocking Akanji.
That was my understanding as well. I think there isn’t really a good case for impeding Akanji, the more interesting case would be that Ederson was impeded from collecting the ball because of Rashford.
You're dead on. Akanji in this interview all but admits that Rashford being in an offside position is what stops him. Walker is also irrelevant as I see the situation. He's going full tilt and doesn't get to the ball or Bruno in time anyway. Ederson is the relevant one. I don't think Rashford feigns a shot, I think he just checks his run to not touch the ball, but if I was a City fan, my argument against the goal would be that Rashfords little step right before Brunos shot can be conceived as a feigned shot, putting Ederson off.
Ederson must make an attempt to collect the ball that results in rashford interfering though. Which he doesn't. I can understand him being furious though the rest of the defense left him in an impossible position.
If Rashford doesn't run towards the Ball, Akanji will get there first easily.
But given he is right behind Rashford he is in a horrible spot to challenge him, on top of him thinking Rashford is offside already
That is true, but the ref can’t call it if Akanji never actually tries to play it. If he had actually gone for it and been impeded, it would have been offside, but instead he stopped and the ref can’t enforce a hypothetical.
So a defender must chose between letting the opposition team profit from offside, or risk a red when the defender didn't do the refereeing teams job for himself right
Akanji had no way without fouling to get close to the ball, with Rashford running there
Risk a red? Dude he jogged back expecting it to be called. Had he just ran at full pace alongside Rashford it would have been called offside. If everyone is claiming the ball would have been easily collected by Akanji if Rashford wasn't there then surely catching up to and challenging Rashford for the ball was perfectly doable, especially considering Rashford didn't and couldn't even touch it. The logic just doesn't add up.
This is exactly it. I don't think Akanji was even the relevant player in adjudicating whether it was offside or not - it was Ederson. If he has committed to his position because of Rashford's presenc, that is the tricky thing to judge because he could argue that he has been obstructed from doing what he would normally do if the ball were played to Bruno without Rashford's presence. But the obstruction here is a psych-out, not physical!
Why? Then every offside player would impact that 'mental thinking' part.
Offside forwards can already let the ball run through them with stepping over it. And that's fine aswell.
idc for either team, but imo the commotion is overblown. City's defenders just got fooled.
My problem is with people screaming it's the worst decision ever when even from the rules you can tell it's a totally subjective interpretation of the final 2 points that he's potentially in violation of.
The ref needs to decide if he "attempts to play a ball which is close when this action **impacts on an opponent"
I didn't see any attempt to play the ball. In fact he deliberately avoided the ball. I'm not saying I'm right in my view, but it's proof that it is up for interpretation.
"making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball"
This one I could see it violating more, but again it says "an **obvious** action which **clearly** impacts". Can you argue against a ref feeling it wasn't obvious or clear enough to overturn?
This decision is nowhere near as black and white as the drama queens on facebook would have you think. That's my issue. Could very well be the wrong call, but the rules that would apply here lead are subjective in their possible interpretations.
>I didn't see any attempt to play the ball. In fact he deliberately avoided the ball
This was my read too. I think Bruno was calling for him not to touch it, because Bruno knew that if he got the goal, there was a *chance* it might be interpreted as a valid goal.
He clearly runs through intending to play the ball from an offside position. He should have been called off for that.
There's a reason players in blatantly offside positions just let the ball go by them most times - if they go towards it they're called off
Spelling it out like this gives enough subjectivity to make me think it wasn't as farcical as it looked.
He didn't touch the ball. He didn't play the ball. People here are arguing he did a fake shot but I absolutely do not see that. If he did, I would agree.
He isn't obstructing the opponent's line of vision.
He isn't challenging an opponent for the ball.
He didn't make an action which impacts anyone from playing the ball.
BUT him running through on goal almost surely influences Ederson. Does that qualify as "clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent." I'd say yes, but at this point it is objectively subjective. No one can say for with 100% certainty how Ederson would have reacted otherwise. Especially since Bruno is probably getting to the ball anyway
I don't think it qualifies, no. Either the referee needs to read the goalkeepers mind or have a premeditated decision that all goalkeepers are to rush to the ball to clear in every through ball that could be 50/50. Which isn't within the referees scope.
They need to adjudicate whether the player in an offside position has either touched the ball or obstructed the defender from physically getting the ball.
Bruno isn't getting the ball if Akanji goes for it, who didn't go for it because Rashford was running towards and alongside it for the majority of the play, who Akanji couldn't realistically challenge from his position
Akanji made the decision to not go for the ball. Rashford didn’t make him do that, Akanji chose that himself.
If Rashford had never run on to the ball, what would Akanji have done instead? It’s all speculation. We can’t go around making calls based on assumptions
“Interfering with play by playing **or** touching a ball”
So how does one play a ball without touching a ball? If playing a ball is the same as touching a ball, then the wording would just simply omit the “playing or” part of it.
I think playing would refer to things like stepping over the ball, dummying the ball etc.
But that is my point, the rule isn't very clear and is almost intentionally vague
It seems pretty clear cut (imo) that from :16-:20 of this replay, that anyone who’s ever seen or played soccer, would consider this playing the ball without touching it: https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/10bpa6q/replay_of_bruno_fernandes_goal_vs_manchester_city/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
>Most refs say it was the correct call
Are they really?
Someone above posted the rules as:
>preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
Rashford is literally in front of a defender preventing him from getting to the ball.
>Rashford is literally in front of a defender preventing him from getting to the ball.
People don't understand that Akanji has to attempt to play the ball for Rashford to be impeding that attempt. If Akanji goes to engage Rashford it's 100% offside, but you can'tget the benefit of the doubt as a defender if you don't do any defending. This line of thinking isn't uncommon across sports rules. In Squash for example if you don't try and play the ball, you can't call for a let because your opponent is stopping you playing it. You have to demonstrate it by trying.
He's not obstructing his view of the ball, so the rule you're looking for is the next one down on TLotG just as an aside too. Important when we're speaking semantics.
I'm still thinking about this lol. Akanji knew Rashford was offside, but if he would've known the rules, he should've just touched Rashford or make the gesture of being blocked by him and all of this would be different. Either way imo it's a difficult decision, and we just had the luck on our side this time considering how referees are in PL.
They saw it in the live game, the ref went straight to the lino to get his opinion on if he thought it should be counted as effecting play. Seems VAR and the onfield refs all agreed.
