D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
Haaland made it easy for him his lack of movement ?
Just watching the first goal again as it changed the game and Rashford made a movement towards the ball to maybe take a shot on and the City defenders are just jogging as such because they know he is offside
It’s a heck of a call to say he isn’t interfering
Swango1980
Well-known member
Nothing to do with VAR today. It is the offside rule. And, unlike the "defender deliberately playing ball" rule which was only recently changed in last year or so, the interfering with play part of it has been in place for absolutely years. That goal would have stood a decade ago.
I doubt the defenders were chasing Rashford, they were chasing the ball. OK, they may have seen Rashford. So, if anything, Rashford probably helped them. Had he not been there, they may not have instantly sprinted to try and get ball, then suddenly realise Bruno is in behind them.
I doubt the defenders were chasing Rashford, they were chasing the ball. OK, they may have seen Rashford. So, if anything, Rashford probably helped them. Had he not been there, they may not have instantly sprinted to try and get ball, then suddenly realise Bruno is in behind them.
Slime
Tour Winner
It is, but ever since I first played football I was always told to 'play to the whistle'.
The City defenders were jogging because they assumed he was offside, they didn't know he was offside because he wasn't!
PJ87
Journeyman Pro
I agree play to whilst but he was offside. They even said he was. Just not interfering with play (apparently) if he had touched the ball the goal wouldn't stand
So defo offside himself
Of course he was interfering with play he was running towards the ball
Swango1980
Well-known member
He didn't touch the ball, he didn't change direction of ball, he didn't obstruct City defenders getting to ball.
The ball fell.beatifully to Fernandes, he found a great space in the middle. When ball was passed, the defenders were never going to get the ball whether Rashord was there or not
Tashyboy
Please don’t ask to see my tatts 👍
If he was not interfering with play by not touching the ball. Why did he half fake a shot, and then leave it. At that point he was interfering with the game. If he had stood still I would get it, but he was chasing the ball. How is that not being involved in the play whether he touched it or not.
Swango1980
Well-known member
I'm just saying that goal would have stood regardless of whatever team in the world scored. It would have stood for over a decade. We have seen similar things for years, where a player has been miles offside but don't touch it. We all know they could be interfering by influencing defenders position, or fooling defender into thinking offside will be given. Then suddenly another attacker runs through on their blind side and scores.
As I said, as soon as pass was played, the City defenders were never going to stop Bruno getting a shot off
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
Rashford is interfering with the play , he is running along with the ball shadowing it , the defenders know that he is clear offside and have switched off because they know the flag will go up - their focus is on Rashford so he is imo interfering with the play , doesn’t need to touch the ball to interfere
If he stops running then the defenders won’t be focussed on him
Swango1980
Well-known member
Great 2 goal swing on City's goal difference now as well. City on 28, Utd on 8 
SteveW86
Head Pro
The problem here is with the rule. Interfering is too subjective, for me Rashford has interfered, he’s in and around the ball and influencing the defenders choices.
If they want to make it clearer, it should be changed from interfering with play to touching the ball/blocking an opposition player. It is then clear to defenders that unless there is contact then they need to carry on, it’s more black and white.
If they want to make it clearer, it should be changed from interfering with play to touching the ball/blocking an opposition player. It is then clear to defenders that unless there is contact then they need to carry on, it’s more black and white.
D
Deleted member 29109
Guest
Definitely not interfering with play ?
pendodave
Tour Rookie
The best approach for the defenders would maybe be to just run into the player who's "Not interfering" so that he then is.
You'd have thought after the shenanigans of the fa cup weekend that defences would have been coached into the correct response to these situations.
You'd have thought after the shenanigans of the fa cup weekend that defences would have been coached into the correct response to these situations.
Absolutely, and I’d be less than happy if that had been a City goal. But if the current laws of the game say he’s not interfering, he’s not interfering.
It’s the law which is causing the confusion and the unnecessary debate, especially when it’s applied inconsistently.
Last edited:
All of the above illustrates how subjective this is, and hence why it is such a mess.
The only people who know what the City defence were focusing on are the City defenders. If we’re now in the realms where we are having to second guess what players are thinking before applying the offside laws, we may as well pack up and go home!
None of this is helped by the ridiculous directive that the assistant is not to flag earlier. The City players made the schoolboy error of not playing to the referee’s whistle, but the referee won’t blow his whistle in the absence of an assistant’s flag.
It’s a proper mess.
Slime
Tour Winner
I'd be absolutely fuming.
After that I'd probably be buying a new TV as the old one would not be 'fit for purpose', much like the offside laws!
Swango1980
Well-known member
But, we know why it is necessary for linesman not to flag earlier. Because, if he does, ref blows whistle and team scores, there would be absolutely hell to pay if the player was never offside in first place.
The day the linesman is asked to flag immediately is the day VAR is never used to judge offside, and we go back to the days before VAR. Well, it could be used to disallow goals I suppose. So you'd be in a position VAR cancels out goals, but can never be used to cancel offside for perfectly good goals.
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
A perfect example just happened in the Liverpool game - TAA in an offside position, the ball is going out of play as he goes near it and no one near him - Linesman flagged and ref blew the whistle ?
Last edited by a moderator:
Tashyboy
Please don’t ask to see my tatts 👍
The ironic thing about that “ offside” is that the linesmen flagged a few times during the game and the ref blew up. If you look at the picture the linesman still has his flag down. That picture is the point in which I mentioned. Rashford half fakes a shot. For me that’s when the second phase of him being involved, the first when he chases the ball. Like I say if he is stood not making any attempt to go towards the ball, it’s a simple case of he is not offside.
