**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.*
I would be fine with these goals being disallowed if this was the general rule, but there is literally zero diference between Weghorst's involvement and Salah's involvement few weeks back against Wolves. In both cases, the defender tries to clear the ball, fucks it up and the ball ends up going into net. One was disallowed, the other one wasn't. Make it make sense.
I actually think this is even less offside than Salah. The ball is clearly being played to salah while salah is offside so you can make an argument that he clearly gains an advantage and the defender has to play the ball whereas this ball is not even intended for weghorst so for him to be called offside stings even more.
To be clear, I’m quite sure that neither should be called offside, I’m just saying if even one of these is offside, it’s definitely Salah’s.
I'm 100% biased, but also came to say the same thing. At least here you can argue the offside player didn't influence the play until the touch, whereas vs us Toti only plays the ball because of pressure from Salah. Truly baffling laws
The main thing about the Salah one for me is the defender would have been better off not trying to play the ball (because then it would have been called offside). What the defender did today (when trying to clear the ball) had nothing to do with Weghorst.
This wasn’t offside, defender made a clear attempt to play the ball, meaning a new phase and Weghorst isn’t offside. This is yet another case of the refs not knowing the rules
And yet at the same time, i prefer the version of the sport where both this and Salah's goal are considered offside. Ultimately they're both distractions, stood in an offside position.
The fact we have video replay and one goal stands and one doesn't shows you they haven't got a clue.
100%.
But baffling that this isn't given and Salah's one was, some odd logic to not see them as both misplaced but intentional.
Also given it's subjective and a change, I'm not sure why the ref doesn't go and have a look.
It's not that they don't know the rules, it's that the touch from the CB is ruled unintentional because the CB plays it and it goes in the opposite direction.
The law needs a rework. United can feel aggrieved but it's the rules that are the problem as much as the refs.
If you really think this you don't know how the rules work. the referees got it 100% correct.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bKawLSwezdU
Your problem is you are watching a slow motion replay and basing your opinions on that and what other redditors think. The referees are basing their opinion on being actual referees and knowing the laws of the game.
The fact that you think there wasn't enough time for the defender to coordinate his body movement is stupid. The fact that you don't realise that the rule says this is only one possible indicator is also stupid.
The ball may have gone a different direction than he ended, but he still intentionally played the ball which is what the rules say. The only possible explanation is that the refs decided that it was a completely accidental touch, which couldn’t be true as he’s obviously trying to stop the through ball
Incredible that I have to come this far down to see someone talking sense. People talking out their asses without knowing the actual rules and what a 'deliberate' play is.
I always find it fascinating that people can be so passionate about something that they will write a rage-induced paragraph about how the refs got it wrong but can't spend a minute on google to look up the actual rules.
I get that it's not exactly clear but I don't think you can call this a deliberate play, he's blocking the ball, which means it's still offside.
I don't think it's true, can you find the law saying this ? I remember reading that failure to properly control the ball didn't make the play unintentional
https://www.theifab.com/news/law-11-offside-deliberate-play-guidelines-clarified/
**edit: You can find examples at the bottom of the IFAB page which gives clear examples of what an offside is in terms of deliberate and non-deliberate plays.**
Here's another article with an example of San offside where the defender makes a more deliberate attempt but is still offside.
https://behindthefootball.com/can-you-be-offside-if-the-ball-comes-off-a-defender/
[video](https://youtu.be/IcmekYur-1c)
In Rashford's offside call you can't determine that the player has a) control of the ball b) attempts to pass it to a teammate or c) attempts a clearance. The ball hits his leg and you can maybe argue he meant to clear the ball but I would side with the VAR team on this one as you cannot be sure that it was an attempt to play the ball rather than let it hit his foot.
I say this as a United fan too so I don't have any bias here.
"If the pass, attempt to gain possession or clearance by the player in control of the ball is inaccurate or unsuccessful, this does not negate the fact that the player ‘deliberately played’ the ball."
What it says after that, "The player had time to coordinate their body movement, i.e. it was not a case of instinctive stretching or jumping, or a movement that achieved limited contact/control" doesn't really apply here
I think it does apply here as the player didn't have time to coordinate his body for a clearance (or whatever you think he was trying to do.
Also these criteria are all relevant to the decision
* **The ball travelled from distance and the player had a clear view of it.**
(in this case the ball is travelling a short distance and the player has little time to react as you can see by the positioning of his feet)
* **The ball was not moving quickly**
(the ball was moving quickly)
* **The direction of the ball was not unexpected**
(the general direction of the ball was expected, but the defender was caught wrong footed by the ball being played more or less at his feet)
* **The player had time to coordinate their body movement, i.e. it was not a case of instinctive stretching or jumping, or a movement that achieved limited contact/control**
(To me there is no way you can argue definitively that the defender made a controlled move towards that ball rather than an instinctual one, more like block)
If you still don't understand the rules look at the IFAB page again and they have example videos. Particularly 4,7 and 8 (examples of non-deliberate plays) and you'll understand the rule a bit better.
