clubchamp98
Journeyman Pro
That’s more a foul by Toney than a penalty.
where’s VAR that’s shocking.
where’s VAR that’s shocking.
AmandaJR
Money List Winner
I was half watching with the sound off and felt for sure it must be a foul by the attacker
Fade and Die
Medal Winner
League form over the last 12 months has us where we are. It can't go on, he has to be sacked.
From the Sky Sports app, this is the rule relating to offside and whether a player is interfering;
“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”
The decision to award United’s equaliser would seem to have hinged on the penultimate point, and whether Rashford CLEARLY attempted to play a ball which was close when this action impacted on an opponent.
Granted, I am not neutral, but I do think it’s a stretch to say BOTH that he clearly attempted to play the ball AND that this act impacted on the City defence. It would seem that suggesting his presence distracted the City defence is not enough. And it looked to me as though, rather than feigning to shoot, he decided not to as he knew it would be ruled out, and also that Fernandes was behind him.
Whilst stressing I still think the law is a jumbled mess, it would seem, whether we like it or not, that the officials MAY have just about made the right call.
“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”
The decision to award United’s equaliser would seem to have hinged on the penultimate point, and whether Rashford CLEARLY attempted to play a ball which was close when this action impacted on an opponent.
Granted, I am not neutral, but I do think it’s a stretch to say BOTH that he clearly attempted to play the ball AND that this act impacted on the City defence. It would seem that suggesting his presence distracted the City defence is not enough. And it looked to me as though, rather than feigning to shoot, he decided not to as he knew it would be ruled out, and also that Fernandes was behind him.
Whilst stressing I still think the law is a jumbled mess, it would seem, whether we like it or not, that the officials MAY have just about made the right call.
fundy
Ryder Cup Winner
Seems weve been outbid on Mudryk by Chelsea, no real surprise. Wonder who plan B or C is?
Maguire is quite versatile.
fundy
Ryder Cup Winner
Fromtherough
Assistant Pro
Michael Carrick’s impact at Boro is getting on for phenomenal. It’s a strange sensation, but I’m looking forward to home games again.
fundy
Ryder Cup Winner
must be favs to win the play offs assuming neither of the top 2 come back to you 2nd half of the season? any danger you lose any players in the January window?
clubchamp98
Journeyman Pro
I have to say after what you have written on here the last few days ,I find your conclusion hard to belive.
Fromtherough
Assistant Pro
I’d hope we wouldn’t lose any significant players. Not sure how the board could justify the lack of ambition it would show. I’d take play offs. If we did somehow end up going up, it would be a season too early. We’d be cannon-fodder as Brighton proved the other week in the cup. But the parachute payments would provide a boost to the longer term plans.
I have to say after what you have written on here the last few days ,I find your conclusion hard to belive.
To be fair, the other two goals which have been subject of discussion in relation to offside both had so-called new phases of play started following defenders making contact with the ball. The United goal had no such defender involvement so was fundamentally different.
Doesn’t mean I agree with any of the goals, I hasten to add!
Swango1980
Well-known member
I think we all know, however, if any other team had scored that goal, players and fans would be demanding it counts
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
I think we all know, however, if any other team had scored that goal, players and fans would be demanding it counts
Surely you’re not suggesting bias - you ?????
I think we all know that if the goal was scored against United you would have a different opinion
Swango1980
Well-known member
Absolutely not, ridiculous thing for you to say given how critical I have been of Utd over the years.
Had it been scored against Utd, and offside was actually awarded, I'd be counting my lucky stars and know we got away with one.
clubchamp98
Journeyman Pro
The defender said on MOTD “ I delibaretly slowed down to play him offside”
he’s interfering we all know it , the pass was for him not Fernandez.
the rule is just a joke.
been some good football lately but all we talk about is the ref and Var.
it’s putting me off footy ,if the weather was better I wouldn’t watch.
clubchamp98
Journeyman Pro
That’s the inconsistency,it’s not just refs!I think we all know, however, if any other team had scored that goal, players and fans would be demanding it counts
Swango1980
Well-known member
I guess it is an ignorance of the rules? Not just from fans (me included), but players, managers and pundits. Although, players and managers will complain about anything if it goes against them, but think the absolute opposite if it goes for them.
The offside infringement rule is not as simple as "offside if interfering with play" as we keep hearing. That is just a soundbite to roughly summarise it when talking about it. A player could be offside, miles from action, and one could argue that interfered with at least one opponents decision to defend simply by being on pitch. We've seen players miles offside, and deliberately walk back and not play ball. Defender knows this, thinks ball will just go back to keeper, then suddenly caught out when another attacker breaks through from an onside position.
Billysboots quoted the entire rule I think. The one that actually gives the entire detail. Interfering with play is not really a mental interference. It is physical, like touching the ball, obstructing a line of vision or a defenders run. Rashford didn't meet any of these criteria, the ball was always getting to Bruno.
Now, defenders can complain about the impact on their decision making all they like. Rashford was in an offside decision, they did that part of job well. But, they are not just defending against Rashford, there are other opponents on pitch. They failed to deal with Bruno, their job wasn't 100% complete. I don't even think they ever slowed down because they knew offside would be given. Football is fast, hard to know for sure exactly were everyone is in a split second, especially what is happening behind your back and player positions. I reckon some slowed down as they knew they were done, and they were hoping one of their defenders over shoulder would cover space in behind
There is certainly a lot of ignorance relating to the rule, which is understandable given the complexities and how it is perhaps open to interpretation.
What surprised me on MOTD last night, though, was seeing Lineker, Wright and Richards discussing it without really considering the entire rule and also seemingly without really understanding those bits which are actually relevant. All we kept hearing was that Rashford was interfering without actually referring to the rule and relating the written law to why he was interfering.
I agree with you - a defender’s responsibility is to defend the developing phase of play, not just one player. For the City player to say he slowed to play Rashford offside really does show an ignorance of the rules.
Tashyboy
Please don’t ask to see my tatts 👍
Rashford ran 20 odd yards after a ball that was played to him, he got within inches of the ball, feigned a shot and yet he never interfered with play. ? If he had stopped 20 yards back I could understand it. But not in that instance.
