• We'd like to take this opportunity to wish you a Happy Holidays and a very Merry Christmas from all at Golf Monthly. Thank you for sharing your 2025 with us!

The Footie Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 15344
  • Start date Start date
clubchamp98 said:
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.
Click to expand...
If Rashford is interfering with the defenders run to get back by blocking him, absolutely offside should be given. But, he wasn't. The defender didn't get close enough to Rashford to even make contact with him.

It is interesting how fans react, especially depended on the team involved. The whole argument was that Rashford caused the defenders to stop running thinking he was offside. Then Liverpoolphil posts a still pic, and suddenly some seem to think the defender would have got back, but Rashford got in the way. What is it? Defender stopped running and couldn't get back, or defender was running but was blocked from getting back!?

Incidentally, I have spoken to Man Utd friends who know it definitely should stand, I have spoken to non man Utd fans who think the same. I have also talked to fans who think it shouldn't, but I understand the opinion, as they are unaware if the definition of interfering.

I also think Tashyboy agreed it was a goal according to rules, but thinks the rule is an ass?
 
Liverpoolphil said:
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.
Click to expand...
Did you read my post, or are you just overly sensitive? I didn't accuse YOU of trolling. I said the picture you have copied is a trolling picture, aimed at sparking debates on a false pretence.

When the goal was scored, you said the goal should stand. Now you seem to be saying something different. Why the change of heart?

My opinion on Salah goal wasn't overly different. I was very clear that the goal should stand based on the rule, just like this. The only main difference was that I thought that part of the offsude rule was rubbish. The guy who was offside actually scored the goal. It is not exactly the same situation as yesterday. Incidentally, I said exactly the same thing last year when a player was miles offside, then immediately stole ball off defender who had intercepted ball, but wasn't fully in control. Can't remember sides involved.
 
Swango1980 said:
If Rashford is interfering with the defenders run to get back by blocking him, absolutely offside should be given. But, he wasn't. The defender didn't get close enough to Rashford to even make contact with him.

It is interesting how fans react, especially depended on the team involved. The whole argument was that Rashford caused the defenders to stop running thinking he was offside. Then Liverpoolphil posts a still pic, and suddenly some seem to think the defender would have got back, but Rashford got in the way. What is it? Defender stopped running and couldn't get back, or defender was running but was blocked from getting back!?

Incidentally, I have spoken to Man Utd friends who know it definitely should stand, I have spoken to non man Utd fans who think the same. I have also talked to fans who think it shouldn't, but I understand the opinion, as they are unaware if the definition of interfering.

I also think Tashyboy agreed it was a goal according to rules, but thinks the rule is an ass?
Click to expand...
The rule is a joke.
but my honest opinion is if Rashford wasn’t there the through ball would not have been played in the first place.

if it was played without Rashford there I have absolutely no dought Edison would be out to clear it not backing up into his area.

The big problem is under the current rule it’s a goal .
But the rule is basically unfit as this shows it for what it is stupid !
 
clubchamp98 said:
The rule is a joke.
but my honest opinion is if Rashford wasn’t there the through ball would not have been played in the first place.

if it was played without Rashford there I have absolutely no dought Edison would be out to clear it not backing up into his area.

The big problem is under the current rule it’s a goal .
But the rule is basically unfit as this shows it for what it is stupid !
Click to expand...
Fair enough

All the what ifs are things we can only speculate on. Maybe the ball wouldn't have been played, but then maybe Casemiro saw Bruno running through and shouted for Rashford to leave it? Not sure Ederson would have been out to clear, given that Bruno and Rashford would have pretty much arrived at the ball at same time.

But, as you say, the rule is what it is. And, as Billysboots said, you wonder in private if Pep is asking his players why they didn't pick up Bruno. They are the professionals, so if anyone should know the rule outside the officials, it should be them. We are all told to play to the whistle. Even if they are confident it would be given offside, just play on until play stops. We all know the dangers of making an assumption.
 
Liverpoolphil said:
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.
Click to expand...

Again, in fairness Phil the Salah goal was fundamentally different, not least because he was the one who scored it! Do you really think that, if Rashford had run on to score and the goal had been allowed to stand, anyone would actually agree with that decision? Of course we wouldn’t.