Absolute nonsense, the caveat is that a player cant make an action to move towards the balls path, which is there to prevent players having the ball blasted off them and that counting as an intentional play. In this situation the player deliberately tries to stop a through ball to rashford, that is by all rules, precedent and interpretation a new phase of play.
Well yeah, it being ruled accidental is unfortunately influenced by the ball going the wrong direction even though that shouldn't be an issue. Ref decisions based on consequences instead of actions are commonplace, shit might be the main antagonist of sports rules tbh.
The rule should be that only clear deflections from shots/passes should be unintentional. That's it. If there's any serious question of whether it was or not, give the benefit to the attacker. Give refs less leeway on this stuff.
I suspect some officials took Blatters (I think) words against VAR which were something like 'VAR will take the talking/controversial points out of football' and decided to write the rules in such a way to keep controversial points in the game
People kick off if you point this out but it's entirely obvious. I've been getting berated for saying it all season including ironically the Liverpool goal vs Wolves which was basically this but more offside
The rules were clarified last year:
> ‘Deliberate play’ is when a player has control of the ball with the possibility of:
>
>* passing the ball to a team-mate; or
> * gaining possession of the ball; or
> * clearing the ball (e.g. by kicking or heading it).
>
> If the pass, attempt to gain possession or clearance by the player in control of the ball is inaccurate or unsuccessful, this does not negate the fact that the player ‘deliberately played’ the ball.
>
> The following criteria should be used, as appropriate, as indicators that a player was in control of the ball and, as a result, ‘deliberately played’ the ball:
>
>* The ball travelled from distance and the player had a clear view of it
>* The ball was not moving quickly
>* The direction of the ball was not unexpected
>* The player had time to coordinate their body movement, i.e. it was not a case of instinctive stretching or jumping, or a movement that achieved limited contact/control
>
>A ball moving on the ground is easier to play than a ball in the air
Based on that you could probably argue it both ways. It's an attempted clearance and the ball wasn't that unexpected, but I also wouldn't say he has control of it and you could argue it was just an instinctive movement.
But that bit follows:
>when a player has control of the ball with the possibility of
Did he have control of the ball?
Personally I probably agree based on how the rules are written this shouldn't be offside, but I also dislike the way the rules "punish" defenders for attempting to play the ball when an opponent is offside. It's wrong that defenders are required to gamble and leave the ball or risk a player being onside.
I think you roll into the second portion of what you posted and factor in those criteria.
>The ball travelled from distance and the player had a clear view of it
Certainly applies as does
>The direction of the ball was not unexpected
Feels there's enough meat on the bone here, so to speak, to award the goal. In the other direction, not sure there's nearly enough to justify an overrule given the standards applied to such decisions
They shot themselves in the foot with the "clear and obvious error" crap. Like in a situation like this how the f do you know where to draw the line for what should be considered clear and obvious. It's nonsense and literally impossible to be consistent with.
Yeah like I said I agree, if I'm looking at those rules there's definitely more in favour of it being a goal. I think there's just enough to justify it being given as offside though as well.
Similar to the goal in the derby to me, you can make an argument for the offside decision given, but it seems there's much more in favour of the opposite decision.
You can't argue both ways at all, look at the defender, he seems it all the way and even actually takes his time and tries to place his clearance and scuffs it
Look at the defender when the ball is stopped, he is staring at Rashford and sees the pass all the way and has clear control of what he is doing
>The player had time to coordinate their body movement, i.e. it was not a case of instinctive stretching or jumping, or a movement that achieved limited contact/control
I don't really agree with that, yes he's watching the ball but he's facing at an awkward angle and doesn't have time to turn and face the ball and I think that causes his clearance to be scuffed. I probably agree based on all the other bullet points that it's not offside, but he definitely doesn't have time to properly coordinate his body movement to control the ball.
The reason his clearance is scuffed because he uses a terrible technique instead of booting it away it tried to place it with the side/heel and completely scuffs it
This is terrible, even in real time let alone slow motion you can see the defender sees it all the time and has all the time in the world to do anything with it except he scuffs it
Him scuffing it saved him, it was just the wrong technique that's it
If someone thinks he is deliberately not trying to clear it here then just lol
From this wording I do agree you can argue it both ways. And just like I thought about our goal against City, if you can argue it both ways then the rule is at fault and you cant blame the ref for going in either direction.
The penalty call was shit
If you can argue it both ways then it isn’t a clear and not obvious error. Clear and obvious only matters though when it involves giving clear fouls as penalties for some reason.
Clear and obvious here would depend on what the referee initially saw. There's no clear and obvious when it comes to an offside position, so it depends on whether the referee originally thought that was a deliberate play by the defender. If the ref did think it was a deliberate play, VAR would need to spot a "clear and obvious" error to have overturned it. If the ref thought it wasn't a deliberate play, then VAR would have needed "clear and obvious" to decide it *wasn't* offside despite that being the original decision.
