The Footie Thread

[Tashyboy]

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.

In that instance of Rashford being in an offside position Akanji has done his job as the ball was played towards Rashford. He chased after it, he ran 20 yards plus following that ball, how is that not being involved in the game. If he stops his run fine he is not involved but he did Not. Furthermore he checked his stride to feign a shot. He was still involved. Then at the last second he left it. The passage of play continued until the very second he left it.

 

[Billysboots]

In that instance of Rashford being in an offside position Akanji has done his job as the ball was played towards Rashford. He chased after it, he ran 20 yards plus following that ball, how is that not being involved in the game. If he stops his run fine he is not involved but he did Not. Furthermore he checked his stride to feign a shot. He was still involved. Then at the last second he left it. The passage of play continued until the very second he left it.

I’m not saying he wasn’t involved in the game, Tash. What I’m saying is that he wasn’t involved in the game in a way which contravened the current offside laws. I disagree when you say he feigned to shoot - that, to me, looked like him checking his run and trying not to touch the ball because he knew he was offside.

 

[fundy]

Thought this was a good image of it, keeper and defender solely focussed on the player so called not interfering

 

[Swango1980]

Thought this was a good image of it, keeper and defender solely focussed on the player so called not interfering

View attachment 45993

This is the entire point of my last point, and yet people still refuse to acknowledge the entire rule.

It is nothing to do with simply interfering with play in all senses. The rule is much more specific in what that interference is.

The goalkeeper has full line of sight. Rashford didn't touch it. He didn't block a defenders run. Simply being in a position to get a front row seat to watch the shot doesn't meet the criteria of the rule.

 

[fundy]

This is the entire point of my last point, and yet people still refuse to acknowledge the entire rule.

It is nothing to do with simply interfering with play in all senses. The rule is much more specific in what that interference is.

The goalkeeper has full line of sight. Rashford didn't touch it. He didn't block a defenders run. Simply being in a position to get a front row seat to watch the shot doesn't meet the criteria of the rule.

And you still wont accept that the majority have said its a goal by the rules but the rule is an ass

Do you seriously think that goal should stand and the rule is a good one?

 

[Swango1980]

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.

This is what frustrates me about most pundits. They claim to be giving the correct answer by telling the viewers they've played the game.

Lineker brought up the written words of the rule, leading the conversation as to why it wasn't offside. Wright and Richard's then completely ignored that, and spoke purely about interfering with defending players mindsets. If they said he was onside as per the rule, but they felt the rule should be written differently, then fair enough. That is an opinion. But they spoke as if they were actually giving authority on a rule they clearly know little about.

If rule was to be rewritten, difficult to see how it could be done without stopping play every time a player is offside regardless of how far away they are from play. As defenders will always claim they influenced their decision. I thi k that used to be the rule? But I suspect that changed because play was stopped many times when it seemed ridiculously harsh

 

[Tashyboy]

Thought this was a good image of it, keeper and defender solely focussed on the player so called not interfering

View attachment 45993

That is a very good picture. But Again Akanji checks his stride to ensure Rashford is offside. If he don’t he is 2-3 yards closer to the ball.

PS. I am now out. I Looked this morning on the football page and it’s still 2-1 ?

 

[Swango1980]

And you still wont accept that the majority have said its a goal by the rules but the rule is an ass

Do you seriously think that goal should stand and the rule is a good one?

See my last post (which came after yours).

And, in previous posts, I have referenced that when ball was played, the City defenders were never going to stop ball getting to Bruno. So, I do think it is a fair rule in this particular sense.

I also appreciate it is Man Utd, so people will assume I am just saying this because we benefitted. All I can say is that I would think goal should stand if DeBruyne ran through on goal, even if Haaland was in offside position. I'd be frustrated, but I'd also wonder why the United defence let DeBruyne break through the middle. Maybe too much focus on one player and forgetting others?

And, as I said in last post, if people think the rule is an ass, that is fair enough if people also have that opinion. I just think how it could be rewritten, as interfering with play broadly is incredibly subjective.

 

[fundy]

See my last post (which came after yours).

And, in previous posts, I have referenced that when ball was played, the City defenders were never going to stop ball getting to Bruno. So, I do think it is a fair rule in this particular sense.

I also appreciate it is Man Utd, so people will assume I am just saying this because we benefitted. All I can say is that I would think goal should stand if DeBruyne ran through on goal, even if Haaland was in offside position. I'd be frustrated, but I'd also wonder why the United defence let DeBruyne break through the middle. Maybe too much focus on one player and forgetting others?

