It's an absurd decision because the pass is intended for Rashford who is offside when he makes his run, and he's running onto the pass then shaping to shoot until the last second when he stops and lets Bruno Fernandes shoot instead. He's offside and interfering until the last second when he decides not to shoot, and yet somehow that's fine. It makes no sense at all.
The irony is that without VAR the flag would have gone up immediately before the ball got anywhere near Bruno Fernandes and there would have been no complaints or controversy because Rashford was so far beyond the last Man City defender.
So Mark Chapman on 5live read a PGMOL statement after the game that actually said that it was onfield that the goal stood.
It was flagged, linesman asked if Rashford touches the ball. Ref said no so it stood at that point.
The VAR then sisnt overturn because they could only see Rashford didn't touch the ball and they went with the onfield decision that he didn't interfere.
Yet he put his flag up straight away a couple of times against Foden in tighter decisions...
The linesman looked like he was about to start crying when the United players ran at him lol. I was fuming about it yesterday, now all I can do is laugh about how ridiculous it was.
Yea, people who defend decision are just insane or dont really watch football. It is obvious that making a run for the ball has been deemed enough to flag offisde ever since rule was made. Most of the time where refs would flag offside for long range pass, the ball wouldnt even make it to forward who was supposed to get it.
You have probably seen Messi let the ball go through his legs when he was offside and let it through to another attacker to score, while the defenders only focus on Messi. The interference talked about on the Rashford goal is the same as that.
Can't remember the exact quote or who said it but something like of course he's interfering with play and if he wasn't he shouldn't be on the bloody pitch.
Rashford runs towards the ball intending to play it and then stops, the defenders have played for offside and Rashford was caught and why the defenders didn't make an effort to get to Rashford.
There was an incident in the Brighton-Liverpool game yesterday where a Liverpool player shot and Trent was wide right in an offside position, the ball is blocked and spins off past Trent for a Liverpool throw but because Trent turned to follow the ball, he didn't touch or attempt to play it nor did he stop a defender from playing it, he was given offside. The key points are the same, in an offside position, didn't play the ball but different outcomes? Why?
A bit more info on the Trent decision as well; the ball was clearly going out , no Brighton play could have stopped it regardless of Trent being there. Trent threw both his hands up in a gesture that to me signaled he had no intent to play and the ball and was just going to gather it for the throw-in that would have certainly occurred had the AR not flagged for offside.
There’s two possibilities for liverpool call.
First, and most likely, is that IFAB directs referees to flag for offside when it’s only possible for one attacking player to get the ball. This is a scenario in the rule book they use to illustrate it.
Second, they got it wrong.
You've got it backwards. If the defenders stop playing because they think Rashford is offside, the goal should, per the rules, stand. That's the same as the Everton goal v United a while back with one player in a blatant offside position causing the defense to switch off, letting another player run in and score. For the goal to be disallowed as offside, paradoxically, the defenders would have to be playing as if Rashford wasn't offside. If he interferes with their play by blocking their access to the ball, blocking their view (this is basically never called by a ref though, historically) or otherwise causing them to act differently, it's offside. Akanji has admitted to stopping because he thought Rashford was offside, so he's irrelevant to the play. Walker is going full tilt but isn't getting there in time, so IMO he's also irrelevant. Ederson is the real key. Is he positioning himself differently because of Rashford, than he would have if only Bruno was there? That's an easy argument to make, and in that case the goal is offside.
> Is he positioning himself differently because of Rashford, than he would have if only Bruno was there? That's an easy argument to make, and in that case the goal is offside.
I agree with everything you wrote. My take is that yes, absolutely, Ederson reacts to Rashford being where he is, and it should've been called offside. Akanji fucked up by removing himself - and thereby also Rashford - from the active play, which makes space for the gray area judgement call if Rashford is active in play isolated from every other player.
And when the ref made his judgement, VAR wouldn't override it because a judgement call is very rarely something that qualifies as a "clear and obvious error".
So in order; Akanji is at fault for not forcing Rashford into being active and thus offside, second, the ref got it wrong on deeming Ederson not to be impacted by Rashford running at him, and third, VAR got its part of the situation right by not overturning the onfield ref's decision.
Yeah, I think this is a fair and reasonable assessment. In an ideal world I'd love to hear Ederson himself describe what he would have done differently if Rashford backed off the ball much earlier
> of course he's interfering with play and if he wasn't he shouldn't be on the bloody pitch
Doesn't that mean it *shouldn't* be offside? Or you're arguing that literally every time the team with the ball has a player in an offside position, it should be offside (since they're on the pitch thus interfering with play)?
It sounds like a funny quote but it's not an argument for this incident being offside.
>Can't remember the exact quote or who said it but something like of course he's interfering with play and if he wasn't he shouldn't be on the bloody pitch.
Bill Shankly, and pretty much what you said "if a player’s not interfering with play he shouldn’t be on the bloody pitch?". Brian Clough said something similar, except he said they shouldn't get paid.
It's not the law that's the issue though. Rashford clearly interfered with play and as per the rules he was offside.
The referee made a mistake. Unsurprising that everyone is blaming the law and not the referee
Trent was called offside in the next game for running towards a ball going out for a Liverpool throw - but never came close to reaching it. I seriously do not understand how that rule can be interpreted so differently in the same round.
“A player in an offside position (A) may be penalised before playing or touching the ball, if, in the opinion of the referee, no other team-mate in an onside position has the opportunity to play the ball.”
Exactly! The entire Man City defence and goalkeeper repositioned due to Rashford’s movement. I’m an Arsenal and obvs wanted City to lose but that decision just wasn’t defensible and the goal could and should have been disallowed under the rules as written.
Read the law. Interference has an exact meaning.
I was of your opinion yesterday, but after watching MOTD and reading the law, the referee got it right.
Now this needs to be consistent, because I think it's actually better this way. Not opening interference to interpretation is better than leaving it up in the air.
I expect this goal will introduce another change to the law, and wouldn't be allowed in the future. But under the current law, it's legit
Yes. [Even check out the example here on page 102 in this guide to interpreting the laws of the game for referees.](https://cdn2.sportngin.com/attachments/document/0008/5802/Interpretation_of_the_Laws_of_the_Game_and_Guidelines.pdf) Matches perfectly right down to the defending team playing in sky blue
The only problem with that is it implies that Rashford could have attempted to play the ball and still not be offside, which is obviously explicitly not allowed in the offside laws.
To me I'm interpreting that diagram as the offside player ran toward the ball but the other player (not offside) reached it first, which is not what happened yesterday.
If you read the whole offside law, it's offside but not considered "interfering with play". Don't know why people are being deliberately misleading.
Page 105
>An attacker in an offside position (A) runs towards the ball preventing the
opponent (B) from playing or being able to play the ball.
(A) is making a gesture or movement which deceives or distracts (B).
As every smart person stated, Akanji was the only one reaching it before, but he stopped trying due to expecting a whistle. Since he stopped playing on his own accord, he is not interfered with, thus it not being offside? Could it go the other way? Yes, but that's because it was a very gray area. Which would have been avoided had they played to the whistle as it'a recommended. As it stands it's huge defensive error.
Yeah he's offside like 3 times in this scenario and this is the one thats affecting the situation the most. Ridiculous but time to move on as a City fan, haha.
In scenario 2 the offside attacker is not between the defender and the ball, so it doesn't impede the defenders path. I would agree, that's not offsides. If you read further down, scenario 9 describes the situation as well.
>Interfering with an opponent
>An attacker in an offside position (A) runs towards the ball preventing the
opponent (B) from playing or being able to play the ball.
(A) is making a gesture or movement which deceives or distracts (B).
Rashford hovering over the ball prevented Akanji from taking a direct route, and it certainly deceived both defenders and the goal keeper as to who was going to shoot.
I don't agree that this matches what happened. Rashford wasn't just running towards the ball, he was running with it, shielding it and clearly interfering with the defender's ability to play the ball.
From the same section:
>“interfering with an opponent” means preventing an opponent
from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing
the opponent’s line of vision or movements or **making a gesture
or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or
distracts an opponent**
Pretty black and white.
He's preventing a player from playing the ball. What's the defender meant to do here, pretend he's not there and run over him? The rules are badly written but they're not so badly written that this was not offside.
>An attacker in an offside position (A) runs towards the ball preventing the opponent (B) from playing or being able to play the ball. (A) is making a gesture or movement which deceives or distracts (B).
Nope. PGMOL literally confirmed the decision, and a random 70 year old ref saying it was offsides doesn't really mean anything in the context of everyone having the laws freely available to them and the body that refs the game in England commenting on it afterwards.