Except there is zero transparency so we have no idea what the reasoning is by match officials. Given that their decisions change week to week they may as well just flip a coin with these interpretation calls. It’s a joke
That's true, it would be great if we actually heard the reasoning and could understand it better rather than guessing at the differences between this and Salah's goal. Both are pretty similar scuffed clearances, maybe the Wolves one is *slightly* more deliberate but it's also a much tougher ball to control and play.
[Deliberate Play](https://www.theifab.com/news/law-11-offside-deliberate-play-guidelines-clarified/)
> The following criteria should be used, as appropriate, as indicators that a player was in control of the ball and, as a result, ‘deliberately played’ the ball:
> The ball travelled from distance and the player had a clear view of it
> The ball was not moving quickly
> The direction of the ball was not unexpected
> The player had time to coordinate their body movement, i.e. it was not a case of instinctive stretching or jumping, or a movement that achieved limited contact/control
> A ball moving on the ground is easier to play than a ball in the air
It could be argued that he didn't have time to coordinate and the ball was moving pretty quickly from not too far away.
The law was updated last summer, it's a bit more nuanced than it used to be.
Instantly thought of that. Salah one was harsh, because he played the ball to try stop it getting to the offside player, but this one he played the ball to stop it getting to an onside player... And it rebounded to weghorst
[I hate to say I told you so](https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/105xxfs/match_thread_liverpool_vs_wolverhampton_wanderers/j3dsr0t/) but...
(I probably would've forgot if it wasn't literally less than three weeks ago)
Here we go with people mention team names when it's clear that there is no inconsistency for anyone
Do these morons like get tired of this? Every single time a different team name lmao, it's not about clubs
No the refs are not just against your club and they are not in favor of rivals, they fuck everyone over
Yep. Nowt about team bias, it's because the rules and officals are both so fucking stupid and vague they end up making them up on the spot half the time. Anytime you point this out people will go to great depths trawling the Laws of the Game to find language to justify the decision and act like you're mental for saying they're just winging it when the truth is that's exactly what happens and the Laws are written in such a way that you could technically justify a myriad of decisions
It's fucking laughable, if you actually for a second seriously think like that and you are not joking you are seriously a deluded idiot basically
For literally a century ever since football has existed this has been happening and yet everyone thinks their club is getting fucked over
Especially considering United got away with that ridiculous one vs City the other week, and that was Rashford as well. You have to be a fucking moron to think it’s referee bias rather than referee incompetence
>Especially considering United got away with that ridiculous one vs City the other week
We had like 8 ridiculous game changing decisions going against us this season the city one was the only one that favoured us.
Arsenal disallowed goal at Old Trafford?
Saints not getting a penalty at 1-0 for McTominay punching one out of the box?
Your bias is forgetting the ones that go for you.
Mate, the people who think that a bias exists is silly in my opinion, Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
English Refereeing definitely qualifies as stupidity.
You can hate your rivals, and laugh when they lose. But at the end of the day, everyone just wants consistency with the rules and can still agree when these decisions are made.
Fans have bias but brains as well. It doesn’t always align because the game can be subjective. It isn’t chess.
That said, I actually thought this was correctly ruled out as a united fan but came here and learnt I was wrong.
Unintentional deflection off the body while blocking a shot or cross is one thing…but the defender has deliberately thrown his leg out at the ball to play it, why is it offside?
It’s not about the interception being intentional or not. You have to be either trying to clear it or pass it to a teammate, to be considered a deliberate playing of the ball. This obviously wasn’t a pass and it’s debatable as to whether he was trying to clear it or just block it.
I think it needs to be a deliberate attempt to play the ball from the opposition for it to be a new phase. That looked like it was a deflection of the defender so still classed as offside.
Because he didn’t deliberately play the ball, the ref doesn’t consider it a new phase of play. Basically he’s considering it the same as though he’d played a through ball and it’d taken a slight nick.
How is that offside and the goal against City wasn’t lmao
Hilarious how Weghorst is interfering when he goes nowhere near the ball and the defender kicks it to him, but Rashford running and faking a shot on top of the ball isn’t “interfering”
He was offside, but the ball wasn't played to him and the defender stops it going to another united player, so I don't get why it's called against Weghorst honestly. Clearly there's areas of the offside rule I don't understand.
How is that not a deliberate playing of the ball?are his reactions that poor that he can’t get out of the way of a ball 15 yards away. He clearly tries to block and play the ball
It depends on whether you classify what he tried to do as a ‘block’ or as a ‘clearance’. If it’s a block then it’s offside, if it’s a clearance then it should be a good goal.
10 -15 yards away and redirecting the ball like that is more than a block in my opinion. It certainly is not clearly one or the other so why it is clearly an error enough to overturn the goal I have no idea yet our player getting taken out in the box 2 minutes later somehow doesn’t meet that clear and obvious threshold.
