Was Rashford interfering with play?

[always_hoping]

Didn't Arsenal score a simliar goal in the 2017 FA Cup final. Don't remember as much debate about that goal as Brunos though.

 

[VivaRonaldo85]

What’s good about all this is the tangible fuss created by the media and other fans. Shows we’re relevant again and deemed a threat to others. Like the good old days.

 

[Red Dreams]

Typical of the Berties.
Blame the ref or the opposition.
Never accept that they fecked up.

Loved Garnacho turning their defence inside out before Rashford scored the winner btw.

 

[Ole'sattheWheel]

Typical of the Berties.
Blame the ref or the opposition.
Never accept that they fecked up.

Loved Garnacho turning their defence inside out before Rashford scored the winner btw.

True. I even saw them claiming it was clear that Pep threw the Southampton game so that he could focus on the CL.

Never crosses their mind that they got beat fair and square

 

[TheRedHearted]

Pass was made for Rashford and he continued his run. How that is not interference is beyond me really.
Kind of rule you expect in the 60s

Because
A) no one contested him
B) if the defenders dropped and either
B1) defenders hit the ball
B2) a United player came on to the ball from an onside position rashford could be played on an inside position.. so why not keep moving. How many goals do we see a player in an offside position stay offside but then be onside to score a goal
C) he didn’t obstruct keepers line of vision

 

[UDontMessWith24]

Typical of the Berties.
Blame the ref or the opposition.
Never accept that they fecked up.

Loved Garnacho turning their defence inside out before Rashford scored the winner btw.

The second goal was absolutely comical defending too. I’ve yet hear any pundit talk about 2 of their defenders trying to get Rashford offside rather than marking him with Ake engaging the ball a good yard behind them.

 

[andy0]

The pundits who speculated on what Ederson might do, and assumed it would be reasonably sensible, had obviously forgotten by then that an early chance came when Ederson came charging several yards outside the area and Rashford dribbled past him easily.

 

[RedRonaldo]

I'm in total agreement. I even said yesterday all the defender had to do was run into rashford and offside is given. They don't know the rules that's there fault.

I wonder if defenders do that and knock Rashford down/challenge him recklessly and also injured him in the process, what would happen? Rule out the goal for offside or any follow up with yellow/red card?

 

[Greyfog]

Because
A) no one contested him
B) if the defenders dropped and either
B1) defenders hit the ball
B2) a United player came on to the ball from an onside position rashford could be played on an inside position.. so why not keep moving. How many goals do we see a player in an offside position stay offside but then be onside to score a goal

If that goal was against United, you guys will be fuming. I don't get the need to justify it. Mistakes are made. City benefited from a decision that probably won them the league (Rodri at Everton). It happens but it was stupid to not disallow it.

 

[Kramer]

I think what has probably influenced the ref into giving it in our favour is that neither Akanji nor Walker get close to Rashford. If Akanji had actually tried to make a tackle on Rashford, would surely have been ruled offside even though he didn’t touch the ball.

But the way it played out, Akanji assumed Rashford would be flagged off and stopped trying. He didn’t play to the whistle and it cost his team big time.

 

[Scholsey2004]

Need to watch the goal again but if there's no City player near Rashford then he's not interfering with play in my book.

He's also not obstructing the goalkeepers line of sight either.

 

[TheRedHearted]

If that goal was against United, you guys will be fuming. I don't get the need to justify it. Mistakes are made. City benefited from a decision that probably won them the league (Rodri at Everton). It happens but it was stupid to not disallow it.

You could actually respond to a single one of my points

 

[Red Dreams]

True. I even saw them claiming it was clear that Pep threw the Southampton game so that he could focus on the CL.

Never crosses their mind that they got beat fair and square

The Scousers are always the Victims.
This lot are completely delusional. Just because they got bought over by a camel dung seller with oil, they think they are a great club.

 

[RedRonaldo]

Its our goal and over 70% here voted it isn't valid. Imagine if its the other way around, City scoring the same against us, I expect over 95% here would vote it's offside.

 

[mu4c_20le]

If that goal was against United, you guys will be fuming. I don't get the need to justify it. Mistakes are made. City benefited from a decision that probably won them the league (Rodri at Everton). It happens but it was stupid to not disallow it.

Peter Walton said it was the correct decision during the match. People are explaining the rules to you, and the referee's interpretation.

 

[Solius]

The sheer luck of being picked to be financially doped for 15 years > The luck of one decision.

I'm sure they'll survive.

 

[68cob]

He's also not obstructing the goalkeepers line of sight either.

