By the way the laws only mention interfering with an opponents movement towards the ball, not before or where it may go and the defenders and the keeper had a direct path to the ball but couldn’t catch him.
It is an arse but thats what it says.
Look I still play footy and play at the back and I know a player offside affects my positioning, but unfortunately the rules don’t cater for this, I hate it especially when the players at my level are lazy in regards to getting back onside
The wrong thing in this situation, which I said earlier, is that it was Rashfords whole, intent until the last second or so, to shoot but got a last minute call from Fernandez.
The laws need simplifying as at the moment the tinkering with the offside rule has made it so complicated for everyone.
IMO your interpretation of the laws is correct.
Where you fall fown in this instance is your reading of Rashfords position.
My or other apprehension of the rule is one thing, your refusal to waive on what constitues effect of position is another.
Rashfords movement towards the ball stops the City defenders attempt to play it? They know he is offside.
Might be stupid, but his running towards the ball is enough to interfere.
He was running whereas Trent jogged.
Anyway, am done with this. I know the laws, perhaps we have different opinions on what should be interference.
I give in, as you never answered what I wrote and by not answering you have confirmed what I have said is correct as they are the fundamentals of why someone should be penalised for being in an offside position as per the written rules.
If you have read them and still can’t understand what I am saying you are beyond help.
Because I disagree, as many actually do, you resort to insult.
Class
You never answered what I asked so I cant help you because as I said they ARE the fundamentals to getting the correct decision!!!
There have been a few instances this season where goals have been given despite a player who affects the defence being in an offside position. I can’t remember the game but I remember a goal being given for us when we had a striker in an offside position which made the defender try and clear it (sensing the striker behind him). He messed up the clearance and we scored. Goal was given.
Offside is just a badly written law. Every player on the field is in some way influencing play all the time. A guy standing on the wing who hasn’t touched the ball in 5 minutes is still influencing the positioning of the nearest defender etc.
The bottom line is that especially in football there isn’t such a thing as a 100% correct or incorrect decision. More than any other sport each incident can involve an element of interpretation or second guessing the intention of the player. How many times are fouls blown and you hear the comment “that could have gone either way”.
For me the defender made the crucial mistake. He has admitted he didn’t chase the ball because he saw Rashford was in an offside position even though at that stage he wasn’t committing an offence just by being there. He could have forced the referee to blow for offside if he had tried harder to get across to Fernandez.
The problem, is that just by being there, Rashford has interfered as he has effected the way the defender was playing/approaching the situation. He has also moved towards the ball, so even though he never actually touched it, he forced Ederson to cover his potential shot before the rat slipped in and put the shot the other side of the keeper’s momentum
This is how stupid the game is right.
According to the “laws of the game” you can use blatant deliberate handball in an attacking phase so long as the blatant deliberate handball isn’t the final touch before the ball ends up in the back of the net.
Players turning their backs really annoys the fuck out of me.
I’ve seen VVD doing it, Robbo did it at the weekend, and the Spurs defender did it yesterday.
Watch Odegaard goal at 2 minutes, fucking gutless defending
Erm… no? Handball is still an offence.
Oh look here he is. Derrrrrrrrrmot and his “subjectivity” and “interpretation”
Prolix don’t play stupid. Look at West Ham’s 2 goals against Fulham.
Look at their goal against Bournemouth from the corner where it clearly hits his arm.
The officials came out after the game and reasoned exactly what I just said as to why they stood.
Then the officials are the problem, not the laws. Shocking everyone, I’m sure.
Except the laws are the problem, which is why not a single ref in the league can officiate a fucking game properly.
Good old Derrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrmut is actually right what he says at the beginning, his “reasoning” later for why the ref overruled the lino is unacceptable and well done Rob Wotton for digging that out.
You said you’ve have disallowed it Derrrrrrrrmut so stop being a fucking mark and own that.
He would have disallowed the goal.
Gallagher, notorious for siding with the officials would have disallowed the goal.
Did you watch this @Sportbilly1966?
Interesting viewing
Aye. The criteria for “Interfering” is explicitly laid out in the rule. There are tests the refs have to perform. Providing this level of proscriptive direction is done to create better between game/ref consistency so we’re not left with individuals each using their own interpretation. This is something fans demand and complain bitterly about their perceived lack of it. The downside is whenever you are so proscriptive like this you create an opening for edge cases - rare situations where the correct application of the rule produces outcomes that feel against the spirit of the game. This is the inherent tension that exists for any effort to write a set of rules. The more you push towards a set of rules that can implemented consistently, the more outcomes you create that are correct but feel like they shouldnt be because you’ve removed the ability of the ref to use “common sense” Whenever these edge cases come up they are noted and the next round of rule revisions are written to try to address them…something the fans say they want given their complaints over the incident in question, only to then complain again that the authorities cannot stop tinkering with the rule. “no one know the rules anymore, jim.”
In this case, what does “interfering” mean? Interfering with play explicitly requires the attacker to touch the ball, so we can immediately say that the Utd goal passed that test. Interfering with an opponent is more subjective, but even then pretty black and white. None of the tests ask whether the defender would have defended differently if the offside player was not there. They only ask whether the defender prevented from doing something they tried to do. Turning off and assuming the player would be given offside, which is not only what looked to be the case from the outside but what City players are claiming, does not tick any of those boxes. You have to actually try to defend the situation and be impeded from doing so. I think you have to stretch really hard to argue that was the case with any of the city defenders.