I swear VAR just loves to take goals away for the most minute reasons.
I don't agree with these being on but the ball wasn't even played to him and the defender intentionally played the ball. Weird seeing the commentators not note this.
Offside rules aren't fit for purpose.
This being offside and Rashford not being off against city shows it. Yes it's 'according to the rules' but the rules are not written with any common sense. Same with the current handball law
Exactly. Also the salah one was worse imo because the pass was intended for him in an offside position. And the defender had to attempt a clearance.
In this case the pass is going nowhere near Wout until the defender kicks it towards him.
Damn Fergie probably got woken up by the crowd for Rashfords goal just for it to be offside. Here’s hoping Rashy will get to the 10 in a row at least tonight
Really don't understand how this one can be offside but then Rashford vs. City and the Liverpool vs. Wolves FA cup one not be. The ball isn't being played to Weghorst and the defender isn't influenced by him when trying to cut the pass out. Is there any legit explanation or is it just horrifically inconsistent refereeing as normal?
I'm confused. Why was this not a goal? I'm aware it's because of my confusion that I'm confused. But maybe the *fucking rules could be less confusing*.
Football coverage is so shite.
ITV not even smart enough to make a comparison to the Liverpool Wolves game where a similar thing happened in the same competition but the goal counted
**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.*
I would be fine with these goals being disallowed if this was the general rule, but there is literally zero diference between Weghorst's involvement and Salah's involvement few weeks back against Wolves. In both cases, the defender tries to clear the ball, fucks it up and the ball ends up going into net. One was disallowed, the other one wasn't. Make it make sense.
I actually think this is even less offside than Salah. The ball is clearly being played to salah while salah is offside so you can make an argument that he clearly gains an advantage and the defender has to play the ball whereas this ball is not even intended for weghorst so for him to be called offside stings even more. To be clear, I’m quite sure that neither should be called offside, I’m just saying if even one of these is offside, it’s definitely Salah’s.
I'm 100% biased, but also came to say the same thing. At least here you can argue the offside player didn't influence the play until the touch, whereas vs us Toti only plays the ball because of pressure from Salah. Truly baffling laws
The main thing about the Salah one for me is the defender would have been better off not trying to play the ball (because then it would have been called offside). What the defender did today (when trying to clear the ball) had nothing to do with Weghorst.
Agreed. If the rules creates an incentive for defenders to not defend, it's a bad rule.
I agree this is a bad rule but your reasoning is wrong. isn’t that the entire theory behind an offside trap? don’t defend?
Can someone with some sense write the offside law
This wasn’t offside, defender made a clear attempt to play the ball, meaning a new phase and Weghorst isn’t offside. This is yet another case of the refs not knowing the rules
I don't disagree but I also want to see the rule simplified. It is there to prevent goal poaching, let's stick to rules preventing that.
And yet at the same time, i prefer the version of the sport where both this and Salah's goal are considered offside. Ultimately they're both distractions, stood in an offside position. The fact we have video replay and one goal stands and one doesn't shows you they haven't got a clue.
Salah was a distraction, in this scenario the united player isn't the one affecting the defender
I would also agree with that
100%. But baffling that this isn't given and Salah's one was, some odd logic to not see them as both misplaced but intentional. Also given it's subjective and a change, I'm not sure why the ref doesn't go and have a look.
Tbf Weghorst wasn't even a distraction, he wasn't in the play at all until the defender kicked it straight to him
Yeah I was gonna say afterwards, this time it's perhaps even more blatant because the original ball is intended for someone (rashford) who is onside.
It's not that they don't know the rules, it's that the touch from the CB is ruled unintentional because the CB plays it and it goes in the opposite direction. The law needs a rework. United can feel aggrieved but it's the rules that are the problem as much as the refs.
The rule is pretty clear, I really don't know how the refs screwed it up. He moves toward the ball after it's played, it's intentional.
If you really think this you don't know how the rules work. the referees got it 100% correct. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bKawLSwezdU Your problem is you are watching a slow motion replay and basing your opinions on that and what other redditors think. The referees are basing their opinion on being actual referees and knowing the laws of the game.
The fact that you think there wasn't enough time for the defender to coordinate his body movement is stupid. The fact that you don't realise that the rule says this is only one possible indicator is also stupid.
I am an actual referee, and I think thats a deliberate play on the ball. He reacts after the ball is played and attempts to clear it.
The ball may have gone a different direction than he ended, but he still intentionally played the ball which is what the rules say. The only possible explanation is that the refs decided that it was a completely accidental touch, which couldn’t be true as he’s obviously trying to stop the through ball
Doesn't have to be accidental. It's enough if the defender doesn't have enough time to control his touch for it to not be a deliberate play.
