Ok, so what about Ederson coming out and moving to his right in preperation of Rashford shooting that side, then ratboy sliding in and putting the shot the other side of Ederson when his movement and momentum preventing him from stopping Bruno’s shot?
Had Rashford not been running along with the ball, there is no way Bruno would have got that shot past Ederson as he would have had his positioning and movement set to cover his left side - so Rashford interfered with Ederson being able to defend the shot
The test doesn’t ask if the defender would have made different decisions, only were they impacted in their ability to do the things they decided to do.
I have lots of sympathy for that argument in general though, although less in this case. Bruno came from a long way to make up that ground. His run and effort to try to get to the ball was clear. This was Ederson’s view
Arguments that he was only preparing for Rashford to shoot ignore that he shouldnt have been given the clearly onside player trying hard to get himself on the end of it.
And with the spped games are often played at these days, do you really think he would have the time to think all of that, or just that he see’s Rashford following the ball and shaping to shoot to his right, which from his angle is the more likely option.
He isn’t thinking about wheather or not Rashford is onside, just thinking about how to stop him from scoring
Maybe. We can debate whether that is bad goalkeeping to have supposedly focused so singularly on one player when there is clearly a second attacker in the move, or just inevitable given the situation (I definitely think the former given the distance over which the move played out), but critically it isn’t part of the rule. Lots of the sky coverage, including Gallagher’s comments, focus on that element incorrectly giving the impression it should have been part of the decision process.
I believe that many fans actually do want games refereed subjectively: they just want it to be their subjective interpretation of how the game should be played/officiated.
I’m not sure I’ve seen anyone who is stridently convinced that this decision was against the “spirit of the game” (whatever the fuck that means) actually provide a suggestion of how to set up the rules to uphold that standard in a way that is clear, consistent, and repeatable.
I’m open to the perspective that Rashford was involved enough that it should have been an offside offence. The question then is how do you write a description of why and how that is the case? How do you apply that standard to every other game and not this precise incident in isolation?
But then prior to that screenshot, after the ball is played Rashford follows the ball and feigns several dribbles so encourages Ederson to play as if he is going to shoot before Bruno is in a position to affect Ederson’s positioning.
In my personal opinion, and many will probably disagree, but they need to go with a Yes/No interpretation - as giving refs who have often not played the game past 13/14 don’t have the ability to apply reasonable interpretation into their thinking.
it’s a stupid call on a stupid rule which was stupid to bring into the game in the first place
at time of kick, if you’re goalside (not level with) of the last defender then you’re offside. none of this “involved in play” bull shit, it’s just silly. If you stray offside on a ball to your teammate and his goal is taken away, too bad.
They’re tailoring the rules to TV/VAR scenarios when 99.9% of the rest of football played doesn’t have a 4th official on a TV screen and thus makes the rule ineffective for “normal” football.
Wouldnt your suggestion result in the opposite outcome though? If you take away the proscriptive guidance the refs currently have then more of the decisions would then be left to whatever the individual perspective is of someone who has “never played the game”.
Allowing passive offsides has been part of the game since at least the 94 world cup (The Bebeto goal against the Dutch being the first one I remember being debated as a change to the classic Cough interpretation).
No. Make it a simple Yes/No decision. Was the attacking player goal side when the ball was played? Yes, then it’s offside, if No, then it’s not offside - can’t be more simple and easy to understand.
The rules specifically talk about impacts an opponent from playing the ball, moving too the ball, affecting his line of sight, there is nothi g that mentions the decision process of an opponent
For me I agree the rules should be altered because until the final moment Rashfords whole intent was to play the ball until a last call from Fernandez, without a rule change this can happen again with the same outcome, for me he is interfering but not with how the current rules are written
Yep from still playing the game, the rule chages are effing stupid and just encourages lazy forwards who just don’t try to get onside and they also dont have to think more of timing there runs as much grrrrr
The experts on here vs Gallagher who sucks SKY off every Monday on ref watch.
He would disallow the goal, under the current rules. To be honest, its a difficult call, but how subjectively Rashford is not interfering with play is beyond belief.
My knowledge of the game is certainly nowhere near as nuanced as some of you, so forgive the daft question…
To get to the ball Akanji would have had to run through Rashford, yeah? The run was more or less protecting the ball.
What if he had just charged through him? Can you foul a player whose involvement in the passage of play has been deemed to be below interfering in said passage of play?
I think that sounds a reasonable thing to do - of course the risk is then you’ve misjudged things and the ref says the player had been onside and you have just given away a penalty
Which attacking player? Is it every player, including one on the opposite side of the pitch who is running away from goal to get back onside? Is it only players who are deemed to be involved in the play? How do you define who is involved in the play?
If the answer is “yes, any player who is offside” then fair enough, that’s a straightforward rubric to apply. But you have to accept that there’s going to be some very difficult to swallow calls when applying that standard. And if the answer is “no, not any player”, you can see the quagmire you quickly get into.
