I don’t agree. In term of improving the game’s entertainment element, it’s a good rule. Encouraging attack and goal scoring.
Was Rashford interfering with play?
- Thread starter PoTMS
- Start date
It may be dumb but it's the current rule and that's what they're ruling on
In rugby, an offside player who's near the ball and runs towards it is penalised. For some reason, in football the people making the rules seem to assume the refs are stupid and need the rules to be as simple as possible.
I don’t get what Rashford could possibly do here - or not do here - that would affect whether a City player can get to this ball. It’s going to Bruno regardless.
If hypothetically, he runs off towards the far corner flag with his hands up, to signal that he’s DEFINITELY not interfering with play*, it still doesn’t stop the ball getting to Bruno IMO. The City player thinks he’s off, but unless we’re saying it’s always offside if a pass is intended for that player (which we know is not true) then all were quibbling over is whether their keeper is an idiot who got bamboozled by Rashford running…. Which is at worst interpretational, and at best clever play?
No? Am I an idiot, or is everyone being really weird about this? (I genuinely do not know, as always!)
* also if he does this, and the defender runs with him, is THAT offside, because the defender is an idiot?
It's really not even iffy and I'm surprised that an otherwise fairly intelligent crew of posters on the caf is struggling with the offside rule tonight. We've seen goals scored like this before over the years where a player was in an offside position but never touches but is near the ball "affects" the play but does not interfere with the play and the goal stands.
Another scenario may help clarify what interference means and what it does not mean. On a free kick where the ball is crossed into the box there's invariably an attacking player who's in an offside position but another player plays the ball and no offside call is made. Why? Because although the one player was in an offside position and arguably "affected" the defenders, that attacking player did not "interfere" with play and offside was not called. On the other hand, if a player in an offside position is in the line of sight of the keeper when the shot by another player who is in an onside position is made, the goal will be disallowed for offside due to "interference" with the keeper by a player in an offside position.
This isn't that complicated.
Daft rule imo. From Ederson’s perspective he’s getting ready to deal with a shot from Rashford . Bruno doesn’t come into it . Of course Rashy is interfering. Happy it counted though!
Salah was miles offside against Wolves, to the point that the defender tried to head the ball clear but, when the ball fell to Salah, it was seen as being the second passage of play and the goal stood. Barely anyone said anything about that.
Yes, the offside rule is nonsense, no our goal shouldn't have been disallowed.
Yes, the offside rule is nonsense, no our goal shouldn't have been disallowed.
This is the only thing that genuinely points towards offside for me. And yeah, if it’s ruled out for that, I’d grudgingly understand it. But considering everything else is in our favour (Bruno’s on, Rashford doesn’t touch it, no City player is getting to it regardless and Rash isn’t obstructing anyone) the argument is entirely over whether this is his fault or ours…. And that’s easily subjective enough to be at least 50/50 IMO
Only just watched the United highlights. Akanji’s defending for the first goal is very naive. He puts Rashford into an offside position with a clever pause, then just seemingly becomes complacent and assumes Rashford will commit an offside offence, yet by just jogging back he never compels him to commit one. Defenders have to play to the whistle and can’t just shrug at forwards to indicate they are interfering with play whilst in an offside position.
Probably a little bit, how many fecks do I give? None. Feck pep. Feckin Cheaty City with their plastic owners. Feck that sleazy slimeball Grealish, feck hi pitched Kevin. Feck Walker. Etc. Still buzzing, perfect, well nearly perfect win.
The angle you include isn't the most helpful.
I don’t get what Rashford could possibly do here - or not do here - that would affect whether a City player can get to this ball. It’s going to Bruno regardless.
If hypothetically, he runs off towards the far corner flag with his hands up, to signal that he’s DEFINITELY not interfering with play*, it still doesn’t stop the ball getting to Bruno IMO. The City player thinks he’s off, but unless we’re saying it’s always offside if a pass is intended for that player (which we know is not true) then all were quibbling over is whether their keeper is an idiot who got bamboozled by Rashford running…. Which is at worst interpretational, and at best clever play?