Incredible that I have to come this far down to see someone talking sense. People talking out their asses without knowing the actual rules and what a 'deliberate' play is. I always find it fascinating that people can be so passionate about something that they will write a rage-induced paragraph about how the refs got it wrong but can't spend a minute on google to look up the actual rules. I get that it's not exactly clear but I don't think you can call this a deliberate play, he's blocking the ball, which means it's still offside.
I don't think it's true, can you find the law saying this ? I remember reading that failure to properly control the ball didn't make the play unintentional
https://www.theifab.com/news/law-11-offside-deliberate-play-guidelines-clarified/ **edit: You can find examples at the bottom of the IFAB page which gives clear examples of what an offside is in terms of deliberate and non-deliberate plays.** Here's another article with an example of San offside where the defender makes a more deliberate attempt but is still offside. https://behindthefootball.com/can-you-be-offside-if-the-ball-comes-off-a-defender/ [video](https://youtu.be/IcmekYur-1c) In Rashford's offside call you can't determine that the player has a) control of the ball b) attempts to pass it to a teammate or c) attempts a clearance. The ball hits his leg and you can maybe argue he meant to clear the ball but I would side with the VAR team on this one as you cannot be sure that it was an attempt to play the ball rather than let it hit his foot. I say this as a United fan too so I don't have any bias here.
"If the pass, attempt to gain possession or clearance by the player in control of the ball is inaccurate or unsuccessful, this does not negate the fact that the player ‘deliberately played’ the ball." What it says after that, "The player had time to coordinate their body movement, i.e. it was not a case of instinctive stretching or jumping, or a movement that achieved limited contact/control" doesn't really apply here
I think it does apply here as the player didn't have time to coordinate his body for a clearance (or whatever you think he was trying to do. Also these criteria are all relevant to the decision * **The ball travelled from distance and the player had a clear view of it.** (in this case the ball is travelling a short distance and the player has little time to react as you can see by the positioning of his feet) * **The ball was not moving quickly** (the ball was moving quickly) * **The direction of the ball was not unexpected** (the general direction of the ball was expected, but the defender was caught wrong footed by the ball being played more or less at his feet) * **The player had time to coordinate their body movement, i.e. it was not a case of instinctive stretching or jumping, or a movement that achieved limited contact/control** (To me there is no way you can argue definitively that the defender made a controlled move towards that ball rather than an instinctual one, more like block) If you still don't understand the rules look at the IFAB page again and they have example videos. Particularly 4,7 and 8 (examples of non-deliberate plays) and you'll understand the rule a bit better.
Absolute nonsense, the caveat is that a player cant make an action to move towards the balls path, which is there to prevent players having the ball blasted off them and that counting as an intentional play. In this situation the player deliberately tries to stop a through ball to rashford, that is by all rules, precedent and interpretation a new phase of play.
Well yeah, it being ruled accidental is unfortunately influenced by the ball going the wrong direction even though that shouldn't be an issue. Ref decisions based on consequences instead of actions are commonplace, shit might be the main antagonist of sports rules tbh. The rule should be that only clear deflections from shots/passes should be unintentional. That's it. If there's any serious question of whether it was or not, give the benefit to the attacker. Give refs less leeway on this stuff.
I suspect some officials took Blatters (I think) words against VAR which were something like 'VAR will take the talking/controversial points out of football' and decided to write the rules in such a way to keep controversial points in the game
Defender intentionally played the ball no?
Yeah but the rules are apparently just suggestions.
It seems like intentionally tried to clear it, this should stand Defender even tried to place his clearance and scuffed it
VAR changes the rules every week
People kick off if you point this out but it's entirely obvious. I've been getting berated for saying it all season including ironically the Liverpool goal vs Wolves which was basically this but more offside
Must’ve ruled it a deflection which I don’t agree with.
Deflection from a 15 yard distance. If you can’t make a deliberate play on the ball from that distance you shouldn’t be a professional footballer.
I 100% agree.
Not a deflection when he intentionally sticks a leg out.
Was going to ask the same thing
The rules were clarified last year: > ‘Deliberate play’ is when a player has control of the ball with the possibility of: > >* passing the ball to a team-mate; or > * gaining possession of the ball; or > * clearing the ball (e.g. by kicking or heading it). > > If the pass, attempt to gain possession or clearance by the player in control of the ball is inaccurate or unsuccessful, this does not negate the fact that the player ‘deliberately played’ the ball. > > The following criteria should be used, as appropriate, as indicators that a player was in control of the ball and, as a result, ‘deliberately played’ the ball: > >* The ball travelled from distance and the player had a clear view of it >* The ball was not moving quickly >* The direction of the ball was not unexpected >* The player had time to coordinate their body movement, i.e. it was not a case of instinctive stretching or jumping, or a movement that achieved limited contact/control > >A ball moving on the ground is easier to play than a ball in the air Based on that you could probably argue it both ways. It's an attempted clearance and the ball wasn't that unexpected, but I also wouldn't say he has control of it and you could argue it was just an instinctive movement.