We need to distinguish here between what we all think is correct (for the record I will say again I would have been mightily cheesed off it that had been a City goal), and what is the correct application of a ridiculous rule. If you follow the letter of the law it is actually stretching the realms, as I have already said, to suggest BOTH that Rashford was clearly attempting to play the ball AND that in doing so he CLEARLY impacted on the actions of the defenders. That is the letter of the offside law and, on balance, whether any of us like it or not, the application of it would seem to be correct. Whether the law itself is fit for purpose is a whole new debate and one, I think, where we all pretty much agree.

I do think the use of a snapshot, which may or may not be an accurate representation of a game played at pace, is a rather futile way of trying to win an argument. Of course, whoever prepared that image will have chosen an angle which most favours their argument. To coin an advertising phrase for the sake of some balance, other angles are available.

The offside law is an utter ass. When you drill down into the finer points of it, something which many here and elsewhere are failing to do, the application of it yesterday, on a technical if not common sense level, was probably correct.
 
Billysboots said:
Again, in fairness Phil the Salah goal was fundamentally different, not least because he was the one who scored it! Do you really think that, if Rashford had run on to score and the goal had been allowed to stand, anyone would actually agree with that decision? Of course we wouldn’t.

We need to distinguish here between what we all think is correct (for the record I will say again I would have been mightily cheesed off it that had been a City goal), and what is the correct application of a ridiculous rule. If you follow the letter of the law it is actually stretching the realms, as I have already said, to suggest BOTH that Rashford was clearly attempting to play the ball AND that in doing so he CLEARLY impacted on the actions of the defenders. That is the letter of the offside law and, on balance, whether any of us like it or not, the application of it would seem to be correct. Whether the law itself is fit for purpose is a whole new debate and one, I think, where we all pretty much agree.

I do think the use of a snapshot, which may or may not be an accurate representation of a game played at pace, is a rather futile way of trying to win an argument. Of course, whoever prepared that image will have chosen an angle which most favours their argument. To coin an advertising phrase for the sake of some balance, other angles are available.

The offside law is an utter ass. When you drill down into the finer points of it, something which many here and elsewhere are failing to do, the application of it yesterday, on a technical if not common sense level, was probably correct.
Click to expand...

Going by the “letter of the law” both Salahs goal and the goal yesterday are goals

Both of areas that are very questionable- the “deliberate” action of the Wolves defender and “interference” of Rashford - both can be interpreted very differently and both have the opposition acting based on the position and action of the forwards

The Wolves player acted because of where Salah was and the City players acted because of their actions

IMO both were interfering in the play and IMO both should have been disallowed but both by the letter of the law and the interpretation by the ref means the goals stand

The offside law and the handball law are a mess

Imo what’s amusing is the attitude of some ( don’t include you ) in regards both goals

Most agree that both stand as per the rules but most agree that in their opinion they really shouldn’t stand and if the goal was scored against them they would be very disappointed

But there is the odd one with differing attitudes- last week - “law is poor” this week “law is what it is and it’s been that way and goal should always Stand etc “

The “pictures” were posted as a discussion point as opposed to someone trying to prove their argument

As i said imo Salah was having an affect on the play and so was Rashford

EFB4E0C5-C99D-4F9E-8E71-5F63FB353FDD.jpeg
 
Billysboots said:
Again, in fairness Phil the Salah goal was fundamentally different, not least because he was the one who scored it! Do you really think that, if Rashford had run on to score and the goal had been allowed to stand, anyone would actually agree with that decision? Of course we wouldn’t.

We need to distinguish here between what we all think is correct (for the record I will say again I would have been mightily cheesed off it that had been a City goal), and what is the correct application of a ridiculous rule. If you follow the letter of the law it is actually stretching the realms, as I have already said, to suggest BOTH that Rashford was clearly attempting to play the ball AND that in doing so he CLEARLY impacted on the actions of the defenders. That is the letter of the offside law and, on balance, whether any of us like it or not, the application of it would seem to be correct. Whether the law itself is fit for purpose is a whole new debate and one, I think, where we all pretty much agree.

I do think the use of a snapshot, which may or may not be an accurate representation of a game played at pace, is a rather futile way of trying to win an argument. Of course, whoever prepared that image will have chosen an angle which most favours their argument. To coin an advertising phrase for the sake of some balance, other angles are available.

The offside law is an utter ass. When you drill down into the finer points of it, something which many here and elsewhere are failing to do, the application of it yesterday, on a technical if not common sense level, was probably correct.
Click to expand...
Yes I do agree.
tecnically correct is a phrase used when you know it’s basically wrong.
will it change anytime soon ? I don’t think so.
 