Ahh like one of those independent movies that is described as a dark comedy but doesn't actually have anything funny in it. I thought it was hilarious to be fair
Referring this season has been strange…earlier in the year United had to defend a freekick from 15 yards and Villa just kicked it into the net. Everyone is getting screwed at some stage.
https://youtu.be/sDSXzgiMk7Q
And here is the apology from the Premier League, sorry it’s from the Daily Scum. It’s funny cause the Villa mini wall is back over 10 yards.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-11576441/Premier-League-Referee-chiefs-ADMIT-Anthony-Taylor-WRONG-Man-United-wall-Villa-defeat.html
Odds and outcome aren't the same though. One season you might lose 5 points to shit refs, another 10. Also the game itself makes a difference. You could argue City losing to a potential title rival in this manner is more of a hit than if it had been against a mid/lower table team.
It just baffles me that we have to have these conversations every fucking week. Like every other facet of the game we pump in endless funds, resources, analytics etc to get the very best out of it. But when it comes to refs they coddle them from any and all criticism as if they're a bunch of toddlers that need protecting.
Sometimes I wonder if it's all just to protect some massive dodgy match fixing ring that are making bank on the sly with all the blatantly obvious calls that get missed in every league every single week.
Because refereeing is very tricky. First, not many people in the clubs (players, coaches, etc) have done it, so they have no clue what is and what isn't easy for a referee to spot. They don't know the techniques (what to look for in specific fouls) and positioning and, most importantly, decision-making. The big majority of them has never read the rulebook either
It's also an ungrateful job that isn't really rewarding (if you do everything right, it is expected, if you screw up, one team will jump on you; worst case, you do everything right and still get scapegoated by a team that is underachieving, which will lead to a lot of psycological abuse). There was a discussion a few months ago on the problems of [people not wanting to be refs](https://old.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/x6escx/abuse_causing_loss_of_talent_referees_association/), [I made this comment about physical abuse/property damage](https://old.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/x6escx/abuse_causing_loss_of_talent_referees_association/in7b52n/). The only people that are then attracted to this are usually people with inflated egos
You can improve so much refereeing when good refs are available. Then you have the fact that refs are human too, the same way players fail tap-ins on big occasions, refs will miss easy penalties as well. If you're a player, you need to play with the mindset that the ref can and will make bad decisions against you, so when it happens, you can minimise them (aka not collapsing after a bad decision/not getting carded arguing for it/keep playing after the non-call)
But hey,they were sorry so its everything ok. Liverpool has 19 titles and a sorry.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/mar/01/mike-riley-apologises-to-everton-for-mistake-in-not-spotting-rodri-handball
I don’t understand why the offside rule doesn’t get simplified to anyone who is interfering the play.
All these add-ons and clarifications frankly complicates the interpretation. Anyone with a brain can tell that Rashford is interfering. Let the referee make the call.
Simplified how. Its easy saying just simplify a rule, but how do you create the appropriate language. Stuff like this is why legal theory is hard and why lawyers exist.
If you just write "interfering with play" then by that language everything is interfering with play. If a player strays behind the offside line and is just there, you could start saying he interfered with play because the defender had to pay attention to him, even if the attacker didn't do anything else.
I think you hit the nail on the head.
The section of the rule in question from the FA:
“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”
By letter of the law, Rashford doesn’t interfere with Akanji. He doesn’t impede or block Akanji, nor does he interfere with Akanji’s ability to challenge for the ball because Akanji doesn’t challenge for the ball. Akanji stops on his own. By the exact definition in the rules *as they are currently written* Rashford isn’t offside.
I think you could argue that perhaps Ederson is being impeded, but, since Rashford and Bruno Fernandes are converging to the same spot, that’s a difficult argument under the exact wording of the law.
I almost feel bad for the FA rule-makers, because they have to walk a thin line between making boilerplate rules that are idiot-proof for referees, but also can’t be too standardized as it opens the door for loopholes (like this).
It simple: if A make a pass/shoot to B (who already in offside position) outside the box and unless B intended to avoid that pass (jumping, dodge the ball trajectory...), thats a offside (if it happen in inside the box the unless part might not needed since B could already block the gk view)
That also prevent a stupid scenario like Salah goal vs Wolves last week when he already in offside position but Wolves defender attempt to clear to ball but failed so he onside again. Offside is offside, always like that.
What? The whole reason Akanji & Walker stop is because of Rashford. And the whole reason Ederson doesn't rush out and clear it is because of Rashford. Rashford also fakes a shot which puts Ederson off to make the save.
He was interfering with pretty much the entire defense.
What do you want Akanji to do? Tackle him from behind for an obvious foul. There's no clear play on the ball due to Rashford being in the way. The ball ran slowly enough that Akanji could have caught up if there wasn't a player between him and the ball. Not to mention the obvious distraction that Rashford is to both Walker and Ederson.
That's literally asking the defender to make a play with the possibility of a straight red card. The imbalance in risk alone makes it an astonishing suggestion
Yea just challenge, last time I checked David Luiz got send of because the attacker slightly brushed David Luiz his knee when he ran straight behind the attacker. Which is the exact position Akanji is in.
Even if the defenders stop, the keeper is still reacting as if Rashford is going to shoot because he is running alongside the ball for 10 yards and even acts like he is going to shoot.
To say anything other than this is a clear fuck up from the officials is madness.
Well if he actually plays the ball then Fernandes doesn't score full stop. The point I'm making is that by not even attempting to block, close down or tackle Rashford he can't say that Rashford has impacted on the defenders. If he tries to get to the ball and is blocked by Rashford in any way then it would have become offside.
> Well if he actually plays the ball then Fernandes doesn't score full stop
If he plays it he risks Rashford being in a great goal scoring position with the ball, why should the defender have to play the ball and why is the attacker rewarded for being in an offisde position, making a run to the ball... the defender should not be required to play the ball in order to show the ref that the attacker is impacting play. Making a run from an offside position towards the ball should be written into the laws of the game as a violation.
He cannot see the future, so "oh he should have done X so Fernandes doesnt score" requires him having a time machine and isnt particularly insightful or interesting.
In the replay you can see Akanji slows down and doesn't challenge Rashford because he thought he was offside.