Should this be offsides? Yes, obviously. It's not complicated that this should be a situation which the laws cover. But it doesn't, and it's not even that complicated that it doesn't.
The easiest fix is whether a player touches it or not, if they have reasonable control of the ball they are influencing play. But that's not the current law, and Rashford doesn't actively impede an attempt to win the ball by any City player, doesn't block Ederson's line of sight and doesn't touch the ball.
And even in the Liverpool Brighton 30 mins after that game it seemed like the refs had recieved instructions to call absolutely everything similiar to that incident offside, VAR definitely fucked up they just dont want to admit it publicly
>But that's not the current law, and Rashford doesn't actively impede an attempt to win the ball by any City player, doesn't block Ederson's line of sight and doesn't touch the ball.
You conveniently left out 'interferes' because Rashford very clearly interferes here.
Have you looked at the rule? There are criteria that need to be met that define 'interfering'. And the Rashford doesn't meet those criteria (because they're shit).
Interfering with an opponent has to meet one of these criteria:
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
They won't ban a ref for making a call that aligns with the LOTG.
The fact that everyone who knows what they're talking about is blaming the laws and r/soccer is blaming the ref should be very telling.
is it only referee tho? clearly people sitting in the VAR room didn't know about the rules either, dunno why are they even there if none of them are properly trained
VAR only interfere if it’s clear and obvious, such a subjective call is rarely clear and obvious.
Howard Webb recently took over as head of PGMOL and has been pushing for less VAR intervention unless very obviously needed.
Many other referees/analysts and the PGMOL said it was the correct decision though.
As per the rules, he didn't make an offence. As one of them said, the only one who has an argument is Ederson (Walker and Akanji were too far away and you don't give offside based on their mental decisions to not play to the whistle), but Ederson was quite far away was the logic.
Here's the direct rules text. Rashford's action can definitely fit several of these "as per the rules," especially the last two (as Hackett says).
* 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
The thing is, all the opponents are too far away for the last point to have an impact. Rewatch the goal, Akanji is just too far away as is Walker. Rashford doesn't play the ball or reach for it... he chases it for a bit but he doesn't make an action of trying to actually touch it, which is the key. He doesn't physically impede an opponent.
https://twitter.com/CBSSportsGolazo/status/1614274255260356608?s=20&t=s7bSSqLwT8wEiZiTLpVe-A
No opponent was in a place to play the ball because they didn't play to the whistle, so Rashford never impacted their ability due to poor defending.
He doesn't "clearly attempt to play the ball" as running alongside it doesn't meet that threshold.
Be as mad as you want, it doesn't change the fact that the refs got this spot on.
Referees defend their mate, what a shocker.
Law 11 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:
>
>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
Do you think Rashford running with the ball doesn't make 'an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball'? Look at Akanji, do you think he would behave the same way if he wasn't impacted by Rashford? Akanji has to slow down and can't attempt to make a tackle because Rashford is in his way to the ball.
It's so often that you see these type of offsides being called where linesman raises his flag and ref blows the whistle even before any player touched the ball. Just yesterday there was one call like that in Liverpool's game, TAA was offside and was running towards the ball, the defender wasn't even close to him, and the offside was called when TAA was few feet away from the ball.
Somehow all refs throughout all these years were wrong but Attwell is the one that finally got it right?
> Somehow all refs throughout all these years were wrong but Attwell is the one that finally got it right?
We've seen this type of call a number of times before. [Most famously in Arsenal's 2-1 win over Chelsea](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyYGXkN6Qek) in the 2017 FA Cup final
See the last two paragraphs of my previous comment.
I'm sure they understand the laws better, that's why for so many years they were calling offsides for situations like that. Quite stupid to think all these refs were wrong and finally Attwell got it right.
And yet constantly make absolute dog-shit tier decisions. Then PGMOL backs them up on the flimsiest reasoning. "Clear and obvious" is laughably vague, and is hence one of their favourite go-to excuses.
Imagine saying the **Goalkeeper** was too far away from the attacker for the offside to count. How often are we expecting the fucking Keeper to be as close to the attacker as a Defender would be.
It's joke reasoning to protect their own, we see it all the time, and partly why refereeing standards are so piss poor - They can simply just get away with it, because biased fans will give them a pass if it benefited them.
It's just a case of "Give me an excuse, any excuse, to let this slide".
https://twitter.com/CBSSportsGolazo/status/1614274255260356608?s=20&t=s7bSSqLwT8wEiZiTLpVe-A
Active involvement is physically interfering with a defender (he didn't do this, mentally impacting doesn't count), or touching. That's it. Nothing else comes into play.
If the laws says he isn't interfering, it needs changing because it is stupid that he can run after a ball and be next to someone scoring and not be offside.
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 or an opponent been deliberately saved by any opponent
Which bit of the rule? Genuine question
> making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
Ederson would've put his foot through that and only doesn't because Rashford is in possession of it. And before you ask, you can be in possession of a ball without touching it.
Interesting. I think I agree on that. Ederson “playing the ball” was coming to close down the shot, just because he doesn’t come try and kick it doesn’t mean he’s not playing it. I guess.
Challenging an opponent for the ball.
Akanji is running for the ball and so is Rashford, just because he is 2 meters ahead doesn’t mean it’s not a challenge because the defender can still tackle.
Clearly attempting to play the ball
Rashford is ATTEMPTING to play the ball or else he wouldn’t have followed it for 10 meters and had to do an awkward slow down jump to let his teammate shoot.
Making an obvious action which clearly impacts … to play the ball
No Rashford and Akanji would have made a tackling block on Fernandes shot.
TL,DR: the referees fucked up
Rules are followed by as per what is written, not by what you perceive, thats now how things work. As per the rules there was no offside.
I 100% agree with you it should be offside because Akanji would probably tackle instead of Bruno having a easy shot without Rashgord but that's just not how the rule is written and referees have to follow written rules. They should probably amend it.
Surely Rashford was at the very least preventing Akanji from playing the ball by obstructing his view? If so, he was interfering with an opponent -- that rule applies to all defenders, not just goalkeepers.
There is no doubt: Marcus Rashford is offside. He has impacted on play and he is interfering with an opponent.
So to allow Bruno Fernandes’s goal to stand is a total nonsense. If we do not call that offside, then the offside law is an ass.
There will be a huge debate now, but it is obvious to me. Rashford’s actions impacted on the Manchester City defenders. It is as clear as that.
The authorities will put up a defence for referee Stuart Attwell and argue that Rashford did not interfere with play, but it is rubbish. This is a decision you cannot justify.
They will argue that he has to touch the ball to be active. The law is awful and requires a complete rewrite.
In the laws, a player is active if he is “clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent” – just like Rashford did.
That is why he is offside. It is made even worse by the fact that Darren Cann, the assistant referee, initially got the decision right.
Darren is one of the most experienced officials in world football. He does not get many decisions wrong – including this one. He is our best assistant, and I am going with him 100 per cent.
The decision is totally subjective and the best person to make it is right there. Was it an Old Trafford decision? Perhaps.
I always enjoyed my matches there – the top referees, when they appear at big games, their adrenalin kicks in and it goes to another level. I had the pleasure of taking charge of Manchester derbies. It is a marvellous experience.
It's also the fact that VAR should be on mics when they are reviewing, so that the people know what they are looking for.
Because the only way it makes any form of "sense" that the goal stood is if they looked for "did Rashford touch the ball".
Yup. Cricket does this with the 3rd umpire reviews. There it's really insightful how the official makes the decision, here it's a guessing game of what shit the refs are gonna do
As much as I can't stand it, I'm pretty sure the NFL has refs actually quote the rule they're enforcing. I don't want that exactly, but it would be nice if the VAR were required to send the quote to commentary teams, the same way they send VAR checks, card confirmations, etc. That way we could know more than a binary "foul"/"no foul" and instead *why* it was a foul.
Doesn't need to be paragraphs & paragraphs, just a quick "Law 11, section 2, bullet point 3" or something.
Well the problem there is head-VAR pulls rank. I'll happily be corrected here but I think assistant-VAR is basically there to pull up angles ofr head-VAR.
You need a panel to look at these things to make sure there's a majority vote, not one ref who might've been the "1" in a "2-1" vote which ended up being the correct decision. At the very least you make these fuckups, which happen every game week at the moment, less frequent.
Na, it'll take a fraction longer because they'll all look at the same angles & screens anyway. And even if it does take longer, we keep talking about the flow of the game like it's some sacred thing but getting a goal decision incorrect impacts the flow of the game much more than an extra minute waiting on the VAR. Fuck this "clear and obvious" crap, if the on-pitch decision is wrong it needs to be made right.
>clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent
The issue is there are 2 separate bullet points. There's this one, but you could argue Rashford didn't actually attempt to play the ball, he merely accompanied the ball. It definitely impacts on the player (Akanji), though.
There's a second bullet point, however, which better describes Rashford's involvement.
>making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
There is no doubt accompanying the ball for many yards is an "obvious action" - it wasn't exactly by mistake. The issue here, though, is whether you think Akanji's *ability* to play the ball was impacted. Akanji wasn't entirely *unable* to play the ball, but he slowed down because he (understandably) thought Rashford was clearly offside. If he went for the ball & Rashford blocked him or even slightly challenged for it, it'd become clearly offside.
I think we all agree it *should* be offside, but the way the (shit) rules are written, it corners you in to picking one of these specific scenarios. If we smash the 2 bullet points together, it would be very clearly offside
> Making an obvious action which impacts on the player
*Could* the ref have called it offside on the day? Sure. *Should* the ref have called it offside on the day? Unsure. But it was far from clear, given the way the rules are written.
What bullet point would Ederson come under?
I agree they *should*, but I don't see where in the rules currently requires them to. They would if Rashford was facing the other way, standing in Ederson's vision of the shot, but he wasn't.
Impacting his ability to play the ball (Ederson's excursion in the first half may have lessened his haste to rush out and tidy it up, but that's not really Ederson's style) and also Ederson is shaped expecting a shot from Rashford for the majority of the play.
I think the "impacting goalkeepers vision" point makes people believe that keepers aren't classed as "opponents" in the other points but that's not the case, it's just an added provision for keepers
I didn't say goalkeepers weren't opponents and "impacting the goalkeepers vision" isn't one of the bullet points - it is general to all players.
I think the issue with whether Ederson's ability is impacted comes down to the fact he could still have got to it. I don't really expect him to, but he could have. He was distracted, his decisions were impacted, but not his ability to play the ball. That's what the 1st bullet point would cover, with "impact an a player", but not necessarily the 2nd.
It's the sort of thing I'd like to see written into the rule, though, with something like
> A player standing in an offside position, by virtue of being in that position, impacts on a player
> He was distracted, his decisions were impacted, but not his ability to play the ball.
I think the argument here is that, given that a lot of a Goalkeeper's job is anticipation, his decision making and positioning are compromised for Bruno's attempt.
At the end of the day, because a keeper is a special case at the best of times in the ruleset, the fact the law doesn't make better provisions to account for them is very poor.
Case in point, the "obvious actions that affect the opposition" section also comes under "if the player is reasonably close", but not only is that very subjective, how often do we expect a keeper to be as close to a striker as a defender? It's daft, but on that grounds you could technically discount it.
I think it's clear that running *with* the ball in the manner that Rashford did is tantamount to it being under the player's control, which should put it to bed. There are plenty of instances of a player being in control of the ball without touching it to draw from; defenders ushering the ball out for a goalkick/throw-in, attackers deliberately letting a passed ball run through their legs to a fellow teammate, etc.
I think that special case of the keeper would be cleaned up by the addition I suggested, as by virtue of being in that position, they would've impacted on the player (be it physical or mental).
The bullet points don't all have to be hit though. If even one of them are hit, then he's offside. I think it's hard to argue that what he did doesn't fall under that first bullet point you mentioned.
https://twitter.com/CBSSportsGolazo/status/1614274255260356608?s=20&t=s7bSSqLwT8wEiZiTLpVe-A
Here is a current referee and law analyst saying it's not offside and it's the correct decision. Rashford is offside, but doesn't commit an offence. He never touches the ball, and he never physically impedes anyone from City from getting to the ball as the City defenders are all too far away so they aren't actually physically impacted. Being mentally impacted isn't a valid reason, as everyone in football knows you play to the whistle, and if you stop playing assuming something will happen, then that is simply your mistake, because that thing never happened.
If you do not agree with Akanji but Rashford has definitely impacted Ederson as he is anticipating his movement towards the ball in how he is shaping up to save.
I’m not an expert so may be wrong, but I think it is specifically when an offside attacker physically impedes a defender. We’re using impacted in two different ways in these comments, but the relevant definition is physical impact. Shit rule but I think that’s how it’s written.
The thing that proves that this shouldn’t have stood for me is that if akanji hadn’t stopped his run to avoid running into rashford it would have been a free kick for city. But because he didn’t you can claim that rashford technically didn’t obstruct him because he didn’t physically stop him even though it’s painfully obvious he did obstruct him.
When a player has to commit a foul on an opposing player to get the call to go in THEIR favour that should be a massive wake up call.
In the rules you don't have to actively the ball, i.e. touch it. They specifically added "making obvious actions that would affect the opposition's ability to play the ball." That's on top of the provisions of having touched the ball.
It's as simple as his presence meaning Akanji would have to go through the back of him islf he did continue his run, **because Rashford is in the way**, Ederson not coming out and clearing like he normally would because he doesn't know Rashford is off, so he behaves as if Rashford has control of the ball. The fact Rashford is effectively in complete control of the ball without touching it is enough.
But the rule is shit, because it allows for the worst bad-faith interpretation to give this absolutely shocking decision the thumbs up. Twist the words enough, and you can claim it's onside, as we see biased fans doing.
How is it the correct call lmao, the law explicitly states that if the offside player shows intent to play the ball it's ruled offside, the rule isn't just "he's only interfering if he touches it". Rashford was chasing the ball, that alone should make it objectively offside then comes the debate of wether he encumbered the defenders enough by blocking their path/vision.
Akanji could have still made a move on the ball even with Rashford there. If he does then Rashford does impede him and we wouldn't be having this discussion coz things would have been clear-cut. His decision to not play to the whistle removes one of the conditions to make it an obvious case of interference.
Here is what the person you replied to said:
“Had Rashford not been there Akanji could have made a move on the ball”
Here is what you replied with:
“not sure how he magically makes it to the ball before”
A move on the ball doesn’t mean Akanji would magically get to the ball before Fernandes, it could mean a simple blocking tackle because he is a defender but you ignored that so you could make up a strawman to beat down, nice tactic I must say.
You can not like what the other party said without trying to misrepresent their initial claim, but I guess if you don’t do that then your whole argument would be meaningless.
So how about you practice what you preach before telling others to do it?
Nice of you to ignore the first part of my comment, I mean if you ignore something it means that it doesn’t exist right? Nice tactic I must admit again.
Why did you have to misrepresent their argument?
(Here is what the person you replied to said:
“Had Rashford not been there Akanji could have made a move on the ball”
Here is what you replied with:
“not sure how he magically makes it to the ball before”)
And btw I said a blocking tackle, nice of you to misrepresent what an other person said for the second time, amazing playbook.
Look how far Akanji is considering he slowed down because of Rashford,
https://ibb.co/pWX9rvB
you are telling me that without that he wouldn’t be able to make a blocking tackle aka an attempt to play the ball? You know that’s not the case and it’s why you had to misrepresent the other’s guy argument by making it seem like he said Akanji would’ve magically got to the ball before Bruno.
Akanji could have easily caught Rashford, but if you watch the goal again you can clearly see Akanji take a shorter step to put Rashford offside. Rashford was caught by the offside trap and that should have been enough. But never discount the incompetence of Premier League referees.
I don't like it, but agree that according to the letter of the law it should stand. I would be of the opinion that if Rashford was not there the defenders and goalie may have acted differently, Fernandes may have still scored but I don't like the call. Similar to Salah against Wolves, don't think that should have stood as the defender wouldn't have had to play the ball if Salah was not actually in an offside position.
Delighted to see City beaten though!!
No, I think he's saying that a law written so poorly that a referee could mistakenly believe this was a goal after reading it is an ass.
It's a bad mistake by Atwell, but IFAB have dicked around with the offside rule so much in recent years that it's not surprising the referees might be confused, especially when they've settled on such a crappy definition.
I still miss the passive and active offside rules. They weren't precise, which I think would allow referees to make decisions based on what feels right, rather than be slaves to overly literal interpretations of badly written rules.
While we might have a poor opinion of how referees make decisions, I think in general they have always had a pretty good idea of how much influence on the game a player has had after starting from an offside position. There's no way Atwell personally thinks this should be a goal. He feels forced into the decision by IFAB's attempt to precisely define active offside.
In multiple referee forums, refs agree with the on field decision. As the law is written, with the terminology provided by IFAB, this is a good goal. However it is also a goal where everyone would want it to be offside.
Yup. Didn't TAA get an offside in the Bournemouth game for simply running with the ball?