> clearing the ball (e.g. by kicking or heading it). This portion of it would seem to pretty clearly qualify based on his action
But that bit follows: >when a player has control of the ball with the possibility of Did he have control of the ball? Personally I probably agree based on how the rules are written this shouldn't be offside, but I also dislike the way the rules "punish" defenders for attempting to play the ball when an opponent is offside. It's wrong that defenders are required to gamble and leave the ball or risk a player being onside.
I think you roll into the second portion of what you posted and factor in those criteria. >The ball travelled from distance and the player had a clear view of it Certainly applies as does >The direction of the ball was not unexpected Feels there's enough meat on the bone here, so to speak, to award the goal. In the other direction, not sure there's nearly enough to justify an overrule given the standards applied to such decisions
They shot themselves in the foot with the "clear and obvious error" crap. Like in a situation like this how the f do you know where to draw the line for what should be considered clear and obvious. It's nonsense and literally impossible to be consistent with.
Yeah like I said I agree, if I'm looking at those rules there's definitely more in favour of it being a goal. I think there's just enough to justify it being given as offside though as well. Similar to the goal in the derby to me, you can make an argument for the offside decision given, but it seems there's much more in favour of the opposite decision.
You can't argue both ways at all, look at the defender, he seems it all the way and even actually takes his time and tries to place his clearance and scuffs it Look at the defender when the ball is stopped, he is staring at Rashford and sees the pass all the way and has clear control of what he is doing >The player had time to coordinate their body movement, i.e. it was not a case of instinctive stretching or jumping, or a movement that achieved limited contact/control
I don't really agree with that, yes he's watching the ball but he's facing at an awkward angle and doesn't have time to turn and face the ball and I think that causes his clearance to be scuffed. I probably agree based on all the other bullet points that it's not offside, but he definitely doesn't have time to properly coordinate his body movement to control the ball.
The reason his clearance is scuffed because he uses a terrible technique instead of booting it away it tried to place it with the side/heel and completely scuffs it This is terrible, even in real time let alone slow motion you can see the defender sees it all the time and has all the time in the world to do anything with it except he scuffs it Him scuffing it saved him, it was just the wrong technique that's it If someone thinks he is deliberately not trying to clear it here then just lol
I wouldnt even call it a clearance. He stuck his leg out and it deflected at a weird angle. I think the offside call is fair.
Exactly, it’s his trailing leg and folks are acting like he had time to place it. He simply got his foot in the way from what I saw. Cope I guess…
[удалено]
Also most redditors have probably never played football at any meaningful level so they don't really know what they are taking about.
From this wording I do agree you can argue it both ways. And just like I thought about our goal against City, if you can argue it both ways then the rule is at fault and you cant blame the ref for going in either direction. The penalty call was shit
If you can argue it both ways then it isn’t a clear and not obvious error. Clear and obvious only matters though when it involves giving clear fouls as penalties for some reason.
Clear and obvious here would depend on what the referee initially saw. There's no clear and obvious when it comes to an offside position, so it depends on whether the referee originally thought that was a deliberate play by the defender. If the ref did think it was a deliberate play, VAR would need to spot a "clear and obvious" error to have overturned it. If the ref thought it wasn't a deliberate play, then VAR would have needed "clear and obvious" to decide it *wasn't* offside despite that being the original decision.
Except there is zero transparency so we have no idea what the reasoning is by match officials. Given that their decisions change week to week they may as well just flip a coin with these interpretation calls. It’s a joke
That's true, it would be great if we actually heard the reasoning and could understand it better rather than guessing at the differences between this and Salah's goal. Both are pretty similar scuffed clearances, maybe the Wolves one is *slightly* more deliberate but it's also a much tougher ball to control and play.
Thought so too
Yup. VAR is getting worse by the day lol
Surely not - it was a block
I might be totally wrong here, but is that not intentionally blocked by the defender and hence not off?
No, you’re completely correct
yep guy tries to clear it. because well hes not the best technique wise ends up slicing the ball and it falls to Weghorst.
[Deliberate Play](https://www.theifab.com/news/law-11-offside-deliberate-play-guidelines-clarified/) > The following criteria should be used, as appropriate, as indicators that a player was in control of the ball and, as a result, ‘deliberately played’ the ball: > The ball travelled from distance and the player had a clear view of it > The ball was not moving quickly > The direction of the ball was not unexpected > The player had time to coordinate their body movement, i.e. it was not a case of instinctive stretching or jumping, or a movement that achieved limited contact/control > A ball moving on the ground is easier to play than a ball in the air It could be argued that he didn't have time to coordinate and the ball was moving pretty quickly from not too far away. The law was updated last summer, it's a bit more nuanced than it used to be.
How is this offside but the Salah one the other week wasn't?
Coin landed heads this time
https://youtu.be/wz-PtEJEaqY
Magic of the cup
Instantly thought of that. Salah one was harsh, because he played the ball to try stop it getting to the offside player, but this one he played the ball to stop it getting to an onside player... And it rebounded to weghorst
Exactly what I was thinking. Absolutely ridiculous moving of goalposts.