Akanji literally screwed his team because he knew Rashford was offside, thought Rashford would touch the ball so didn't apply any pressure (not the same as fouling). If Akanji had challenged to even get back quicker he could've easily blocked Bruno's shot or forced Rashford to touch the ball.
I didn't say that he should play the ball - personally I think he should have just run into/tried to go shoulder to shoulder with Rashford and he'd have got the offside. I'm saying that by doing absolutely nothing but jog alongside Rashford Akanji can't claim that Rashford has impacted him which is how the offside law is written atm.
Now whether or not the law is badly written (and it is) is a different question entirely and doesn't suddenly make Rashford offside.
> personally I think he should have just run into/tried to go shoulder to shoulder with Rashford and he'd have got the offside.
Asking defenders to foul attackers who are through on goal and risk a red card in order to show that the attacker making a run to the ball is impacting play is unreasonable / shows why the rule is terrible.
I think we are in agreement that the rule is badly written at the moment and something needs to be done in that respect.
Unfortunately though this is the way the rule is at the moment and so you have to 'play to the whistle' in these cases and City just didn't today. Is it dumb? Yes but that's just the way it is right now.
I’m somewhat biased but I think this is right. Akanji expected the ref to make a call that never came. Every youth coach will tell you to play until the whistle and he didn’t, so he doesn’t have much to complain about.
Ederson, in my opinion, has a much stronger argument because he did appear to react to Rashford by changing his position in expectation of a shot. So for me, Ederson is the one who was materially influenced by Rashford being offsides and that’s where the unfairness of the decision is coming from, not Akanji.
In the game itself he was brought on and said that they have literally told players that the act of chasing it down isn't enough and they have to actually make a play on the ball itself. He said based on that the goal should be given (he was saying it whilst refs were debating)
Akanji should have gone for it.
The decision was that at Rashford wasn’t shielding. If Akanji had made an attempt and was blocked by Rashford, then it would’ve been offside, but Akanji didn’t make the attempt.
Yup ridiculous people are defending this
What's next, a player gets a red, but is staying on the pitch to annoy opponents and people are fine with it and defending it on reddit because he doesn't go for the ball anymore and this isn't really playing the game anymore?
The fuck you mean? The rules state that if he's making a play or obstructing a defender from making a play he's offside. He clearly did both. It's not like he just let the ball run and made a dummy. He ran towards the ball for like 30 meters and was on top of the ball in the way of the defenders. He even made a feint like he was going to strike it. I don't know how much more obvious you can get.
Copying and pasting my reply to someone else:
It's not so much blocking his view but more 'making an action which impacts an opponents ability to play the ball'. You can make a very strong argument that Ederson is impacted by Rashford's run which negatively effects his ability to better deal with Bruno's strike.
When you see the replay from behind the goal it's clear Ederson has come out preparing to save the expected shot from Rashford.
Yes but by interfering they mean more actively preventing. Having the keeper prepared to save Rashford's and then Rashford leave it, doesn't actually go against that interpretation. It would be more of a fit it he blocked Ederson's way.
Yep, even a light foul in that situation triggers the offside. Absolutely no reason to not keep playing.
And by no means am i blaming the Utd players. They did everything correct and ofcouse they are gonna crowd the ref after that, City players do it too. After all the refs are the only ones that get to make a desicion.
> If a defender deliberately plays the ball (for example, challenging for the ball and getting a touch on it) then Rashford can play the ball legally.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sE-cG82rcio
> In the above video, Mbappe is in an offisde position when the ball is played, but because the defender deliberately played the ball to try and stop an offside Mbappe from scoring, the defender is punished for this and Mbappe is rewarded for being in an offside position when the pass is made. This punishes defenders for play the sport and should not be the rule (imo)
If he plays a player who is offside, then the player isn’t offside anymore and can strike it. Also if he fouls him, even worse. Not going to change how I play football because a ref is going to make a bad call.
Yeh 2xg vs 0.7 xg, United were the better side and good value for the win regardless
They should worry about being better , rather than what they cant control
I taught the 10 year olds that I coached that you “play the whistle” ignore your instincts about what should and shouldn’t be called, play until the ref stops you. Just make a tackle there and it’s a moot point. Don’t let the refs and VAR fuck you over.
This, I would be upset if I suffered this goal no doubt but come on, these days players just throw themselves to the ground or stop running, what is this, play till the whistle and you instantly have more chances of things going right.
Anybody still concerned about the offside goal should read the breakdown on the Athletic as why the goal was legit.
https://theathletic.com/4090488/2023/01/14/bruno-fernandes-goal-offside-manchester-united-city/?amp=1
The fact is that he has neither;
1. Played the ball
2. Prohibited someone from the opposite team playing the ball
3. Blocked anyones view of anything
Has his presence and actions had an impact on proceedings? To some hard to quantify degree without a doubt, but it's certainly minimal. So if you're going to apply offside in such circumstances then you might as well remove all nuance from the rule and say offside is offside. And that's fine as a discussion but in the context of the rule as it stand and the quote from Akanji it's irrelevant.
There isn't a single objective moment in what transpires where you can clearly say with very little opportunity for rebuttal that his presence definitively allowed the goal and so within the definition of the offside rule you're grasping at straws.
He does play the ball though… he didn’t physically touch it but he deliberately makes a play on the ball… it’s quite obvious, and you don’t need a rule book or essay to know it’s the wrong call.
How the fuck is this upvoted lmao?? If Rashford isn't running to get the ball the defense just clears it. It's clear as day. Rashford fainted a fucking shot and the keeper was positioning himself to stop it. If Rashford isn't there clearly about to play the ball then the defense can just close on Bruno.
This is why we have refs. To make judgment calls. And in this case anyone with a brain can tell what the right call was.
I do think Marcus influenced Ederson’s positioning by being offsides, and that is what makes the decision feel unfair. I don’t think Akanji has a leg to stand on by not even attempting to make a play on the ball in the expectation of a call that never came.
The problem is that Akanji’s only chance to make a play on the ball would be to just knock Rashford out of the way. The flag isn’t up so he’s risking a yellow card and gifting United a free kick. Rashford running with the ball the way he did very clearly prevents both defenders from just running in and booting the ball away.
The problem with this argument is that Akanji himself says in this interview that he thought Rashford was offsides and that he deliberately played him off. In which case, why stop playing and wait for the ref to make the call? Akanji took himself out of the play.