Anyway, to stop this dragging along, and some spending all day to search the internet, so they can post links of other opinions and pictures to try and help them argue their case (whatever happened to simply just giving your own opinion, which thankfully most are capable of doing), thoughts on matches today.

Will Chelsea get back on track(ish) with a home win versus Palace?

Will Newcastle get a win at home to Fulham to keep their push for Champions League well and truly on track?

Will Spurs upset Arsenal's title challenge at home?

Some interesting games today.
 
Swango1980 said:
Anyway, to stop this dragging along, and some spending all day to search the internet, so they can post links of other opinions and pictures to try and help them argue their case (whatever happened to simply just giving your own opinion, which thankfully most are capable of doing), thoughts on matches today.

Will Chelsea get back on track(ish) with a home win versus Palace?

Will Newcastle get a win at home to Fulham to keep their push for Champions League well and truly on track?

Will Spurs upset Arsenal's title challenge at home?

Some interesting games today.
Click to expand...

I would suggest Palace could get something out of their game with Chelsea, but they are incredibly inconsistent. So a difficult one to call.

Newcastle against Fulham is also a difficult one to call, but I think Newcastle will make the most of home advantage and win by the odd goal.

I also have Arsenal to nick it by the odd goal, primarily because Spurs seem incapable of not conceding first. If Arsenal keep that trend going then I don’t see Spurs overturning it.
 
Billysboots said:
I would suggest Palace could get something out of their game with Chelsea, but they are incredibly inconsistent. So a difficult one to call.

Newcastle against Fulham is also a difficult one to call, but I think Newcastle will make the most of home advantage and win by the odd goal.

I also have Arsenal to nick it by the odd goal, primarily because Spurs seem incapable of not conceding first. If Arsenal keep that trend going then I don’t see Spurs overturning it.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I can't call any.

In terms of what I'd like:

I'd like a Palace win, simple one that really.

I'd like a Fulham win. Another simple one, albeit I don't mind seeing Newcastle doing well, but a Newcastle defeat simply helps Man Utd.

And, I'd like a Spurs win. Although I have no real hope Utd would win the league, only being a point behind City means if we were to give up, everyone might as well give up and just give it to Arsenal now. I guess our chances are better than Leicester's were, this stage of season, in year they won it. However, an Arsenal win is no disaster, as it helps our top 4 aim, the primary target. A draw is also decent. So, regardless of the result, as long as it is a good game I think it will be enjoyable.
 
Slime said:
Focused on the player or focused on the ball?
I was always taught to keep my eyes on the ball, not the player.
Click to expand...

And being distracted by the presence of a player does not feature in the offside law, so it’s all rather irrelevant.
 
Slime said:
Focused on the player or focused on the ball?
I was always taught to keep my eyes on the ball, not the player.
Click to expand...
A2572A5B-386E-46E6-AFEB-EA94E59F91E9.jpeg

If you take this picture as an example - the GK is focusing no doubt on the player closer to the ball

It’s hard to look at that picture and decide that Rashford is not interfering in the play at all
 
Liverpoolphil said:
View attachment 45998

If you take this picture as an example - the GK is focusing no doubt on the player closer to the ball

It’s hard to look at that picture and decide that Rashford is not interfering in the play at all
Click to expand...

How can you tell that he's not looking at the ball?
Focusing on the ball will also enable him to see the players in clear sight, which would include Bruno preparing to take the shot.
 
Slime said:
How can you tell that he's not looking at the ball?
Focusing on the ball will also enable him to see the players in clear sight, which would include Bruno preparing to take the shot.
Click to expand...
Regardless his sight is split. Even if he isn't looking directly at rashford he is aware of him and taking some of his attention

Even if it was 0.0000001% of his attention that's interfering with his decision
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Hobbit
Another footie thread
2
Replies
36
Views
655
WorldHandicapSystem
W
road2ruin
Fantasy Footie 25/26
2 3 4
Replies
67
Views
3K
4LEX
4
SwingsitlikeHogan
Rental Rights Act
2
Replies
24
Views
1K
jim8flog
jim8flog
jim8flog
Golf or football
2
Replies
33
Views
5K
Voyager EMH
Voyager EMH
SaintHacker
The EFL Thread
33 34 35
Replies
682
Views
45K
Lucifer MorningStar
Lucifer MorningStar
Top