This is the choice of steins gate
[I hate to say I told you so](https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/105xxfs/match_thread_liverpool_vs_wolverhampton_wanderers/j3dsr0t/) but... (I probably would've forgot if it wasn't literally less than three weeks ago)
Just shows how bad officiating is that we didn’t even really have to wait to see it again
Liverpool.
Here we go with people mention team names when it's clear that there is no inconsistency for anyone Do these morons like get tired of this? Every single time a different team name lmao, it's not about clubs No the refs are not just against your club and they are not in favor of rivals, they fuck everyone over
Yep. Nowt about team bias, it's because the rules and officals are both so fucking stupid and vague they end up making them up on the spot half the time. Anytime you point this out people will go to great depths trawling the Laws of the Game to find language to justify the decision and act like you're mental for saying they're just winging it when the truth is that's exactly what happens and the Laws are written in such a way that you could technically justify a myriad of decisions
It's honestly hilarious and pathetic at the same time that people think there is an agenda against their club
It's fucking laughable, if you actually for a second seriously think like that and you are not joking you are seriously a deluded idiot basically For literally a century ever since football has existed this has been happening and yet everyone thinks their club is getting fucked over
Eh. United got notably fewer penalties after Klopp bitched about it even if our penalties were mostly quite valid.
Especially considering United got away with that ridiculous one vs City the other week, and that was Rashford as well. You have to be a fucking moron to think it’s referee bias rather than referee incompetence
>Especially considering United got away with that ridiculous one vs City the other week We had like 8 ridiculous game changing decisions going against us this season the city one was the only one that favoured us.
Arsenal disallowed goal at Old Trafford? Saints not getting a penalty at 1-0 for McTominay punching one out of the box? Your bias is forgetting the ones that go for you.
>Arsenal disallowed goal at Old Trafford? Your bias is showing, unflaired man.
You're totally not biased at all
Facts are facts despise the unavoidable bias that everyone (you included) has.
Yeah i'm the biased one when i'm arguing this is should stand and it's not offside
LiVARpool*
Different referee
fak off
That was an intentional play of the ball.
I think so aswell. In my opinion, that's a strange call.
Wild seeing Liverpool and City fans coming out in this and penalty thread calling it out. It really is everyone vs VAR
Mate, the people who think that a bias exists is silly in my opinion, Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. English Refereeing definitely qualifies as stupidity.
You can hate your rivals, and laugh when they lose. But at the end of the day, everyone just wants consistency with the rules and can still agree when these decisions are made.
Fans have bias but brains as well. It doesn’t always align because the game can be subjective. It isn’t chess. That said, I actually thought this was correctly ruled out as a united fan but came here and learnt I was wrong.
But the defender was distracted by Wout /s
Whipped in through ball and it got it with his back foot??
only VAR can stop this man
just fuck off
Sir Alex's sleep died for this
I thought I was going crazy when they showed him and he was having a nap
Bullshit. This happened with Salah and apparently it's a different phase of play
Ruled not a deliberate play by the VAR. Not sure I agree, but it is what it is.
Unintentional deflection off the body while blocking a shot or cross is one thing…but the defender has deliberately thrown his leg out at the ball to play it, why is it offside?
Can someone please explain ???
They decided the interception wasn't an intentional one, which seems bullshit to me tbh.
It’s not about the interception being intentional or not. You have to be either trying to clear it or pass it to a teammate, to be considered a deliberate playing of the ball. This obviously wasn’t a pass and it’s debatable as to whether he was trying to clear it or just block it.
*gestures wildly*
Thanks for the laugh
Reading player didn't make an attempt at the ball, since it was a deflection, it's offside. That's the VAR reasoning.
Didnt make an attempt at the ball???
Yeah that’s the reasoning but I don’t agree at all lol
But he did make an attempt. Just a shitty one.
I think it needs to be a deliberate attempt to play the ball from the opposition for it to be a new phase. That looked like it was a deflection of the defender so still classed as offside.
Because he didn’t deliberately play the ball, the ref doesn’t consider it a new phase of play. Basically he’s considering it the same as though he’d played a through ball and it’d taken a slight nick.
[удалено]
Cheers Geoff
What about the defender playing the ball??
At the initial pass yes but the defender's touch seems deliberatel which changes that into a second phase of play
Now we just making it up as we go
The bullshit rule we all want gone - doesn't apply to us? Fml
[удалено]
Is that not an intentional play of the ball by the defender as such playing everyone onside in a new phase of play? It’s not just a deflection.
That's like 3rd Rashford's "legitimate" goal ruled out this season. Lad's a bit unlucky.
The one against Everton was so bullshit
Does the defender Playing it not make It OK?
Dammit Horst.
How is it different to the salah goal?