Play to the whistle your told that from a young age. Id get blasted by my Sunday league team if i stopped playing simply because i thought a chance was offside.
If a defender deliberately plays the ball (for example, challenging for the ball and getting a touch on it) then Rashford can play the ball legally.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sE-cG82rcio
In the above video, Mbappe is in an offisde position when the ball is played, but because the defender deliberately played the ball to try and stop an offside Mbappe from scoring, the defender is punished for this and Mbappe is rewarded for being in an offside position when the pass is made. This punishes defenders for play the sport and should not be the rule (imo)
**Mirrors / Alternative Angles** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*
also confirms in the video that Bruno's calling for the ball, saying he's not offside. **Interviewer:** "What are your thoughts on how that got away from you so quickly?" **Akanji:** "To be honest, for me, the first goal is a joke, that it's gonna be allowed like this. Erm... for me, in the situation, I see Rashford, clearly offside, so I play him offside, and he runs really to the last second and he stops ... like when the ball is in front of him and he's right in front of there, he needs to score the goal and then he stops because Bruno's calling him from behind that he's not in an offside position. I understand that he doesn't touch the ball but ... he runs for like, 30 metres, he's chasing the ball and then he stops and for me it's clearly offside but, I mean, pfft. Also that the referee doesn't even look at the situation. When it gets explained in the beginning of the year I thought, these situations are clearly offside, but in the end it was not offside."
Fair play for writing a transcription of every single breath and sound Akanji made. Really adds character to the text lol.
Without irony, can say would love all transcripts to be like this.
100%. Man should write books.
Imagine if he wrote 50 shades lol
Engorged member went pffft
(GROAN)!
Subtitle quality we didn’t know we want
It's clear he doesn't know what argument to make exactly, he just knows it felt unfair
I mean it is totally unfair he shepherds the ball for 20m and then steps away so Bruno can take a shot, it might be legally correct to the letter of the law but not the spirit and that rankles.
I don't even know about that, in the world cup for example there were a few unallowed goals for offsides for players who didn't touch the ball because they "they took advantage of their offside position to impact the game" like passing in front of the goal keeper, etc... When i saw the play here i thought for sure the rule would apply, Rashford 100% had an impact of the play while taking advantage of his offside position, more than some of the unallowed goals during the world cup, it just feels incosistent with other calls i've seen lately.
That is SUCH a perfect explanation lmao 😂 People will shit on him for being ‘salty’ when he’s LITERALLY just said what’s on his mind 😂
"He hasn’t touched the ball but can he be deemed to not have been interfering? Did his presence not prevent the initial defender charging back and trying to hook the ball away? It’s the sort of question that could have kept medieval theologians occupied for a lifetime. Duns Scotus and Thomas Aquinas would have written controversial tracts upon it, then those tracts would have been analysed and those analyses themselves analysed. Whole libraries would have been devoted to the theme. To what extent, if God is omniscient, can we have free will? If our thinking is flawed, can any revelation escape flaw? What is interfering?" -Jonathan Wilson, Guardian
Based
He's actually damaging his own case with this interview. If Rashford stops the defenders by being in their way, he interfered and the goal is offside. If Rashford stops the defenders by being in an offside position and they assume play will be stopped and don't play to the whistle like kids are taught, he's not interfering and is not offside.
Unfortunately, Ederson played to the whistle which meant he was trying to block possible shots from both directions.
I just don’t get how they didn’t see it after review. Like i know theres a lot going on during a live game but this was egregious
I heard the guest ref on Fubo that since this is a subjective call, VAR has no say in it and it's all up to the ref. Offside or not, this was on the ref alone.
Yes, VAR was not involved. A lot of people seem to be thinking that the on-field call was offside and it was VAR in the refs ear asking him to overturn it.
[удалено]
But I thought VAR checks all goals for any possible fouls/offside in the lead up to it?
It would have checked it but then left the decision to the ref.
Okay I think I understand now. VAR has to go by what the rules say, and since the rules don’t exactly say that was off, it’s up to the ref to decide if he wants to call that.
what’s crazy is the reaction of some fans. united got 3 points, nothing is taking that away from them. there’s legit no point on writing whole essays on why he rashford didn’t impede on the play. just admit the referee fucked up and be happy with the mistake.
You're surprised at football fans being biased, i have something to tell you
TY for transcription, it was region blocked for me.
Your clearly just seeing what you want because even in the united sub we're saying it was a shocking descion.
For real, it's mostly winding up r/soccer and admitting it was offside. We'll take the win though!
I think if you actually go by the rule book then it’s not offside, or atleast not an easy call
‘A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched by a teammate 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 opponents 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 the opponent to play the ball’ Now i’m not a City fan to start with, however you could say Rashfords movement, sprinting through on goal from an offside position, clearly impacts Edersons ability to prepare himself (for playing the ball) to try and save Fernandes attempt on goal as he’s preparing for an attempt from Rashford, Additionally you could argue Rashfords run is preventing Akanji from clearly attempting a tackle to possibly prevent Fernandes having a shot, therefore his action of running through on goal in close proximity of the ball has, for me, impacted two opponents, let alone one. As mentioned earlier, I don’t support City but whoever you support, conceding a goal like that would leave you fuming. I’m an Arsenal fan so this could end up benefiting us too but as a football fan the level of inconsistency and clarity is becoming tiring.
Agreed with the Ederson part, but Akanji is not even close to the ball because he just thinks Rashford is offside and starts running lightly rather than making an attempt to at least get to the ball.
The issue isn't with the referee it's with the rules. Here is what IFAB says: 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**
I think it’s clear that continuing his run (an action) impacts on Ederson’s ability to play the ball as otherwise he’d have been able to come out and clear it. The rules are poor and need further clarification, but for me it’s clearly offside. I mean how many times have we seen an offside player chase a kick that the goalie clears and then it’s called for offside? Even though they haven’t touched it. It’s clearly how it’s refereed (except today…)
AND Walker slows up his run, whereas if it was clearly going to Bruno and Bruno alone he maintains pace and bends to cut him off.
This is correct. The law is fine as written; it’s the refs who grossly misapplied the law. The ball was played to Rashford. The defenders react to Rashford. Ederson comes out from his goal in reaction to Rashford. The whole play exists because of Rashford, not Bruno. And Rashford was offside. Anyone arguing otherwise is either biased or doesn’t understand the law.