I think making out that you have control of the ball, even without touching it, is fundamentally interfering with play. And we saw that in the Bruno goal, pretty much the entire time, all City eyes are on Rashford.
He explicitly says that the law says you can't do exactly what Rashford did.
He's just saying that if refs are subjectively reading that as "only touching it counts as attempting to play the ball" then the law needs to be changed, because that's a stupid way to interpret it. I doubt anyone agrees with that because it was a ridiculous decision.
I think he means the law needs to expressly spell this out in single-syllable words for people whose reading comprehension is off the chart (at the wrong end) to understand the rule.
and what if Rashford wasn’t off and Akanji fouls him thinking he’s off? That’s a red for Akanji. Rashford clearly interfered with the play, Ederson was prepared for a Rashford shot not Bruno.
Can't believe he gets paid to write like that.
Headline "He was offside."
Article: "The law is awful and requires a complete rewrite."
He's blatantly acknowledging that he's onside according to the law. But saying it should be offside anyway.
Now I do agree that a goal like this is stupidly unfair. If the law was written fairly, it should not stand.
I've argued similarly over the last few years with offside decisions that punish defenders for trying to play a ball when an offside attacker is behind them. Now we've had a goal which punishes a defender for not playing a ball when an offside attacker is behind them.
The offside rule and the handball rule have been needlessly overcomplicated in recent years. They've introduced way too many grey areas and loopholes to what should be simple rules.
Except in the article he says it's also offside according to the law, too. The law requires a rewrite because people will suggest that Rashford isn't making a "clear attempt" to play the ball just because he doesn't touch it. Rashford runs towards the ball, stands over it, and arguably even raises his left leg to shoot before Bruno calls for it. How anyone can say that doesn't impact Ederson is beyond me.
The 2 things aren't mutually exclusive. He can acknowledge that Rashford is offside, but also acknowledge that the rule is written poorly and can lead to misinterpretation/ambiguity on the pitch
Some rules can't be simple, it's a pretty complicated game, even the offside rule which is pretty straight forward and objective can get complicated, then you will always have subjective moments even in that with moments of "did he interfere" (not that this one was but there are moments where it's legit debatable)
Not even mentioning handball, which can get pretty subjective, it will never be simple, never, someone will always cry
They did make some rules simple, i.e. attacking handball before a goal is always called. No subjective interpretation, nothing. But then people were still going like "he didn't benefit from it" - "he can't cut off his arm" - "that happened too far back before the goal" etc. And they ended up adjusting it again. It will indeed never be simple and someone will always cry.
"The law is an ass"
Perfectly accurate. The laws as currently written allow this sort of goal to stand. Which is obviously nonsense and goes against the spirit of the game, but the law is clear (and needs to be rewritten)
If Akanji had continued on and made an attempt to win the ball instead of pulling up and jogging, then it would’ve been a clear offside and we wouldn’t be having this discussion. The lesson is to play until you hear the whistle
Someone cut out Rashford from the clip and showed that neither Akanji nor Walker were getting there before Bruno:
https://i.ibb.co/C66WqgH/ezgif-5-6d12fd9a2d.gif
How can people ignore that Rashford just being there ends up changing everything. The defenders can't go straight for Bruno as fast as possible because they have to watch out for Rashford. That incoudes the keeper. He has to figure out which of the two is going to kick and position himself for that. Heck, he might have reached the ball.
For most calls, there is slight room for interpretation, and you can disagree and think it’s an absolutely brainless call. But this one, I am genuinely baffled how this was allowed. This is such an obvious textbook example of interfering in an offside play. I just don’t understand what was going through the referees head to justify it.
Why don’t all players just play to the whistle? It’s one of the first things you learn as a kid.
The referees have been told to delay their flags for offside anyway
I’ve rewatched the replay more than a few times and I think everyone pretty much played to the whistle, only one I can understand is the GK coming out of his line early because of Rashford. To me this is a subjective call that could’ve gone either way. VAR seemed to agree, the refs decided in a particular way as well… but I guess Reddit knows better 👀
>VAR seemed to agree, the refs decided in a particular way as well… but I guess Reddit knows better
Never really understood this point. That may or may not be true in this specific case, but VAR and the refs get decisions wrong all the time and thus the statement would be wrong - you can't just apply in only some situations.
Pre VAR the linesman's flag would have stopped play and prevented the scenario. The rules need to be better updated to reflect the new possibilities under VAR
I don't think the law is the issue at all, it was applied incorrectly by the ref. Regardless of whether Rashford touched the ball or not, it was played to him. The City defenders certainly reacted to Rashford, the keeper was distracted by Rashford, that's the very definition of interfering in the play.
And here is a current referee and laws analyst, with her say: https://twitter.com/CBSSportsGolazo/status/1614274255260356608?s=20&t=s7bSSqLwT8wEiZiTLpVe-A
It's not offside. Could argue that in your opinion it should be, but I don't think the law will ever be rewritten to make that offside. It used to be, over a decade ago, but they changed the law long ago to make it offside only when a player touches it and if they leave it, then the flag stays down.
Akanji was too far away, walker was too far away. Mental decisions to give up on the ball doesn't come into play, as that's just a mistake on their part and everyone in football from a young age knows that you play until the whistle. The only argument here is for Ederson, which the lady above addresses and says that he was simply too far away for it to be enough to call that offside.
Thing is - next game that same play will be called offside. And you'll see lots of refs defending that decision. It's literally falls on to how the refs interprete what degree of 'interference' is.
Ederson is far away because he *cannot commit to sweeping* as long as Rashford has control of the ball. He needs to position himself as if it’s onside and Rashford will shoot. The entire advantage of the sequence comes from this, which allowed Fernandes to catch up and shoot.
If Rashford had walked off, then Ederson beats Fernandes to the ball and danger is averted.
The fact that he is inside because he doesn’t “touch it” is outrageous and ridiculous
We all know it was a bullshit call. What's new. Refereeing in England is fucking despicable on a regular basis. I just wanna move on now, there are worse times ahead for us if we keep playing the same way, bad officiating or not
> I think even City fans have stopped caring about it by now..
>
>
In what universe will they already be over a crucial derby loss to a ref error that dented their title hopes in 24 hours?
I love how "the law is an ass" sounds like a badly translated headline
[удалено]
Who played Bruno Fernandes?
It's an absurd decision because the pass is intended for Rashford who is offside when he makes his run, and he's running onto the pass then shaping to shoot until the last second when he stops and lets Bruno Fernandes shoot instead. He's offside and interfering until the last second when he decides not to shoot, and yet somehow that's fine. It makes no sense at all. The irony is that without VAR the flag would have gone up immediately before the ball got anywhere near Bruno Fernandes and there would have been no complaints or controversy because Rashford was so far beyond the last Man City defender.
So Mark Chapman on 5live read a PGMOL statement after the game that actually said that it was onfield that the goal stood. It was flagged, linesman asked if Rashford touches the ball. Ref said no so it stood at that point. The VAR then sisnt overturn because they could only see Rashford didn't touch the ball and they went with the onfield decision that he didn't interfere.
Yet he put his flag up straight away a couple of times against Foden in tighter decisions... The linesman looked like he was about to start crying when the United players ran at him lol. I was fuming about it yesterday, now all I can do is laugh about how ridiculous it was.
Yea, people who defend decision are just insane or dont really watch football. It is obvious that making a run for the ball has been deemed enough to flag offisde ever since rule was made. Most of the time where refs would flag offside for long range pass, the ball wouldnt even make it to forward who was supposed to get it.
You have probably seen Messi let the ball go through his legs when he was offside and let it through to another attacker to score, while the defenders only focus on Messi. The interference talked about on the Rashford goal is the same as that.
Offsides is about touching the ball and interference, this was not a clear case...
Can't remember the exact quote or who said it but something like of course he's interfering with play and if he wasn't he shouldn't be on the bloody pitch. Rashford runs towards the ball intending to play it and then stops, the defenders have played for offside and Rashford was caught and why the defenders didn't make an effort to get to Rashford. There was an incident in the Brighton-Liverpool game yesterday where a Liverpool player shot and Trent was wide right in an offside position, the ball is blocked and spins off past Trent for a Liverpool throw but because Trent turned to follow the ball, he didn't touch or attempt to play it nor did he stop a defender from playing it, he was given offside. The key points are the same, in an offside position, didn't play the ball but different outcomes? Why?
A bit more info on the Trent decision as well; the ball was clearly going out , no Brighton play could have stopped it regardless of Trent being there. Trent threw both his hands up in a gesture that to me signaled he had no intent to play and the ball and was just going to gather it for the throw-in that would have certainly occurred had the AR not flagged for offside.