No? Am I an idiot, or is everyone being really weird about this? (I genuinely do not know, as always!)
* also if he does this, and the defender runs with him, is THAT offside, because the defender is an idiot?
Rashford should stop and allow the play to go on around him, he instead effectively screens the ball on to Bruno's foot (barely missing the ball in the process).
Both defenders perceive Rashford as in possession and act, poorly, on that basis. If only Bruno is present then Walker would have likely gone shoulder to shoulder with Bruno (Walker ends up ahead of the ball before it is struck) and/or slid in.
Rashford's presence causes a level of confusion that impacts the outcome. To me that is interference, the laws seem to disagree or at least create enough slack for it to go either way. It would have been offside for most of footballing history but they can't stop fiddling with the laws.
Honestly we are due a big decision go our way, won't get anything again this season.
Letter of law probably onside, but spirit of the game off for me.
Letter of law probably onside, but spirit of the game off for me.
Maybe Rugby's offside rule is sensible but most of the rest are incomprehisbilbe to most folks
That was 100&% interference, even half blind man can see that.
But who cares. We won.
But who cares. We won.
Last edited:
100%, don’t care.
He can stop running. It is simple. He was running almost at full speed, behind the ball.
I don’t get what Rashford could possibly do here - or not do here - that would affect whether a City player can get to this ball. It’s going to Bruno regardless.
If hypothetically, he runs off towards the far corner flag with his hands up, to signal that he’s DEFINITELY not interfering with play*, it still doesn’t stop the ball getting to Bruno IMO. The City player thinks he’s off, but unless we’re saying it’s always offside if a pass is intended for that player (which we know is not true) then all were quibbling over is whether their keeper is an idiot who got bamboozled by Rashford running…. Which is at worst interpretational, and at best clever play?
No? Am I an idiot, or is everyone being really weird about this? (I genuinely do not know, as always!)
* also if he does this, and the defender runs with him, is THAT offside, because the defender is an idiot?
I am happy we won, but still...
IMO Bruno gets to the ball anyway so rashford had little impact when you watch in real time. It’s beautiful to see all the salty ABU tears!!
This. He didn't even need to win the ball, he just had to get close enough to be impeded. Reducing the subjective factor but he couldn't even do the bare minimum. Instead left the ref to make deductions about his state of mind. I thought it was offside but I'd be irritated by my defender not playing to the whistle.
The more I see it, the less I think he was. City defenders coming out and claiming they were playing him offside, but if he wasn't there, they've still zero chance of getting to Bruno. The question is Ederson, but he looked like a clown today and Rashford probably saved him from tripping over his own feet.
Whatever. Can talk about this all week long, but won't change the fact nobody bothered to mark Rashford for the winner. If you're a Blue, that's where you should be directing your anger. Defended like children.
Whatever. Can talk about this all week long, but won't change the fact nobody bothered to mark Rashford for the winner. If you're a Blue, that's where you should be directing your anger. Defended like children.
Akanji is the one who stopped running. That's why they lost.
It was an awkward moment for Rashy because if he stopped dead in his tracks he risked blocking a city player. Best he could do was show he was not in play and had no intent to play the ball. He can't control what Akanji does or doesn't do.
Rashford impacted Ederson who thought he will take the shot so Edersons position is pointed towards Rashy. This created a better angle for Bruno to shoot.
I blame Rashford for making extra effort. He should've stopped running after the dummy.
This should've been a perfect goal. Otherwise it's obviously offside.
This should've been a perfect goal. Otherwise it's obviously offside.
Rashford isn’t obstructing any city player, he didn’t touch the ball, the pass went to Bruno.
He wasn’t interfering.
He wasn’t interfering.