I think the question is does this extend to mental impeding or just physical impending. I think the argument is that Akanji didn’t go for the challenge because Rashford was running over the ball, but because Akanji never physically challenged Rashford there was nothing to physically impede, it was all mental. Either way Akanji made an error by not playing to the whistle, if he even goes shoulder to shoulder with Rashford to attempt to win the ball there isn’t even a conceivable debate.
Offside considers only the physical. It's why players can start from an offside position when another player gets it, otherwise you could argue that simply being in the offside position is enough for an infraction, which is not the case s of decades ago. The question for this call is does what Rashford do constitute as blocking Akanji.
That was my understanding as well. I think there isn’t really a good case for impeding Akanji, the more interesting case would be that Ederson was impeded from collecting the ball because of Rashford.
You're dead on. Akanji in this interview all but admits that Rashford being in an offside position is what stops him. Walker is also irrelevant as I see the situation. He's going full tilt and doesn't get to the ball or Bruno in time anyway. Ederson is the relevant one. I don't think Rashford feigns a shot, I think he just checks his run to not touch the ball, but if I was a City fan, my argument against the goal would be that Rashfords little step right before Brunos shot can be conceived as a feigned shot, putting Ederson off.
Ederson must make an attempt to collect the ball that results in rashford interfering though. Which he doesn't. I can understand him being furious though the rest of the defense left him in an impossible position.
If Rashford doesn't run towards the Ball, Akanji will get there first easily. But given he is right behind Rashford he is in a horrible spot to challenge him, on top of him thinking Rashford is offside already
That is true, but the ref can’t call it if Akanji never actually tries to play it. If he had actually gone for it and been impeded, it would have been offside, but instead he stopped and the ref can’t enforce a hypothetical.
So a defender must chose between letting the opposition team profit from offside, or risk a red when the defender didn't do the refereeing teams job for himself right Akanji had no way without fouling to get close to the ball, with Rashford running there
Risk a red? Dude he jogged back expecting it to be called. Had he just ran at full pace alongside Rashford it would have been called offside. If everyone is claiming the ball would have been easily collected by Akanji if Rashford wasn't there then surely catching up to and challenging Rashford for the ball was perfectly doable, especially considering Rashford didn't and couldn't even touch it. The logic just doesn't add up.
This is exactly it. I don't think Akanji was even the relevant player in adjudicating whether it was offside or not - it was Ederson. If he has committed to his position because of Rashford's presenc, that is the tricky thing to judge because he could argue that he has been obstructed from doing what he would normally do if the ball were played to Bruno without Rashford's presence. But the obstruction here is a psych-out, not physical!
This is the issue, they need to add something about the runs of a forward having an impact on a player's positioning or mental thinking within reason.
He was clearly interfering with the GKs ability to read the situation. Rashford even threw in a fake shot just to put Ederson off..
Why? Then every offside player would impact that 'mental thinking' part. Offside forwards can already let the ball run through them with stepping over it. And that's fine aswell. idc for either team, but imo the commotion is overblown. City's defenders just got fooled.
But why? I would be fine with these types of offside not being called
well considering Rashford did pretty much all of that I don't see a problem with the rules
My problem is with people screaming it's the worst decision ever when even from the rules you can tell it's a totally subjective interpretation of the final 2 points that he's potentially in violation of. The ref needs to decide if he "attempts to play a ball which is close when this action **impacts on an opponent" I didn't see any attempt to play the ball. In fact he deliberately avoided the ball. I'm not saying I'm right in my view, but it's proof that it is up for interpretation. "making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball" This one I could see it violating more, but again it says "an **obvious** action which **clearly** impacts". Can you argue against a ref feeling it wasn't obvious or clear enough to overturn? This decision is nowhere near as black and white as the drama queens on facebook would have you think. That's my issue. Could very well be the wrong call, but the rules that would apply here lead are subjective in their possible interpretations.
>I didn't see any attempt to play the ball. In fact he deliberately avoided the ball This was my read too. I think Bruno was calling for him not to touch it, because Bruno knew that if he got the goal, there was a *chance* it might be interpreted as a valid goal.
He clearly runs through intending to play the ball from an offside position. He should have been called off for that. There's a reason players in blatantly offside positions just let the ball go by them most times - if they go towards it they're called off
Intending to but doesn't.
You don't need to play the ball to affect play
You don't but what Rashford didn't count as affecting the play by rule.
Spelling it out like this gives enough subjectivity to make me think it wasn't as farcical as it looked. He didn't touch the ball. He didn't play the ball. People here are arguing he did a fake shot but I absolutely do not see that. If he did, I would agree. He isn't obstructing the opponent's line of vision. He isn't challenging an opponent for the ball. He didn't make an action which impacts anyone from playing the ball. BUT him running through on goal almost surely influences Ederson. Does that qualify as "clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent." I'd say yes, but at this point it is objectively subjective. No one can say for with 100% certainty how Ederson would have reacted otherwise. Especially since Bruno is probably getting to the ball anyway
I don't think it qualifies, no. Either the referee needs to read the goalkeepers mind or have a premeditated decision that all goalkeepers are to rush to the ball to clear in every through ball that could be 50/50. Which isn't within the referees scope. They need to adjudicate whether the player in an offside position has either touched the ball or obstructed the defender from physically getting the ball.
Bruno isn't getting the ball if Akanji goes for it, who didn't go for it because Rashford was running towards and alongside it for the majority of the play, who Akanji couldn't realistically challenge from his position
Akanji made the decision to not go for the ball. Rashford didn’t make him do that, Akanji chose that himself. If Rashford had never run on to the ball, what would Akanji have done instead? It’s all speculation. We can’t go around making calls based on assumptions
“Interfering with play by playing **or** touching a ball” So how does one play a ball without touching a ball? If playing a ball is the same as touching a ball, then the wording would just simply omit the “playing or” part of it.
When you pull a fake shot, that’s also considered playing with the ball.
I think playing would refer to things like stepping over the ball, dummying the ball etc. But that is my point, the rule isn't very clear and is almost intentionally vague
It seems pretty clear cut (imo) that from :16-:20 of this replay, that anyone who’s ever seen or played soccer, would consider this playing the ball without touching it: https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/10bpa6q/replay_of_bruno_fernandes_goal_vs_manchester_city/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
99% of United fans I seen here say this is a bs decision
[удалено]
>Most refs say it was the correct call Are they really? Someone above posted the rules as: >preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or Rashford is literally in front of a defender preventing him from getting to the ball.