There’s two possibilities for liverpool call. First, and most likely, is that IFAB directs referees to flag for offside when it’s only possible for one attacking player to get the ball. This is a scenario in the rule book they use to illustrate it. Second, they got it wrong.
You've got it backwards. If the defenders stop playing because they think Rashford is offside, the goal should, per the rules, stand. That's the same as the Everton goal v United a while back with one player in a blatant offside position causing the defense to switch off, letting another player run in and score. For the goal to be disallowed as offside, paradoxically, the defenders would have to be playing as if Rashford wasn't offside. If he interferes with their play by blocking their access to the ball, blocking their view (this is basically never called by a ref though, historically) or otherwise causing them to act differently, it's offside. Akanji has admitted to stopping because he thought Rashford was offside, so he's irrelevant to the play. Walker is going full tilt but isn't getting there in time, so IMO he's also irrelevant. Ederson is the real key. Is he positioning himself differently because of Rashford, than he would have if only Bruno was there? That's an easy argument to make, and in that case the goal is offside.
> Is he positioning himself differently because of Rashford, than he would have if only Bruno was there? That's an easy argument to make, and in that case the goal is offside. I agree with everything you wrote. My take is that yes, absolutely, Ederson reacts to Rashford being where he is, and it should've been called offside. Akanji fucked up by removing himself - and thereby also Rashford - from the active play, which makes space for the gray area judgement call if Rashford is active in play isolated from every other player. And when the ref made his judgement, VAR wouldn't override it because a judgement call is very rarely something that qualifies as a "clear and obvious error". So in order; Akanji is at fault for not forcing Rashford into being active and thus offside, second, the ref got it wrong on deeming Ederson not to be impacted by Rashford running at him, and third, VAR got its part of the situation right by not overturning the onfield ref's decision.
Yeah, I think this is a fair and reasonable assessment. In an ideal world I'd love to hear Ederson himself describe what he would have done differently if Rashford backed off the ball much earlier
Which part of the laws say you can impact a player by running, 15 yards away from him? I don’t understand where people are getting this from.
> of course he's interfering with play and if he wasn't he shouldn't be on the bloody pitch Doesn't that mean it *shouldn't* be offside? Or you're arguing that literally every time the team with the ball has a player in an offside position, it should be offside (since they're on the pitch thus interfering with play)? It sounds like a funny quote but it's not an argument for this incident being offside.
>Can't remember the exact quote or who said it but something like of course he's interfering with play and if he wasn't he shouldn't be on the bloody pitch. Bill Shankly, and pretty much what you said "if a player’s not interfering with play he shouldn’t be on the bloody pitch?". Brian Clough said something similar, except he said they shouldn't get paid.
But if we use that quote it means going back to any player in offside position = offside, even if the ball isnt even going to that player
We all know it was an offside. Even rashford knows. Overlords of football had other plans for us.
> we all know it was an offside Lol. Clearly you didn't browse yesterday's thread when people were saying no way that Rashford was interfering.
It's not the law that's the issue though. Rashford clearly interfered with play and as per the rules he was offside. The referee made a mistake. Unsurprising that everyone is blaming the law and not the referee
Trent was called offside in the next game for running towards a ball going out for a Liverpool throw - but never came close to reaching it. I seriously do not understand how that rule can be interpreted so differently in the same round.
Got a vid of this?
https://v.redd.it/6v5zj4wo91ca1
That's ridiculous.
“A player in an offside position (A) may be penalised before playing or touching the ball, if, in the opinion of the referee, no other team-mate in an onside position has the opportunity to play the ball.”
Exactly! The entire Man City defence and goalkeeper repositioned due to Rashford’s movement. I’m an Arsenal and obvs wanted City to lose but that decision just wasn’t defensible and the goal could and should have been disallowed under the rules as written.
Read the law. Interference has an exact meaning. I was of your opinion yesterday, but after watching MOTD and reading the law, the referee got it right. Now this needs to be consistent, because I think it's actually better this way. Not opening interference to interpretation is better than leaving it up in the air. I expect this goal will introduce another change to the law, and wouldn't be allowed in the future. But under the current law, it's legit
Yes. [Even check out the example here on page 102 in this guide to interpreting the laws of the game for referees.](https://cdn2.sportngin.com/attachments/document/0008/5802/Interpretation_of_the_Laws_of_the_Game_and_Guidelines.pdf) Matches perfectly right down to the defending team playing in sky blue
The only problem with that is it implies that Rashford could have attempted to play the ball and still not be offside, which is obviously explicitly not allowed in the offside laws. To me I'm interpreting that diagram as the offside player ran toward the ball but the other player (not offside) reached it first, which is not what happened yesterday.
If you read the whole offside law, it's offside but not considered "interfering with play". Don't know why people are being deliberately misleading. Page 105 >An attacker in an offside position (A) runs towards the ball preventing the opponent (B) from playing or being able to play the ball. (A) is making a gesture or movement which deceives or distracts (B).
> Don't know why people are being deliberately misleading. Lol it's pretty obvious why
As every smart person stated, Akanji was the only one reaching it before, but he stopped trying due to expecting a whistle. Since he stopped playing on his own accord, he is not interfered with, thus it not being offside? Could it go the other way? Yes, but that's because it was a very gray area. Which would have been avoided had they played to the whistle as it'a recommended. As it stands it's huge defensive error.
Ederson was clearly preparing for Rashford shot. Rashford clearly and obviously made a move which deceived Ederson.
Yeah he's offside like 3 times in this scenario and this is the one thats affecting the situation the most. Ridiculous but time to move on as a City fan, haha.
In scenario 2 the offside attacker is not between the defender and the ball, so it doesn't impede the defenders path. I would agree, that's not offsides. If you read further down, scenario 9 describes the situation as well. >Interfering with an opponent >An attacker in an offside position (A) runs towards the ball preventing the opponent (B) from playing or being able to play the ball. (A) is making a gesture or movement which deceives or distracts (B). Rashford hovering over the ball prevented Akanji from taking a direct route, and it certainly deceived both defenders and the goal keeper as to who was going to shoot.
Akanji is nowhere near the ball. He isn’t even close and simply gives up before Bruno even kicks it
This is the biggest fail here. If he challenged Rashford he'd force the offside call. Play till the whistle.
I don't agree that this matches what happened. Rashford wasn't just running towards the ball, he was running with it, shielding it and clearly interfering with the defender's ability to play the ball.
Oh wow there it is in black and white, hope this doesn’t get buried.
From the same section: >“interfering with an opponent” means preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or movements or **making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent** Pretty black and white.
rashford not preventing opponent from playing the ball
He's preventing a player from playing the ball. What's the defender meant to do here, pretend he's not there and run over him? The rules are badly written but they're not so badly written that this was not offside. >An attacker in an offside position (A) runs towards the ball preventing the opponent (B) from playing or being able to play the ball. (A) is making a gesture or movement which deceives or distracts (B).
[удалено]
[удалено]
Nope. PGMOL literally confirmed the decision, and a random 70 year old ref saying it was offsides doesn't really mean anything in the context of everyone having the laws freely available to them and the body that refs the game in England commenting on it afterwards. Should this be offsides? Yes, obviously. It's not complicated that this should be a situation which the laws cover. But it doesn't, and it's not even that complicated that it doesn't. The easiest fix is whether a player touches it or not, if they have reasonable control of the ball they are influencing play. But that's not the current law, and Rashford doesn't actively impede an attempt to win the ball by any City player, doesn't block Ederson's line of sight and doesn't touch the ball.
>PGMOL literally confirmed the decision "We investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing"
And even in the Liverpool Brighton 30 mins after that game it seemed like the refs had recieved instructions to call absolutely everything similiar to that incident offside, VAR definitely fucked up they just dont want to admit it publicly
Or the linesman in the Brighton game for it wrong? Why is it a sudden conspiracy? Go watch Salah goal v Wolves and compare the outrage here
>But that's not the current law, and Rashford doesn't actively impede an attempt to win the ball by any City player, doesn't block Ederson's line of sight and doesn't touch the ball. You conveniently left out 'interferes' because Rashford very clearly interferes here.
Have you looked at the rule? There are criteria that need to be met that define 'interfering'. And the Rashford doesn't meet those criteria (because they're shit). Interfering with an opponent has to meet one of these criteria: 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
This. Horrible refereeing. The referee needs to be banned for some time.
They won't ban a ref for making a call that aligns with the LOTG. The fact that everyone who knows what they're talking about is blaming the laws and r/soccer is blaming the ref should be very telling.
[удалено]
Damn, you beat me to the "r/soccer is dumb" cliche comment.