And, as I said in last post, if people think the rule is an ass, that is fair enough if people also have that opinion. I just think how it could be rewritten, as interfering with play broadly is incredibly subjective.

Very simple, if you are within the width or depth of the box as an attacking player you are interfering, or do away with the interfering part altogether, if youre off youre off.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Thought this was a good image of it, keeper and defender solely focussed on the player so called not interfering

View attachment 45993

the picture with Rashford removed

 

[Swango1980]

Very simple, if you are within the width or depth of the box as an attacking player you are interfering, or do away with the interfering part altogether, if youre off youre off.

Fair enough. But there would be dangers on that. City's goal would not have stood, as De Bruyne was in am offside position when Grealish scored (if you assume beyond the goal line also counts as being offside, which it does currently as a player can technically run back on)

 

[Billysboots]

That is a very good picture. But Again Akanji checks his stride to ensure Rashford is offside. If he don’t he is 2-3 yards closer to the ball.

PS. I am now out. I Looked this morning on the football page and it’s still 2-1 ?

He checked his stride and then broke into little more than a jog, seemingly thinking his job was done. Schoolboy error.

I wonder whether, away from the glare of TV cameras and press photographers and journalists, Pep is absolutely fuming that his defenders didn’t bust a gut to get back, regardless of any offside. I rather suspect he will be.

 

[PJ87]

View attachment 45994

the picture with Rashford removed

Absolutely shocking

The more you see it again and again the more it makes no sense at all how that goal has been given

Fact of matter without rashford there the goal wouldn't have happened .. the defender was almost shielded from clearing it

Next time if you know 100% he is offside take him out...no booking as he offside and there we go

 

[Swango1980]

View attachment 45994

the picture with Rashford removed

Yeah, Rashford was definitely interfering with play, if the ball was stationary or dribbling along ground.

But, I presume you are intelligent enough to realise a still picture like this gives a false picture (very presumptuous of me, I know)? That picture tries to indicate the defender would get to ball first, yet we all know Rashford never blocked defenders path. The ball was moving faster than the defender, and right into path of Bruno.

If you are going to spend time and effort looking for trolling memes on social media, probably need to try harder

 

[Rlburnside]

View attachment 45994

the picture with Rashford removed

That’s an interesting picture, I get under the current rules he’s not offside.

It shows these making the rules are are complicating the game too much.

Imo Rashford is definitely interfering with play and the rules should reflect that.

Shankly was right if your not interfering with play you shouldn’t be on the pitch?

 

[clubchamp98]

He checked his stride and then broke into little more than a jog, seemingly thinking his job was done. Schoolboy error.

I wonder whether, away from the glare of TV cameras and press photographers and journalists, Pep is absolutely fuming that his defenders didn’t bust a gut to get back, regardless of any offside. I rather suspect he will be.

The defender is nearer the ball than Bruno
Rashford is in his line of sight / run if the defender goes to clear the ball Rashford is in his way.
if he takes him out with the ball they go back to the original offside or it’s a red card.
the defender dosnt know he was off so can’t really make that tackle ,so how is he not interfering, pathetic rule.

 

[PJ87]

The defender is nearer the ball than Bruno
Rashford is in his line of sight / run if the defender goes to clear the ball Rashford is in his way.
if he takes him

I have been talking to some of my Manchester united supporting friends this morning. they cant believe the goal stood

 

[clubchamp98]

View attachment 45994

the picture with Rashford removed

Locking at that with Rashford removed the keeper imo would be out to clear it himself.
he has set himself to stop Rashford shot instead.

 

[clubchamp98]

I have been talking to some of my Manchester united supporting friends this morning. they cant believe the goal stood

That’s the problem though.
fans who have watched most of their lives can’t really belive what they are seeing.
as playing standards get better the rule makers are not.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Yeah, Rashford was definitely interfering with play, if the ball was stationary or dribbling along ground.

But, I presume you are intelligent enough to realise a still picture like this gives a false picture (very presumptuous of me, I know)? That picture tries to indicate the defender would get to ball first, yet we all know Rashford never blocked defenders path. The ball was moving faster than the defender, and right into path of Bruno.

If you are going to spend time and effort looking for trolling memes on social media, probably need to try harder

Have you ever thought about taking a step back before posting

Accusing someone of looking to troll is poor - it’s just a picture posted to add something to the discussion

Your overbearing defence of what happened is based purely on it being in favour of the club you support - your attitude of the Salah goal was amazingly different.