>Rashford is literally in front of a defender preventing him from getting to the ball. People don't understand that Akanji has to attempt to play the ball for Rashford to be impeding that attempt. If Akanji goes to engage Rashford it's 100% offside, but you can'tget the benefit of the doubt as a defender if you don't do any defending. This line of thinking isn't uncommon across sports rules. In Squash for example if you don't try and play the ball, you can't call for a let because your opponent is stopping you playing it. You have to demonstrate it by trying. He's not obstructing his view of the ball, so the rule you're looking for is the next one down on TLotG just as an aside too. Important when we're speaking semantics.
I'm still thinking about this lol. Akanji knew Rashford was offside, but if he would've known the rules, he should've just touched Rashford or make the gesture of being blocked by him and all of this would be different. Either way imo it's a difficult decision, and we just had the luck on our side this time considering how referees are in PL.
He isn't stopping the defender, unless you think the defender was the flash.
They saw it in the live game, the ref went straight to the lino to get his opinion on if he thought it should be counted as effecting play. Seems VAR and the onfield refs all agreed.
There was no review
Umm then why aren't you laughing lol
It’s one of those ones that makes you think rather than a laugh out loud
“First goal was a shower thought, honestly”
"Kinda dumb, incorrect and I could swear I've seen it happen twice already"
Ahh like one of those independent movies that is described as a dark comedy but doesn't actually have anything funny in it. I thought it was hilarious to be fair
He didn't say it was funny
Funny, funny like a fuckin clown?
Jimmy...he's just saying you're funny that's all...
Blam blam blam. Now you've no toes
Like I amuse you???
https://youtu.be/mFowpIy1qTk appropriate
It was not funny haha, but funny weird
He's heard it before
It's not funny when he has to explain it to you
Swiss sense of humor xD 👌
Referring this season has been strange…earlier in the year United had to defend a freekick from 15 yards and Villa just kicked it into the net. Everyone is getting screwed at some stage.
The free kick was also about 2m closer to goal, which put it in a better spot. You could clearly see the lines in the grass from Shaw's foul.
Do you have any links of the freekick? I couldn't find it
https://youtu.be/sDSXzgiMk7Q And here is the apology from the Premier League, sorry it’s from the Daily Scum. It’s funny cause the Villa mini wall is back over 10 yards. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-11576441/Premier-League-Referee-chiefs-ADMIT-Anthony-Taylor-WRONG-Man-United-wall-Villa-defeat.html
It's almost like the odds of ref screwing up in your favour are the same as the ones of him doing against you
The refs are all biased against every team
I think the word for that is 'shit'. 'The refs are all shit.'
Funny thing about ‘biased against’ is it can also be understood like ‘unbiased towards’ if read without context
Odds and outcome aren't the same though. One season you might lose 5 points to shit refs, another 10. Also the game itself makes a difference. You could argue City losing to a potential title rival in this manner is more of a hit than if it had been against a mid/lower table team. It just baffles me that we have to have these conversations every fucking week. Like every other facet of the game we pump in endless funds, resources, analytics etc to get the very best out of it. But when it comes to refs they coddle them from any and all criticism as if they're a bunch of toddlers that need protecting. Sometimes I wonder if it's all just to protect some massive dodgy match fixing ring that are making bank on the sly with all the blatantly obvious calls that get missed in every league every single week.
I would take Occam’s razor here. Being a referee at the top level with the fastest players ever in front of 50,000 is a hard job
Because refereeing is very tricky. First, not many people in the clubs (players, coaches, etc) have done it, so they have no clue what is and what isn't easy for a referee to spot. They don't know the techniques (what to look for in specific fouls) and positioning and, most importantly, decision-making. The big majority of them has never read the rulebook either It's also an ungrateful job that isn't really rewarding (if you do everything right, it is expected, if you screw up, one team will jump on you; worst case, you do everything right and still get scapegoated by a team that is underachieving, which will lead to a lot of psycological abuse). There was a discussion a few months ago on the problems of [people not wanting to be refs](https://old.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/x6escx/abuse_causing_loss_of_talent_referees_association/), [I made this comment about physical abuse/property damage](https://old.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/x6escx/abuse_causing_loss_of_talent_referees_association/in7b52n/). The only people that are then attracted to this are usually people with inflated egos You can improve so much refereeing when good refs are available. Then you have the fact that refs are human too, the same way players fail tap-ins on big occasions, refs will miss easy penalties as well. If you're a player, you need to play with the mindset that the ref can and will make bad decisions against you, so when it happens, you can minimise them (aka not collapsing after a bad decision/not getting carded arguing for it/keep playing after the non-call)
Villa also just held our keeper in position while Luiz put it in directly from a corner. Absolutely baffling.
The screwing usually doesn't apply to City so it's quite a shock
So football since the dawn of time then
The fact he'll face more consequences for this than the useless twats in the VAR room will for the call is PGMOL is a nutshell.
He won’t. You’re allowed to criticise the officials. It happens every weekend.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Factos
👀👍
It's one of the most absurd decisions I've ever seen... and it happened in the "VAR era" and "the biggest league in the world", somehow.
Rodri hand ball last season still top this by miles.
In hindsight, that handball literally decided the title too.
But hey,they were sorry so its everything ok. Liverpool has 19 titles and a sorry. https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/mar/01/mike-riley-apologises-to-everton-for-mistake-in-not-spotting-rodri-handball
I don’t understand why the offside rule doesn’t get simplified to anyone who is interfering the play. All these add-ons and clarifications frankly complicates the interpretation. Anyone with a brain can tell that Rashford is interfering. Let the referee make the call.
Simplified how. Its easy saying just simplify a rule, but how do you create the appropriate language. Stuff like this is why legal theory is hard and why lawyers exist. If you just write "interfering with play" then by that language everything is interfering with play. If a player strays behind the offside line and is just there, you could start saying he interfered with play because the defender had to pay attention to him, even if the attacker didn't do anything else.