Some people, including the TV pundits - who should know better than us, but seem to prefer their opinions of what the rule should be - need to realise that the offside rules have changed since we grew up. The player is interfering with play if he either touches the ball, or obstructs the movement or line of sight of a defender. Neither of these happen, so we've discovered that feinting to play the ball is not an offence.
Maybe it will be reviewed and changed in the close season, maybe not. But for now, beware, in case our defence makes the same mistakes City did.
The deliciousness of this upset will only improve wth time if we finish only one or two points above City at the end of the season
Maybe it will be reviewed and changed in the close season, maybe not. But for now, beware, in case our defence makes the same mistakes City did.
The deliciousness of this upset will only improve wth time if we finish only one or two points above City at the end of the season
I've heard the argument about how " he wasn't interfering because Rashford didn't touch the ball, and because neither of the City players would get there before Bruno" and it's what I will scream at the top of my lungs to any City fan and any neutral for the matter. But.....it shouldn't have counted. Maybe the letter of the law says that the goal should stand, but the law is broken. Just watching the goal you can see that something isn't right. I'd rather see goals like this called off and goals where a player is an inch offside allowed. If todays goal happened at the other end of the field, I'd be losing it. Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure Arsenal scored a goal like us last year or the year before that was allowed to stand...
Yes. I'm happy for the win of course but i'd be furious if it happened to us.
If he stops running dead he either takes out the City defender in a clothesline, or makes him go around him…both of which are obstructing the play a lot more!
He slows down, but as he’s accelerated already there’s isn’t an awful lot he can do in about 1.5 seconds other than keep his line…. Unless he throws himself on the floor or changes his trajectory right into the keeper, I still don’t know what he’s supposed to do..
He does try to stop. He says as much himself at 5:22.
But even if he runs off to the corner flag with his hands up, the defender isn’t getting there… he’s already on the backfoot because he’s trying to play him offside, but that should be irrelevant since the rule isn’t “if the ball is intentionally played to a player whose offside, the move is void ” as hundreds of goals have been scored without controversy in that exact scenario.
Again, I get why it’s a bit iffy, but as controversial offsides go - even this week! - it’s a perfect arguable one.
I can't believe a third of the people actually voted no. 
Without Rashford almost touching the ball there one of the City defenders or Ederson would've claimed it before Bruno got there. Not only that, Ederson was positioned for a Rashford shot.
Good for us and feck City but it was clearly an offside.
Without Rashford almost touching the ball there one of the City defenders or Ederson would've claimed it before Bruno got there. Not only that, Ederson was positioned for a Rashford shot.Good for us and feck City but it was clearly an offside.
This is insane! You’d rather a goal scored that was technically onside, than one that genuinely wasn’t?
Why is everyone being absolutely mental about this?
But they absolutely wouldn’t have. There’s video of it and everything!I can't believe a third of the people actually voted no.
There’s a slight argument that the covering player might’ve been close enough to challenge. But the player on Rash and Ederson are miles away.
There’s a reason why all the commentators were fine with it in real time, and it’s only become a huge thing after Pep and City had a big whinge.
You are free to disagree with the rules, but everywhere I've checked says it was the correct decision. VAR didn't even get involved because there was no clear and obvious error.I can't believe a third of the people actually voted no.
Good for us and feck City but it was clearly an offside.
Why was Bruno Fernandes’ goal allowed to stand against Manchester City?
This is the big question, and the explanation stands in the fact that the offside rule has recently been altered.
A player is now judged to be offside if they either touch the ball after being in an offside position, or their involvement stops an opposition player from playing the ball.
Rashford ran alongside the ball but did not touch it, and no City defenders were in a position to touch the ball and divert it away from Fernandes.
As a result, the initial on-pitch decision was overturned and the goal was awarded to Fernandes.
https://theathletic.com/4090488/2023/01/14/bruno-fernandes-goal-offside-manchester-united-city/
Why referee allowed Man United goal to stand despite Rashford offside
NBC Sports contacted the PGMOL (Professional Game Match Officials Limited), which is responsible for referees in the English professional game, and according to a report relayed by host Rebecca Lowe, the response was that:
"PGMOL have gotten back to us and have said no touch on the ball, no impact on the defender, and therefore they [VAR] could find no reason for a clear and obvious error.