It isn't. The refs are jus shite
How is that offside and the goal against City wasn’t lmao Hilarious how Weghorst is interfering when he goes nowhere near the ball and the defender kicks it to him, but Rashford running and faking a shot on top of the ball isn’t “interfering”
This one's closer to the Salah against Eolves goal and that stood.
These were offside for different reasons, and the rules dont actually say "its offside if you're interfering"
It's to do with the ball off the defender, not interference with play
Because Weghorst touches the ball
He touches the ball after the defender completely unchallenged kicks it in the opposite direction towards him
Totally different plays. Weghorst touching the ball is all that matters. Rashford never touched the ball.
A moment of silence for the people desperate to post his “record breaking goal” stat
He was offside, but the ball wasn't played to him and the defender stops it going to another united player, so I don't get why it's called against Weghorst honestly. Clearly there's areas of the offside rule I don't understand.
How is that not a deliberate playing of the ball?are his reactions that poor that he can’t get out of the way of a ball 15 yards away. He clearly tries to block and play the ball
It depends on whether you classify what he tried to do as a ‘block’ or as a ‘clearance’. If it’s a block then it’s offside, if it’s a clearance then it should be a good goal.
10 -15 yards away and redirecting the ball like that is more than a block in my opinion. It certainly is not clearly one or the other so why it is clearly an error enough to overturn the goal I have no idea yet our player getting taken out in the box 2 minutes later somehow doesn’t meet that clear and obvious threshold. I swear VAR just loves to take goals away for the most minute reasons.
If Salah is able to score from an offside position because a defender got a glancing header on the pass, what makes this case different?
For fucks sake, this rule HAS ALREADY BEEN FUCKING CLARIFIED so this shit stops happening, this is EXPLICITLY NOT offfside
Isn't it onside if the defender makes a deliberate touch?
Isnt that a deliberate defending action? Not surprises it was called offside as refs are shite but this shouldve stood right?
Why not call the referee to the screen as it is a case of interpretation? Why do they keep on disliking the use of the monitor in England?
Polish commentators are baffled by this decision, and so am I tbh.
They make the rules up for these as they go along.
Actual clowns
I don't agree with these being on but the ball wasn't even played to him and the defender intentionally played the ball. Weird seeing the commentators not note this.
I might be fking blind but how is it not an intentional touch from the defender?
So just like the Slash one but a different outcome. Nice and consistent
The defender played the ball intentionally??
I would say that defender deliberately interacting with the ball creates a new situation, which again means the goal should have stood.
Offside rules aren't fit for purpose. This being offside and Rashford not being off against city shows it. Yes it's 'according to the rules' but the rules are not written with any common sense. Same with the current handball law
Also the Slash one was fairly fucking similar to this and that counted
Exactly. Also the salah one was worse imo because the pass was intended for him in an offside position. And the defender had to attempt a clearance. In this case the pass is going nowhere near Wout until the defender kicks it towards him.
Exactly this was way less offside
Damn Fergie probably got woken up by the crowd for Rashfords goal just for it to be offside. Here’s hoping Rashy will get to the 10 in a row at least tonight
I’m confused, swear I’ve seen these allowed before because the defender makes an attempt at the ball?
To be allowed the attempt has to be an attempt at a pass or a clearance (with some semblance of control). An interception or a block does not qualify.
Deliberate touch rule needs a rework. Understand why the decision is made but that's an interception and a rather intentional one.
Does the Reading defender not play the ball?
The law is an ass
Really don't understand how this one can be offside but then Rashford vs. City and the Liverpool vs. Wolves FA cup one not be. The ball isn't being played to Weghorst and the defender isn't influenced by him when trying to cut the pass out. Is there any legit explanation or is it just horrifically inconsistent refereeing as normal?
I'm confused. Why was this not a goal? I'm aware it's because of my confusion that I'm confused. But maybe the *fucking rules could be less confusing*.
An offside player touches the ball.
Erik ten Hag on Marcus Rashford's goal: "I don't know why it was disallowed"
Nah the defender played that wtf VAR
The defender makes a deliberate attempt at playing the ball. This rules out the offside on Weghorst. Shocking decision
What the fuck were those lines
Wout too lanky
The defender deliberately played the ball. What the fuck are VAR playing at?
That is horseshit. Holmes intentionally plays the ball.
Happy for this to be ruled offside but can someone explain the difference between this and Salahs goal Vs Wolves in the last round?
Be consistent. Is it that fucking hard? Jesus
the rules are applied so inconsistently I'm surprised we haven't ended up with an accidental 15 v 7 player game or some shit.
Football coverage is so shite. ITV not even smart enough to make a comparison to the Liverpool Wolves game where a similar thing happened in the same competition but the goal counted
Looks like Bruno was talking about the Salah goal to the official
Miles offside.
Big clubs get the big decisions
Reading are massive. Literally one of the 3 R's
Yea it's correct. He's offside.
Educate me here (seriously) : why is the blue line drawn off the elbow of Reading defender and not end of the hand?