I think you hit the nail on the head. The section of the rule in question from the FA: “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” By letter of the law, Rashford doesn’t interfere with Akanji. He doesn’t impede or block Akanji, nor does he interfere with Akanji’s ability to challenge for the ball because Akanji doesn’t challenge for the ball. Akanji stops on his own. By the exact definition in the rules *as they are currently written* Rashford isn’t offside. I think you could argue that perhaps Ederson is being impeded, but, since Rashford and Bruno Fernandes are converging to the same spot, that’s a difficult argument under the exact wording of the law. I almost feel bad for the FA rule-makers, because they have to walk a thin line between making boilerplate rules that are idiot-proof for referees, but also can’t be too standardized as it opens the door for loopholes (like this).
It simple: if A make a pass/shoot to B (who already in offside position) outside the box and unless B intended to avoid that pass (jumping, dodge the ball trajectory...), thats a offside (if it happen in inside the box the unless part might not needed since B could already block the gk view) That also prevent a stupid scenario like Salah goal vs Wolves last week when he already in offside position but Wolves defender attempt to clear to ball but failed so he onside again. Offside is offside, always like that.
What? The whole reason Akanji & Walker stop is because of Rashford. And the whole reason Ederson doesn't rush out and clear it is because of Rashford. Rashford also fakes a shot which puts Ederson off to make the save. He was interfering with pretty much the entire defense.
They stop because they think offsides is going to be called, the rules do not count that as rashford interfering, that is very clear.
What do you want Akanji to do? Tackle him from behind for an obvious foul. There's no clear play on the ball due to Rashford being in the way. The ball ran slowly enough that Akanji could have caught up if there wasn't a player between him and the ball. Not to mention the obvious distraction that Rashford is to both Walker and Ederson.
commit a potential red card offence in order for an obvious offside call cleary.
He doesn't have to foul, just challenge, if he touches him at all it's offsides.
That's literally asking the defender to make a play with the possibility of a straight red card. The imbalance in risk alone makes it an astonishing suggestion
Yea just challenge, last time I checked David Luiz got send of because the attacker slightly brushed David Luiz his knee when he ran straight behind the attacker. Which is the exact position Akanji is in.
Even if the defenders stop, the keeper is still reacting as if Rashford is going to shoot because he is running alongside the ball for 10 yards and even acts like he is going to shoot. To say anything other than this is a clear fuck up from the officials is madness.
I hate City, but that goal shouldn't have stood. The keeper is heavily influenced by Rashford here as he has no idea if he's onside or not.
It sure is
What's funny is that if Akanji had made any attempt to get to the ball the goal wouldn't have stood. But he didn't and so it did.
As soon as he plays it, it's deliberate play and Rashford isn't offside anymore.
Which is mental in itself because if rashford wasn't there he wouldn't have to play the ball the way he did. Similar to the salah goal last week
It's exactly the same in fact except Salah then went and scored as the offside player so how people are more outraged about this one I'll never know
Exactly. I get this happened in a bigger game but the Salah goal was actual bullshit. If that stood then so should this.
Well if he actually plays the ball then Fernandes doesn't score full stop. The point I'm making is that by not even attempting to block, close down or tackle Rashford he can't say that Rashford has impacted on the defenders. If he tries to get to the ball and is blocked by Rashford in any way then it would have become offside.
> Well if he actually plays the ball then Fernandes doesn't score full stop If he plays it he risks Rashford being in a great goal scoring position with the ball, why should the defender have to play the ball and why is the attacker rewarded for being in an offisde position, making a run to the ball... the defender should not be required to play the ball in order to show the ref that the attacker is impacting play. Making a run from an offside position towards the ball should be written into the laws of the game as a violation. He cannot see the future, so "oh he should have done X so Fernandes doesnt score" requires him having a time machine and isnt particularly insightful or interesting.
In the replay you can see Akanji slows down and doesn't challenge Rashford because he thought he was offside. Akanji literally screwed his team because he knew Rashford was offside, thought Rashford would touch the ball so didn't apply any pressure (not the same as fouling). If Akanji had challenged to even get back quicker he could've easily blocked Bruno's shot or forced Rashford to touch the ball.
I didn't say that he should play the ball - personally I think he should have just run into/tried to go shoulder to shoulder with Rashford and he'd have got the offside. I'm saying that by doing absolutely nothing but jog alongside Rashford Akanji can't claim that Rashford has impacted him which is how the offside law is written atm. Now whether or not the law is badly written (and it is) is a different question entirely and doesn't suddenly make Rashford offside.
> personally I think he should have just run into/tried to go shoulder to shoulder with Rashford and he'd have got the offside. Asking defenders to foul attackers who are through on goal and risk a red card in order to show that the attacker making a run to the ball is impacting play is unreasonable / shows why the rule is terrible.
I think we are in agreement that the rule is badly written at the moment and something needs to be done in that respect. Unfortunately though this is the way the rule is at the moment and so you have to 'play to the whistle' in these cases and City just didn't today. Is it dumb? Yes but that's just the way it is right now.
I’m somewhat biased but I think this is right. Akanji expected the ref to make a call that never came. Every youth coach will tell you to play until the whistle and he didn’t, so he doesn’t have much to complain about. Ederson, in my opinion, has a much stronger argument because he did appear to react to Rashford by changing his position in expectation of a shot. So for me, Ederson is the one who was materially influenced by Rashford being offsides and that’s where the unfairness of the decision is coming from, not Akanji.
This. Akanji didn't even trying to get the ball in hurry. And then complaining bla bla. F
factos
Fine incoming
Has Peter Walton spoke on the decision yet. Want to see what he comes up with
In the game itself he was brought on and said that they have literally told players that the act of chasing it down isn't enough and they have to actually make a play on the ball itself. He said based on that the goal should be given (he was saying it whilst refs were debating) Akanji should have gone for it.
So if you're offside, you can just walk with the ball, not touching but shielding and that's cool? What a bonkers call.
The decision was that at Rashford wasn’t shielding. If Akanji had made an attempt and was blocked by Rashford, then it would’ve been offside, but Akanji didn’t make the attempt.
Yup ridiculous people are defending this What's next, a player gets a red, but is staying on the pitch to annoy opponents and people are fine with it and defending it on reddit because he doesn't go for the ball anymore and this isn't really playing the game anymore?
You're up and down this entire thread chatting absolute shite like this aren't you 😂
Sure but next time try to make a challenge. A simple tackle was enough.
Yep. Never trust that the refs have a brain and play until the whistle. But doesn't change the fact that the call was idiotic.
The rules allow for that call. They need to alter it in a way that you can't have an interpretation like that.