"According to the PGMOL, they say [Rashford] didn't impact the defender and he didn't touch the ball and therefore Rashford was OK to do what he did and allow Fernandes to come onto the ball and score."
So the final ruling was that there was no touch on the ball by Rashford and that he also did not affect the defenders, which is why the VAR did not intervene to scratch the goal.
Rules experts are all in agreement that according to the Laws of the Game, the goal had to stand:
https://www.sportingnews.com/ca/soc...ree-rashford-offside/ac3jav7c70iprlwo3tdyo8le
I genuinely think if it was ruled out, we’d all be sitting here having a huge discussion about why it should’ve stood.
The in game (and most of the post game) punditry was largely okay with it. It’s only become a massive thing hours after the fact, because the discourse is king.
The in game (and most of the post game) punditry was largely okay with it. It’s only become a massive thing hours after the fact, because the discourse is king.
This is correct! It turns out that many of us, myself included, do not understand the current rule for offside! (and some of us used to laugh at the jokes about women and offside!... )
"A player is now judged to be offside if they either touch the ball after being in an offside position, or their involvement stops an opposition player from playing the ball."
This is simply a narrow interpretation of the word "interference". They decided to make this narrow interpretation the new rule, probably because it is easier for refs and VAR to get it right. With this current, narrow interpretation, Rashford did not interfere with play.
Guys, THE RULE HAS CHANGED.
The defenders have a perfect right to attempt an interception or a tackle.I can't believe a third of the people actually voted no.
Good for us and feck City but it was clearly an offside.
The fact they didn't - whether chose not to or couldn't - is not a product of the offside rule.
Coaches need to think their way through this rule, and train their teams accordingly.
Last edited:
Why would he get ready for a shot from Rashford? Rashford is miles offside, it would never have counted... Poor judgement from the goalie and the defenders IMO.
Agree. Even if he stopped, City defenders would still get nowhere near the ball. Let's be honest, the defenders were expecting an offside against Rashford but that backfired. They just didn't want to admit it. The funny thing is once it's clear Rashford wasn't offside people started bringing up "interfering with play" as an argument. It's a failed offside trap, simples. It would have been an interference had Rashford body blocked the nearest defender, he didn't when the nearest defender was at least 1 metre behind him? and if the other defender decided to ignore Bruno it's his own fault.
I don’t get what Rashford could possibly do here - or not do here - that would affect whether a City player can get to this ball. It’s going to Bruno regardless.
If hypothetically, he runs off towards the far corner flag with his hands up, to signal that he’s DEFINITELY not interfering with play*, it still doesn’t stop the ball getting to Bruno IMO. The City player thinks he’s off, but unless we’re saying it’s always offside if a pass is intended for that player (which we know is not true) then all were quibbling over is whether their keeper is an idiot who got bamboozled by Rashford running…. Which is at worst interpretational, and at best clever play?
No? Am I an idiot, or is everyone being really weird about this? (I genuinely do not know, as always!)
* also if he does this, and the defender runs with him, is THAT offside, because the defender is an idiot?
31% percent voted No, and 69% voted Yes.
Obviously, 69% of us (myself included!) did not know that the rule has changed, the word "interfere" has now a very narrow interpretation. Rashford was not offside, according to the current rules.
Obviously, 69% of us (myself included!) did not know that the rule has changed, the word "interfere" has now a very narrow interpretation. Rashford was not offside, according to the current rules.
It doesn't really matter if he stopped or not. With the current rule, he is offside only if: 1. He touched the ball. 2. He touched a defender or did not allow him to play the ball.
To be pedantic, he is in an offside position, but not committing an offside offence