Premier League 2022/23 (Part 1)

[The-AllMightyReds]

Only back to 2018? Calling bollocks on that.

[RedOpium]

Barstool Football

[Dutch]

No surprise that the asshole Richardson was the instigator

[Red_Submarine]

What a fucking prick. Seriously, what sort of colossal cunt does things like that?

[Rambler]

That’s not what I said of course but never mind. your response is very witty. Keep it up.

[Quicksand]

@Rambler

Rashford was offside but that is not an offence and no City player was close so how was he influencing the outcome? He let the ball pass him without attempting to play it.

So did Trent, and he was deemed offside.

@Sportbilly1966, I understand the rules. Rashford ran towards the ball, therefore active.

[Dane]

@Quicksand

@Rambler

Rashford was offside but that is not an offence and no City player was close so how was he influencing the outcome? He let the ball pass him without attempting to play it.

So did Trent, and he was deemed offside.

@Sportbilly1966, I understand the rules. Rashford ran towards the ball, therefore active.

Yup.
Offside 100%.
Rashford chased the ball, the defender chased Rashford.
Keeper set himself for a Rashford shot.

[Sportbilly1966]

Nope that was the old rule the interpretation explains what is deemed as interfering and jyst by moving towards the ball it is not classed as interfering, a bollox interpretation, but by the letter of the law correct

Trent shouldn’t have been given off because he didn’t touch the ball or interfere with an opposition player moving towards the ball or attempting to play the ball

[Sportbilly1966]

Just read the laws of the game and the interpretation of interfering, its bollox but the ref in Rashfords case got it right and in Trents case got it wrong.

I don’t agree with how the laws are written but one ref got it right and another got it wrong

[Colossal_centre_back]

@Sportbilly1966

Nope that was the old rule the interpretation explains what is deemed as interfering and jyst by moving towards the ball it is not classed as interfering, a bollox interpretation, but by the letter of the law correct

Trent shouldn’t have been given off because he didn’t touch the ball or interfere with an opposition player moving towards the ball or attempting to play the ball

Are these rules changed for football in general or only for the premier league? If it’s PL, why does the PL keep changing rules for standard stuff like offside? You already have dumb fck referees and you are further adding complexity to their work by changing things that are not needed.

[Quicksand]

@Sportbilly1966

Nope that was the old rule the interpretation explains what is deemed as interfering and jyst by moving towards the ball it is not classed as interfering, a bollox interpretation, but by the letter of the law correct

Trent shouldn’t have been given off because he didn’t touch the ball or interfere with an opposition player moving towards the ball or attempting to play the ball

But Rashfords movement towards the ball effected play. Therefore, under the new interpretation of the laws he was offfside.
Trent didn’t sprint to stop a throw because he was onside. He knows the law. The assistant didn’t.
Under the latest interpretation both decisions were incorrect.

No one can argue that the law isn’t stupid. Where we disagree is on Rashfords involvement.
Both City defenders are effected by his run.
Also as @Dane noted the keeper sets himself for Rashford. That puts him offside.

[Sportbilly1966]

How come everyone that referees aays that by the letter of the law, Rashford wasn’t interfering, but somehow you are right?

I do agree he was interfering but not according to when you apply the laws of the game.

Please read the attached link

Law 11 - Offside

[Sportbilly1966]

No they are for everyone in most cases, thats why a lot of is an arse because how can a ref on a Sunday league game see all this with one viewing.

Before moving to NZ i was a qualified referee instructor and then knew the laws inside out, whilst being here I do miss some of the changes but before commenting I read them just to make sure I can understand the decision. Again a lot of refereei g is subjective

[Quicksand]

@Sportbilly1966

How come everyone that referees aays that by the letter of the law, Rashford wasn’t interfering, but somehow you are right?

Everyone?
Really?
Ex refs and professionals are saying it was offside. So not everyone agrees with your synopsis.
And to be honest, you are a good guy on here, so its a bit disappointing to have you post laws of the game as if I am unaware of them.

[Sportbilly1966]

Have you actually read the link or is it all just from what you think or hear on media?

[Quicksand]

I read and understand the laws of the game.
I disagree, as many do on the application of the interpretation.

@Sportbilly1966
Do you really believe Rashfords position on the pitch did not influence the movement of the City defenders or keeper?
That constitutes interference, and is offside.

[Sportbilly1966]

Who did he stop playing the ball? who did he prevent moving to the ball?who’s sight of the ball did he block???

The offside law is written in a way that if you sit down and apply it is easy to come to the conclusion, it is just that it is all against the spirit of the game.

[koptician]

@Sportbilly1966

Who did he stop playing the ball? who did he prevent moving to the ball?who’s sight of the ball did he block???

The offside law is written in a way that if you sit down and apply it is easy to come to the conclusion, it is just that it is all against the spirit of the game.

I was just about to post something similar. By the letter of the law he isn’t offside but it completely goes against the spirit of the game

[Sportbilly1966]

I’ve said the same all through this conversation but some IMO aren’t looking at the wording correctly or their apprehension of the wording is wrong

[koptician]

@Sportbilly1966

I’ve said the same all through this conversation but some IMO aren’t looking at the wording correctly or their apprehension of the wording is wrong

It’s basically a case of gaming the system. It’s a situational thing so I’d expect it to be extremely rare. If somehow teams come up with schemes to exploit it and the refs allow them to do so, then there would be a case for further clarification/explicit prohibition in the rule book for such actions