A player can be offside if the ball is played backwards, you’re right about that. Even when played backwards the recipient still must be in an onside position when the pass is made, ie level with or behind the second last player of the opposition OR in their own half.
Yes, that can be the case, as per the rules. Being incredulous doesn’t change that fact.
clubchamp98
Journeyman Pro
No .Then it’s just a dive.
The defender does not have to get out of the way ,and if Rashford can’t get past without diving it’s not a foul.
You’re reinforcing that you don’t know the laws of the game.
Here’s a famous incident -
He doesn’t touch him so no foul?
Using an extreme to make the point but it’s the same for any foul. Read the laws.
I’m a little bemused.
United had nearly 70% of the possession. Twice as many shots, and twice as many on target as Forest. Over three times the number of corners. Oh, and won a game in which they had been 2-0 down before probably 20% of the crowd had even taken their seat. It’s hardly surprising, surely, that the post match summary was presented from a United perspective. In fact I struggle to recall a single instalment of any highlights programme where a post match summary has ever been presented primarily from the perspective of the side which has lost a game.
Forest’s goals? Well done Awoniyi for being really quick, but that goal was a result of United holding a defensive line almost on the edge of the Forest area and making a complete hash of it. So it’s only to be expected that a summary will say as much. And the second was a free header which, if I recall, seemed to surprise Boly to such an extent that the ball actually appeared to come off his face. Shocking defending again, not a contender for goal of the season, so I’m surprised you’re so surprised that it was discussed not from the perspective of the simple free kick and header, but from the angle of the awful defending which led directly to it.
The penalty? It wasn’t at the United end, so anything you say regarding how it would have been discussed had it been a Forest player going down is pure speculation. You claim to know how such a discussion would have gone. The fact is you really don’t.
I think, if I was a neutral, I would expect any post match summary of a game like that to focus not on the team which blew a two goal lead, but on the one which dragged themselves back into it. Broadcasters have finite time in which to fit their highlights, post match interviews and analysis. So it’s only to be expected that the focus is primarily on the side which won a game.
With the greatest respect, with regard to yesterday it’s only the Forest fans who seem to think otherwise.
Last edited:
clubchamp98
Journeyman Pro
Throwing a punch is different than standing your ground in the penalty area.
The lads got both feet on the ground Rashford chooses to go down( cheating ) over his thigh.
As for Scholes He was sent off for the intent ,but that begs the question “ was the ref correct or not?”
Please, go read the laws of the game and see that they recognise contact and non-contact in the same way when it impedes an opponent unfairly. In this case Rashford was touched but this wasn’t even necessary for a potential foul to be given. It’s these sorts of issues that see football supporters apoplectic when it is their own lack of knowledge of the game that is the issue.
clubchamp98
Journeyman Pro
Why has TH got Rashford and Antony defending At a corner.?
Should have at least one defender back.
Neither could tackle a wet paper bag.
They’ve been watching Ted Lasso and trying the old “tie the rope on” technique.
clubchamp98
Journeyman Pro
Sorry but in Rashford case that’s a dive.
He didn’t have them defending. Wan Bissaka was the last man, man a complete mess of a headed challenge, leaving Rashford and Antony to try and play catch up.
No, it’s a fouled player falling in a way they’re trained to so as to avoid injury. You’ll see it from every team across the league all over the pitch.
Aztecs27
Money List Winner
You mean like when Boly was shoved in the back and no one batted an eyelid? Colour me shocked.
I would never have given this as a penalty, and there was more contact than Danilo on Rashford. Neither are penalties because if you gave them for every single bit of contact there would be 10 penalties a game.
That’s what everyone (except United fans) have issue with.
There was another incident in a similar area yesterday (Arsenal vs Fulham? Or Maybe West Ham vs Brighton) where the attacking player was body checked into next week and nothing given.
It seems like your problem is that referees don’t give warranted fouls to some players rather than them giving correct decisions to Manchester United.
The ability of football fans to not see their own biases is hilarious to me. It’s like there’s some sort of punishment if you don’t favour your own side getting decisions.
Just watched the Rashford penalty/dive. Contact appeared to more than a gentle brush, knee to thigh. I don’t think it was a dive. Going past the defender and nudged, more than a nudge really, off balance. I do think it was a penalty. And the Forest player didn’t make a song and dance about the decision being wrong.
Tashyboy
Please don’t ask to see my tatts 👍
That’s a shocker to miss
I do love a good Sunday morning punch up on the forum.
On a positive City are playing this afternoon so me and Amanda will have the footie forum to ourselves. Unless we lose then everyone will suddenly find their iPads. 
Last edited:
Tashyboy
Please don’t ask to see my tatts 👍
It seems to me that his problem is he wants consistency, I don’t think that’s a lot to ask for.
It’s way too much to ask for, Tash. It’s why we have these debates every weekend.
Tashyboy
Please don’t ask to see my tatts 👍
Couldn’t agree more. It makes healthy debate for some of us
Got to be honest Billy I still haven’t seen the Rashford penalty. Still Won’t change anything though. Have a good weekend me man
SteveW86
Head Pro
As per Fraggers post the other day, one should use emoji’s to show that you are being sarcastic. Otherwise people will think you are being blinded by your bias with such a deluded suggestion.