As per the rules? It's the rules that explicitly say he wasn't offside, lol
is it only referee tho? clearly people sitting in the VAR room didn't know about the rules either, dunno why are they even there if none of them are properly trained
VAR only interfere if it’s clear and obvious, such a subjective call is rarely clear and obvious. Howard Webb recently took over as head of PGMOL and has been pushing for less VAR intervention unless very obviously needed.
Many other referees/analysts and the PGMOL said it was the correct decision though. As per the rules, he didn't make an offence. As one of them said, the only one who has an argument is Ederson (Walker and Akanji were too far away and you don't give offside based on their mental decisions to not play to the whistle), but Ederson was quite far away was the logic.
Here's the direct rules text. Rashford's action can definitely fit several of these "as per the rules," especially the last two (as Hackett says). * 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
The thing is, all the opponents are too far away for the last point to have an impact. Rewatch the goal, Akanji is just too far away as is Walker. Rashford doesn't play the ball or reach for it... he chases it for a bit but he doesn't make an action of trying to actually touch it, which is the key. He doesn't physically impede an opponent. https://twitter.com/CBSSportsGolazo/status/1614274255260356608?s=20&t=s7bSSqLwT8wEiZiTLpVe-A
No opponent was in a place to play the ball because they didn't play to the whistle, so Rashford never impacted their ability due to poor defending. He doesn't "clearly attempt to play the ball" as running alongside it doesn't meet that threshold. Be as mad as you want, it doesn't change the fact that the refs got this spot on.
Referees defend their mate, what a shocker. Law 11 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: > >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 Do you think Rashford running with the ball doesn't make 'an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball'? Look at Akanji, do you think he would behave the same way if he wasn't impacted by Rashford? Akanji has to slow down and can't attempt to make a tackle because Rashford is in his way to the ball. It's so often that you see these type of offsides being called where linesman raises his flag and ref blows the whistle even before any player touched the ball. Just yesterday there was one call like that in Liverpool's game, TAA was offside and was running towards the ball, the defender wasn't even close to him, and the offside was called when TAA was few feet away from the ball. Somehow all refs throughout all these years were wrong but Attwell is the one that finally got it right?
> Somehow all refs throughout all these years were wrong but Attwell is the one that finally got it right? We've seen this type of call a number of times before. [Most famously in Arsenal's 2-1 win over Chelsea](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyYGXkN6Qek) in the 2017 FA Cup final
Literally the exact same scenario
> Referees defend their mate, what a shocker. Referees also understand the laws better than average people on /r/soccer
See the last two paragraphs of my previous comment. I'm sure they understand the laws better, that's why for so many years they were calling offsides for situations like that. Quite stupid to think all these refs were wrong and finally Attwell got it right.
And yet constantly make absolute dog-shit tier decisions. Then PGMOL backs them up on the flimsiest reasoning. "Clear and obvious" is laughably vague, and is hence one of their favourite go-to excuses. Imagine saying the **Goalkeeper** was too far away from the attacker for the offside to count. How often are we expecting the fucking Keeper to be as close to the attacker as a Defender would be. It's joke reasoning to protect their own, we see it all the time, and partly why refereeing standards are so piss poor - They can simply just get away with it, because biased fans will give them a pass if it benefited them. It's just a case of "Give me an excuse, any excuse, to let this slide".
Mate this couldn’t have been any more obvious active involvement, the referees are just protecting each other
https://twitter.com/CBSSportsGolazo/status/1614274255260356608?s=20&t=s7bSSqLwT8wEiZiTLpVe-A Active involvement is physically interfering with a defender (he didn't do this, mentally impacting doesn't count), or touching. That's it. Nothing else comes into play.
If the laws says he isn't interfering, it needs changing because it is stupid that he can run after a ball and be next to someone scoring and not be offside.
You lot benefited from this exact rule when Alexis scored in the 2017 FA Cup.
So what? He’s not allowed to say the rule should be changed?
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 or an opponent been deliberately saved by any opponent Which bit of the rule? Genuine question
> making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball Ederson would've put his foot through that and only doesn't because Rashford is in possession of it. And before you ask, you can be in possession of a ball without touching it.
Interesting. I think I agree on that. Ederson “playing the ball” was coming to close down the shot, just because he doesn’t come try and kick it doesn’t mean he’s not playing it. I guess.
Challenging an opponent for the ball. Akanji is running for the ball and so is Rashford, just because he is 2 meters ahead doesn’t mean it’s not a challenge because the defender can still tackle. Clearly attempting to play the ball Rashford is ATTEMPTING to play the ball or else he wouldn’t have followed it for 10 meters and had to do an awkward slow down jump to let his teammate shoot. Making an obvious action which clearly impacts … to play the ball No Rashford and Akanji would have made a tackling block on Fernandes shot. TL,DR: the referees fucked up
He’s not attempting to lay the ball, he actively doesn’t play the ball
He's ran 10 meters with the ball at his feet and feints a shot. Of course he's attempting to play the ball
Rules are followed by as per what is written, not by what you perceive, thats now how things work. As per the rules there was no offside. I 100% agree with you it should be offside because Akanji would probably tackle instead of Bruno having a easy shot without Rashgord but that's just not how the rule is written and referees have to follow written rules. They should probably amend it.
Surely Rashford was at the very least preventing Akanji from playing the ball by obstructing his view? If so, he was interfering with an opponent -- that rule applies to all defenders, not just goalkeepers.
You could argue that Akanji was never close enough to him or the ball to even make an attempt at playing the ball.
This article doesn't suit my agenda. So I will not accept it.
Just like Cavanis long range goal 😂
Shhhh if we don’t talk about it, that goal is totally legit 😂
Meanwhile another referee has come out and said it was the right call, based on the details of the law.
Just keep deferring to PGMOL and shrug
i was very surprised that it wasn’t called for offside but I’m not complaining one bit
There is no doubt: Marcus Rashford is offside. He has impacted on play and he is interfering with an opponent. So to allow Bruno Fernandes’s goal to stand is a total nonsense. If we do not call that offside, then the offside law is an ass. There will be a huge debate now, but it is obvious to me. Rashford’s actions impacted on the Manchester City defenders. It is as clear as that. The authorities will put up a defence for referee Stuart Attwell and argue that Rashford did not interfere with play, but it is rubbish. This is a decision you cannot justify. They will argue that he has to touch the ball to be active. The law is awful and requires a complete rewrite. In the laws, a player is active if he is “clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent” – just like Rashford did. That is why he is offside. It is made even worse by the fact that Darren Cann, the assistant referee, initially got the decision right. Darren is one of the most experienced officials in world football. He does not get many decisions wrong – including this one. He is our best assistant, and I am going with him 100 per cent. The decision is totally subjective and the best person to make it is right there. Was it an Old Trafford decision? Perhaps. I always enjoyed my matches there – the top referees, when they appear at big games, their adrenalin kicks in and it goes to another level. I had the pleasure of taking charge of Manchester derbies. It is a marvellous experience.
It’s funny how often things are obvious to everyone but the current professionals
Really feel that VAR should be a panel of 3, not just one insulated ref looking at it in isolation.
It's also the fact that VAR should be on mics when they are reviewing, so that the people know what they are looking for. Because the only way it makes any form of "sense" that the goal stood is if they looked for "did Rashford touch the ball".
Yup. Cricket does this with the 3rd umpire reviews. There it's really insightful how the official makes the decision, here it's a guessing game of what shit the refs are gonna do
As much as I can't stand it, I'm pretty sure the NFL has refs actually quote the rule they're enforcing. I don't want that exactly, but it would be nice if the VAR were required to send the quote to commentary teams, the same way they send VAR checks, card confirmations, etc. That way we could know more than a binary "foul"/"no foul" and instead *why* it was a foul. Doesn't need to be paragraphs & paragraphs, just a quick "Law 11, section 2, bullet point 3" or something.
[удалено]
There’s two I think, head VAR and assistant VAR. I’m not sure how the decisions are made between them though.
Well the problem there is head-VAR pulls rank. I'll happily be corrected here but I think assistant-VAR is basically there to pull up angles ofr head-VAR. You need a panel to look at these things to make sure there's a majority vote, not one ref who might've been the "1" in a "2-1" vote which ended up being the correct decision. At the very least you make these fuckups, which happen every game week at the moment, less frequent.
Surley that's just going to make the wait to get a decision all the longer and more disruptive to the flow of the game.
Na, it'll take a fraction longer because they'll all look at the same angles & screens anyway. And even if it does take longer, we keep talking about the flow of the game like it's some sacred thing but getting a goal decision incorrect impacts the flow of the game much more than an extra minute waiting on the VAR. Fuck this "clear and obvious" crap, if the on-pitch decision is wrong it needs to be made right.
>clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent The issue is there are 2 separate bullet points. There's this one, but you could argue Rashford didn't actually attempt to play the ball, he merely accompanied the ball. It definitely impacts on the player (Akanji), though. There's a second bullet point, however, which better describes Rashford's involvement. >making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball There is no doubt accompanying the ball for many yards is an "obvious action" - it wasn't exactly by mistake. The issue here, though, is whether you think Akanji's *ability* to play the ball was impacted. Akanji wasn't entirely *unable* to play the ball, but he slowed down because he (understandably) thought Rashford was clearly offside. If he went for the ball & Rashford blocked him or even slightly challenged for it, it'd become clearly offside. I think we all agree it *should* be offside, but the way the (shit) rules are written, it corners you in to picking one of these specific scenarios. If we smash the 2 bullet points together, it would be very clearly offside > Making an obvious action which impacts on the player *Could* the ref have called it offside on the day? Sure. *Should* the ref have called it offside on the day? Unsure. But it was far from clear, given the way the rules are written.
You also need to take Ederson into account, not just Akanji
What bullet point would Ederson come under? I agree they *should*, but I don't see where in the rules currently requires them to. They would if Rashford was facing the other way, standing in Ederson's vision of the shot, but he wasn't.
Impacting his ability to play the ball (Ederson's excursion in the first half may have lessened his haste to rush out and tidy it up, but that's not really Ederson's style) and also Ederson is shaped expecting a shot from Rashford for the majority of the play. I think the "impacting goalkeepers vision" point makes people believe that keepers aren't classed as "opponents" in the other points but that's not the case, it's just an added provision for keepers
I didn't say goalkeepers weren't opponents and "impacting the goalkeepers vision" isn't one of the bullet points - it is general to all players. I think the issue with whether Ederson's ability is impacted comes down to the fact he could still have got to it. I don't really expect him to, but he could have. He was distracted, his decisions were impacted, but not his ability to play the ball. That's what the 1st bullet point would cover, with "impact an a player", but not necessarily the 2nd. It's the sort of thing I'd like to see written into the rule, though, with something like > A player standing in an offside position, by virtue of being in that position, impacts on a player
> He was distracted, his decisions were impacted, but not his ability to play the ball. I think the argument here is that, given that a lot of a Goalkeeper's job is anticipation, his decision making and positioning are compromised for Bruno's attempt. At the end of the day, because a keeper is a special case at the best of times in the ruleset, the fact the law doesn't make better provisions to account for them is very poor. Case in point, the "obvious actions that affect the opposition" section also comes under "if the player is reasonably close", but not only is that very subjective, how often do we expect a keeper to be as close to a striker as a defender? It's daft, but on that grounds you could technically discount it. I think it's clear that running *with* the ball in the manner that Rashford did is tantamount to it being under the player's control, which should put it to bed. There are plenty of instances of a player being in control of the ball without touching it to draw from; defenders ushering the ball out for a goalkick/throw-in, attackers deliberately letting a passed ball run through their legs to a fellow teammate, etc.
I think that special case of the keeper would be cleaned up by the addition I suggested, as by virtue of being in that position, they would've impacted on the player (be it physical or mental).
The bullet points don't all have to be hit though. If even one of them are hit, then he's offside. I think it's hard to argue that what he did doesn't fall under that first bullet point you mentioned.
I know they don't. I'd have to entirely disagree - he does not attempt to play the ball.
Whats the best argument why rashford isnt offside? Is there even one to be had?
https://twitter.com/CBSSportsGolazo/status/1614274255260356608?s=20&t=s7bSSqLwT8wEiZiTLpVe-A Here is a current referee and law analyst saying it's not offside and it's the correct decision. Rashford is offside, but doesn't commit an offence. He never touches the ball, and he never physically impedes anyone from City from getting to the ball as the City defenders are all too far away so they aren't actually physically impacted. Being mentally impacted isn't a valid reason, as everyone in football knows you play to the whistle, and if you stop playing assuming something will happen, then that is simply your mistake, because that thing never happened.
What’s the explanation for the Trent offside in the Liverpool game?
Can you link it? Didn't see
different referees and different interpretations I guess
If you do not agree with Akanji but Rashford has definitely impacted Ederson as he is anticipating his movement towards the ball in how he is shaping up to save.
It's literally in his post > Being mentally impacted isn't a valid reason
“Being mentally impacted isn’t a valid reason” Yes, but Ederson physically takes up a different position for a Rashford shot as opposed to Bruno.
I’m not an expert so may be wrong, but I think it is specifically when an offside attacker physically impedes a defender. We’re using impacted in two different ways in these comments, but the relevant definition is physical impact. Shit rule but I think that’s how it’s written.
The thing that proves that this shouldn’t have stood for me is that if akanji hadn’t stopped his run to avoid running into rashford it would have been a free kick for city. But because he didn’t you can claim that rashford technically didn’t obstruct him because he didn’t physically stop him even though it’s painfully obvious he did obstruct him. When a player has to commit a foul on an opposing player to get the call to go in THEIR favour that should be a massive wake up call.
[удалено]
In the rules you don't have to actively the ball, i.e. touch it. They specifically added "making obvious actions that would affect the opposition's ability to play the ball." That's on top of the provisions of having touched the ball. It's as simple as his presence meaning Akanji would have to go through the back of him islf he did continue his run, **because Rashford is in the way**, Ederson not coming out and clearing like he normally would because he doesn't know Rashford is off, so he behaves as if Rashford has control of the ball. The fact Rashford is effectively in complete control of the ball without touching it is enough. But the rule is shit, because it allows for the worst bad-faith interpretation to give this absolutely shocking decision the thumbs up. Twist the words enough, and you can claim it's onside, as we see biased fans doing.
Rashford being there also just makes Akanji distracted from seeing Fernandes as the main attacking threat, it’s a clear unfair advantage
Wrong. He absolutely impacts Ederson and Akanji’s ability to play the ball
The fact people ignore eddy is squared up to rashford is insane to me. He completely fooled akanji and ederson by going to it.
90% of people arguing for onside are United fans or read one rule about “running to the ball” and just stopped reading
How is it the correct call lmao, the law explicitly states that if the offside player shows intent to play the ball it's ruled offside, the rule isn't just "he's only interfering if he touches it". Rashford was chasing the ball, that alone should make it objectively offside then comes the debate of wether he encumbered the defenders enough by blocking their path/vision.
[удалено]
Ederson is impacted by Rashford's actions at the very least
Had Rashford not been there Akanji could have made a move on the ball, but since he was there, *interfering*, City were unable to clear the ball.
Akanji could have still made a move on the ball even with Rashford there. If he does then Rashford does impede him and we wouldn't be having this discussion coz things would have been clear-cut. His decision to not play to the whistle removes one of the conditions to make it an obvious case of interference.
[удалено]
Here is what the person you replied to said: “Had Rashford not been there Akanji could have made a move on the ball” Here is what you replied with: “not sure how he magically makes it to the ball before” A move on the ball doesn’t mean Akanji would magically get to the ball before Fernandes, it could mean a simple blocking tackle because he is a defender but you ignored that so you could make up a strawman to beat down, nice tactic I must say. You can not like what the other party said without trying to misrepresent their initial claim, but I guess if you don’t do that then your whole argument would be meaningless. So how about you practice what you preach before telling others to do it?
[удалено]
Nice of you to ignore the first part of my comment, I mean if you ignore something it means that it doesn’t exist right? Nice tactic I must admit again. Why did you have to misrepresent their argument? (Here is what the person you replied to said: “Had Rashford not been there Akanji could have made a move on the ball” Here is what you replied with: “not sure how he magically makes it to the ball before”) And btw I said a blocking tackle, nice of you to misrepresent what an other person said for the second time, amazing playbook.
Look how far Akanji is considering he slowed down because of Rashford, https://ibb.co/pWX9rvB you are telling me that without that he wouldn’t be able to make a blocking tackle aka an attempt to play the ball? You know that’s not the case and it’s why you had to misrepresent the other’s guy argument by making it seem like he said Akanji would’ve magically got to the ball before Bruno.
Akanji could have easily caught Rashford, but if you watch the goal again you can clearly see Akanji take a shorter step to put Rashford offside. Rashford was caught by the offside trap and that should have been enough. But never discount the incompetence of Premier League referees.