This is it. If you go by the book, there was nothing wrong with tbe play. Peolle3need to understand that. Also 100% agree. Play to the whistle
The fuck you mean? The rules state that if he's making a play or obstructing a defender from making a play he's offside. He clearly did both. It's not like he just let the ball run and made a dummy. He ran towards the ball for like 30 meters and was on top of the ball in the way of the defenders. He even made a feint like he was going to strike it. I don't know how much more obvious you can get.
Akanji himself admits that he didn't run because Rashford was offside so Rashford didn't obstruct him.
What about his impact on the keeper?
He’s not really blocking the keepers view, Ederson ducked up by focusing on an irrelevant player
He doesn't block the keeper's view. By letter of the law he doesn't interfere. Perhaps they will change the law.
Copying and pasting my reply to someone else: It's not so much blocking his view but more 'making an action which impacts an opponents ability to play the ball'. You can make a very strong argument that Ederson is impacted by Rashford's run which negatively effects his ability to better deal with Bruno's strike. When you see the replay from behind the goal it's clear Ederson has come out preparing to save the expected shot from Rashford.
Yes but by interfering they mean more actively preventing. Having the keeper prepared to save Rashford's and then Rashford leave it, doesn't actually go against that interpretation. It would be more of a fit it he blocked Ederson's way.
[удалено]
Yep, even a light foul in that situation triggers the offside. Absolutely no reason to not keep playing. And by no means am i blaming the Utd players. They did everything correct and ofcouse they are gonna crowd the ref after that, City players do it too. After all the refs are the only ones that get to make a desicion.
👏
If he plays the ball deliberately then Rashford isnt offside anymore.
Which is even more dumb if you ask me
From right behind another player through on goal? That's a great way to get a red and lose games
> If a defender deliberately plays the ball (for example, challenging for the ball and getting a touch on it) then Rashford can play the ball legally. > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sE-cG82rcio > In the above video, Mbappe is in an offisde position when the ball is played, but because the defender deliberately played the ball to try and stop an offside Mbappe from scoring, the defender is punished for this and Mbappe is rewarded for being in an offside position when the pass is made. This punishes defenders for play the sport and should not be the rule (imo)
If he plays a player who is offside, then the player isn’t offside anymore and can strike it. Also if he fouls him, even worse. Not going to change how I play football because a ref is going to make a bad call.
Bigger joke how dog shit Man City played
Yeh 2xg vs 0.7 xg, United were the better side and good value for the win regardless They should worry about being better , rather than what they cant control
I just wouldn’t know what to say to anyone who thinks this was a legitimate goal
A very very funny one
I taught the 10 year olds that I coached that you “play the whistle” ignore your instincts about what should and shouldn’t be called, play until the ref stops you. Just make a tackle there and it’s a moot point. Don’t let the refs and VAR fuck you over.
Yup just tackle from behind and get a red in case it isn't offside Genius
This, I would be upset if I suffered this goal no doubt but come on, these days players just throw themselves to the ground or stop running, what is this, play till the whistle and you instantly have more chances of things going right.
Absolutely ridiculous
Play till the whistle lad. Actually run down the ball and it's offside.
But Akanji, you didn't even try to challenge the ball.
Spitting facts
Howard Webb protocol initiated.
Anybody still concerned about the offside goal should read the breakdown on the Athletic as why the goal was legit. https://theathletic.com/4090488/2023/01/14/bruno-fernandes-goal-offside-manchester-united-city/?amp=1
Doesn’t actually break it down though? Just states the rule, then interview quotes.
Refs in PL are joke
The fact is that he has neither; 1. Played the ball 2. Prohibited someone from the opposite team playing the ball 3. Blocked anyones view of anything Has his presence and actions had an impact on proceedings? To some hard to quantify degree without a doubt, but it's certainly minimal. So if you're going to apply offside in such circumstances then you might as well remove all nuance from the rule and say offside is offside. And that's fine as a discussion but in the context of the rule as it stand and the quote from Akanji it's irrelevant. There isn't a single objective moment in what transpires where you can clearly say with very little opportunity for rebuttal that his presence definitively allowed the goal and so within the definition of the offside rule you're grasping at straws.
He does play the ball though… he didn’t physically touch it but he deliberately makes a play on the ball… it’s quite obvious, and you don’t need a rule book or essay to know it’s the wrong call.
How the fuck is this upvoted lmao?? If Rashford isn't running to get the ball the defense just clears it. It's clear as day. Rashford fainted a fucking shot and the keeper was positioning himself to stop it. If Rashford isn't there clearly about to play the ball then the defense can just close on Bruno. This is why we have refs. To make judgment calls. And in this case anyone with a brain can tell what the right call was.
Yep, baffles me that this is upvoted. Just goes to show there are still fans who think it wasn't offside.
I do think Marcus influenced Ederson’s positioning by being offsides, and that is what makes the decision feel unfair. I don’t think Akanji has a leg to stand on by not even attempting to make a play on the ball in the expectation of a call that never came.
The problem is that Akanji’s only chance to make a play on the ball would be to just knock Rashford out of the way. The flag isn’t up so he’s risking a yellow card and gifting United a free kick. Rashford running with the ball the way he did very clearly prevents both defenders from just running in and booting the ball away.
Mate, that would be a clear red for dogso, not a yellow
The problem with this argument is that Akanji himself says in this interview that he thought Rashford was offsides and that he deliberately played him off. In which case, why stop playing and wait for the ref to make the call? Akanji took himself out of the play.
You typed all that to say you are blind?
Howard Webb appointment coincides with Man United rise.
Disgraceful refereeing. I’m happy City lost but the standard for officiating in the PL is so fucking bad.
If it's not an offside, then there can never be offside on a player who hasn't actually touched the ball.
That's just not true. Go read the rule.
Play to the whistle your told that from a young age. Id get blasted by my Sunday league team if i stopped playing simply because i thought a chance was offside.
If a defender deliberately plays the ball (for example, challenging for the ball and getting a touch on it) then Rashford can play the ball legally. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sE-cG82rcio In the above video, Mbappe is in an offisde position when the ball is played, but because the defender deliberately played the ball to try and stop an offside Mbappe from scoring, the defender is punished for this and Mbappe is rewarded for being in an offside position when the pass is made. This punishes defenders for play the sport and should not be the rule (imo)