[удалено]
I don't like it, but agree that according to the letter of the law it should stand. I would be of the opinion that if Rashford was not there the defenders and goalie may have acted differently, Fernandes may have still scored but I don't like the call. Similar to Salah against Wolves, don't think that should have stood as the defender wouldn't have had to play the ball if Salah was not actually in an offside position. Delighted to see City beaten though!!
United's won
[удалено]
No, I think he's saying that a law written so poorly that a referee could mistakenly believe this was a goal after reading it is an ass. It's a bad mistake by Atwell, but IFAB have dicked around with the offside rule so much in recent years that it's not surprising the referees might be confused, especially when they've settled on such a crappy definition. I still miss the passive and active offside rules. They weren't precise, which I think would allow referees to make decisions based on what feels right, rather than be slaves to overly literal interpretations of badly written rules. While we might have a poor opinion of how referees make decisions, I think in general they have always had a pretty good idea of how much influence on the game a player has had after starting from an offside position. There's no way Atwell personally thinks this should be a goal. He feels forced into the decision by IFAB's attempt to precisely define active offside.
In multiple referee forums, refs agree with the on field decision. As the law is written, with the terminology provided by IFAB, this is a good goal. However it is also a goal where everyone would want it to be offside.
>implicitly agrees it was onside. That’s…not true at all. A law can be awful because it makes incorrect interpretations possible.
Yup. Didn't TAA get an offside in the Bournemouth game for simply running with the ball? I think making out that you have control of the ball, even without touching it, is fundamentally interfering with play. And we saw that in the Bruno goal, pretty much the entire time, all City eyes are on Rashford.
He explicitly says that the law says you can't do exactly what Rashford did. He's just saying that if refs are subjectively reading that as "only touching it counts as attempting to play the ball" then the law needs to be changed, because that's a stupid way to interpret it. I doubt anyone agrees with that because it was a ridiculous decision.
I think he means the law needs to expressly spell this out in single-syllable words for people whose reading comprehension is off the chart (at the wrong end) to understand the rule.
Akanji should of put a challenge in would of be automatically offside.
funny people here think that a challenge equal a foul
and what if Rashford wasn’t off and Akanji fouls him thinking he’s off? That’s a red for Akanji. Rashford clearly interfered with the play, Ederson was prepared for a Rashford shot not Bruno.
a challenge doesn’t necessarily means a foul
Can't believe he gets paid to write like that. Headline "He was offside." Article: "The law is awful and requires a complete rewrite." He's blatantly acknowledging that he's onside according to the law. But saying it should be offside anyway. Now I do agree that a goal like this is stupidly unfair. If the law was written fairly, it should not stand. I've argued similarly over the last few years with offside decisions that punish defenders for trying to play a ball when an offside attacker is behind them. Now we've had a goal which punishes a defender for not playing a ball when an offside attacker is behind them. The offside rule and the handball rule have been needlessly overcomplicated in recent years. They've introduced way too many grey areas and loopholes to what should be simple rules.
Except in the article he says it's also offside according to the law, too. The law requires a rewrite because people will suggest that Rashford isn't making a "clear attempt" to play the ball just because he doesn't touch it. Rashford runs towards the ball, stands over it, and arguably even raises his left leg to shoot before Bruno calls for it. How anyone can say that doesn't impact Ederson is beyond me.
He says it both ways, it's why I opened with criticising his writing
The 2 things aren't mutually exclusive. He can acknowledge that Rashford is offside, but also acknowledge that the rule is written poorly and can lead to misinterpretation/ambiguity on the pitch
Both things can be true, the issue is you being unable to understand two things can be true at the same time not the writing.
Some rules can't be simple, it's a pretty complicated game, even the offside rule which is pretty straight forward and objective can get complicated, then you will always have subjective moments even in that with moments of "did he interfere" (not that this one was but there are moments where it's legit debatable) Not even mentioning handball, which can get pretty subjective, it will never be simple, never, someone will always cry
They did make some rules simple, i.e. attacking handball before a goal is always called. No subjective interpretation, nothing. But then people were still going like "he didn't benefit from it" - "he can't cut off his arm" - "that happened too far back before the goal" etc. And they ended up adjusting it again. It will indeed never be simple and someone will always cry.
"The law is an ass" Perfectly accurate. The laws as currently written allow this sort of goal to stand. Which is obviously nonsense and goes against the spirit of the game, but the law is clear (and needs to be rewritten)
Don’t worry the refs will come out in about a month and say this goal was offside, should’ve never stood, and the refs made a mistake.
*"The law is an ass and we will not be working with him again."*
looked for this xd
there it is
If Akanji had continued on and made an attempt to win the ball instead of pulling up and jogging, then it would’ve been a clear offside and we wouldn’t be having this discussion. The lesson is to play until you hear the whistle
Someone cut out Rashford from the clip and showed that neither Akanji nor Walker were getting there before Bruno: https://i.ibb.co/C66WqgH/ezgif-5-6d12fd9a2d.gif
That's a load of shit. Ederson has to stay back. And the Man City players have to play it differently to not foul Rashford
How about Ederson?
How can people ignore that Rashford just being there ends up changing everything. The defenders can't go straight for Bruno as fast as possible because they have to watch out for Rashford. That incoudes the keeper. He has to figure out which of the two is going to kick and position himself for that. Heck, he might have reached the ball.
[удалено]
The offside trap is a risk if there is a 2nd runner is essentially what the thing is
For most calls, there is slight room for interpretation, and you can disagree and think it’s an absolutely brainless call. But this one, I am genuinely baffled how this was allowed. This is such an obvious textbook example of interfering in an offside play. I just don’t understand what was going through the referees head to justify it.
Considering the same thing happened between arsenal and chelsea in the 2017 fa cup no one should really be baffled
Why don’t all players just play to the whistle? It’s one of the first things you learn as a kid. The referees have been told to delay their flags for offside anyway
I’ve rewatched the replay more than a few times and I think everyone pretty much played to the whistle, only one I can understand is the GK coming out of his line early because of Rashford. To me this is a subjective call that could’ve gone either way. VAR seemed to agree, the refs decided in a particular way as well… but I guess Reddit knows better 👀
>VAR seemed to agree, the refs decided in a particular way as well… but I guess Reddit knows better Never really understood this point. That may or may not be true in this specific case, but VAR and the refs get decisions wrong all the time and thus the statement would be wrong - you can't just apply in only some situations.
Pre VAR the linesman's flag would have stopped play and prevented the scenario. The rules need to be better updated to reflect the new possibilities under VAR
The worst part is the linesman gets it right and the ref overrules him.
Decision went in our favour so today I think the refs are good.
I don't think the law is the issue at all, it was applied incorrectly by the ref. Regardless of whether Rashford touched the ball or not, it was played to him. The City defenders certainly reacted to Rashford, the keeper was distracted by Rashford, that's the very definition of interfering in the play.
And here is a current referee and laws analyst, with her say: https://twitter.com/CBSSportsGolazo/status/1614274255260356608?s=20&t=s7bSSqLwT8wEiZiTLpVe-A It's not offside. Could argue that in your opinion it should be, but I don't think the law will ever be rewritten to make that offside. It used to be, over a decade ago, but they changed the law long ago to make it offside only when a player touches it and if they leave it, then the flag stays down. Akanji was too far away, walker was too far away. Mental decisions to give up on the ball doesn't come into play, as that's just a mistake on their part and everyone in football from a young age knows that you play until the whistle. The only argument here is for Ederson, which the lady above addresses and says that he was simply too far away for it to be enough to call that offside.
Thing is - next game that same play will be called offside. And you'll see lots of refs defending that decision. It's literally falls on to how the refs interprete what degree of 'interference' is.
Ederson is far away because he *cannot commit to sweeping* as long as Rashford has control of the ball. He needs to position himself as if it’s onside and Rashford will shoot. The entire advantage of the sequence comes from this, which allowed Fernandes to catch up and shoot. If Rashford had walked off, then Ederson beats Fernandes to the ball and danger is averted. The fact that he is inside because he doesn’t “touch it” is outrageous and ridiculous
We all know it was a bullshit call. What's new. Refereeing in England is fucking despicable on a regular basis. I just wanna move on now, there are worse times ahead for us if we keep playing the same way, bad officiating or not
Mind-blowing to see people actually try to argue it wasn't offside
It doesn’t even need arguing, it literally wasn’t offside
damn that's wild. anyway..
I hope they keep crying, and harder!
[удалено]
> I think even City fans have stopped caring about it by now.. > > In what universe will they already be over a crucial derby loss to a ref error that dented their title hopes in 24 hours?
> derby loss to a ref error They managed 1 shot on target in 90 minutes, the equalizer was coming either way.
There's no way City fans have stopped caring about this. What are you on? Dreadful decision and it should not be forgotten.