The thing I kept hearing from city is that Rashford was distracting the goalkeeper by being there. This is why I asked about players intentionally being forward of the defensive line at free kicks. They are a distraction, but if they don't interfere, they are not offside.

 

[crossy1686]

 

[Hester_manc]

Number 2, 3 and 4 are more clear offside than Bruno`s situation.

 

[Greyfog]

Peter Walton said it was the correct decision during the match. People are explaining the rules to you, and the referee's interpretation.

I get the rules. His running towards goal was interfering with play simple as.

 

[Greyfog]

You could actually respond to a single one of my points

No need mate. Did Rashford interfer or not. My view is that he did. If Rashford stopped running and the defenders stopped with him and Bruno continued on and scored. No problem. He continued his run towards goal. I don't need to predict what the defenders should have been thinking or doing.

 

[lex talionis]

Fantastic compilation. Absurd how this continues to be a topic of conversation.

If authorities want to change the rule again to hold that Rashford interfered, good luck with rewriting the rule and still avoid making it an offside offense if any attacking player was in an offside position in any way.

 

[#07]

Its funny how all these others got ignored. There have even been ones against Man Utd e.g., Mirallas for Everton when Evans stops running cos he sees Lukaku off and Mirallas runs past both on the blindside to score.

But the funniest of all is: Liverpool should be out of the FA Cup. Wolves had a perfectly good goal chalked off for offside at 2-2. Game goes to a replay, Liverpool win 1-0. Nobody is talking about the injustice of Wolves going out.

 

[andy0]

I get the rules. His running towards goal was interfering with play simple as.

His play does not break the rules and is allowable within the rules, as are other attempts or circumstances which may deceive the goalkeeper or other defenders, including feinting to do something, no look passes looking a different way, two or more players getting ready to take a free kick, a free kick or penalty taker staring in one direction before the kick but not kicking it that way, hesitation run up for penalties to make the goalkeeper commit to moving one way than kick it the other.

Defenders sometimes make mistakes, like Ederson charging out of the area on an earlier attack. This is their responsibility not the attacking team.

Managers and coaches should train their players to what the rules actually are. And in this example, that may indeed have affected what they did. Instead of freezing with hand held up in appeal, City's defenders do carry on running back, confirming they knew this play was still active as Rashford hadn't touched the ball. If Akanji didn't tackle or intercept, that's because the pass was so good.

Despite most of this having been said already, we still have people insisting it's wrong, and what's more the proportion in the vote has even been decreasing very slightly with the later votes added.

Get this at last: mindfecking the defenders is allowed

 

[Greyfog]

His play does not break the rules and is allowable within the rules, as are other attempts or circumstances which may deceive the goalkeeper or other defenders, including feinting to do something, no look passes looking a different way, two or more players getting ready to take a free kick, a free kick or penalty taker staring in one direction before the kick but not kicking it that way, hesitation run up for penalties to make the goalkeeper commit to moving one way than kick it the other.

Defenders sometimes make mistakes, like Ederson charging out of the area on an earlier attack. This is their responsibility not the attacking team.

Managers and coaches should train their players to what the rules actually are. And in this example, that may indeed have affected what they did. Instead of freezing with hand held up in appeal, City's defenders do carry on running back, confirming they knew this play was still active as Rashford hadn't touched the ball. If Akanji didn't tackle or intercept, that's because the pass was so good.

Yes it didn't break the rules. it is a legitimate goal because of that. The OP knew that before he created the thread. He was asking for opinions. Just like the Salah's goal against Wolves.

The pass was so good, Rashford didn't need to touch it and could have hit it first time or gone round the keeper with a couple of touches.

 

[Maticmaker]

As someone once said " if he's not interfering with play, whats he doing on the pitch?"

Its simply one of those decisions where the referee's 'interpretation' is what counts, in this case he decided it wasn't interference and VAR agreed... end of!

 

[noodlehair]

I mean I'm inclined to think it was offside, but people creating misleading screenshots with Rashford edited out, making it falsely look like the defender would have got the ball of he wasn't there, has actually if anything made me think it was correct to give the goal.

If it was so obvious it should be disallowed due to Rashford's position, why would you have to create a misleading screenshot with him edited OUT to argue it, instead of just, you know, showing footage of the goal? The reason seems to be because the actual footage suggests if Rashford isn't there Fernandes probably gets to the ball before the defenders anyway.

Although I still think if you pass the ball to someone they are interfering and affecting the opponent by default (I mean, obviously really), but it seems people aren't going down that line of argument and are instead coming up with dubious bollocks, so, never mind.

Might have more sympathy if City had turned up for more than 30 minutes of the game, or had any shots on target, or anything vaguely resembling a chance outside of the goal. I wouldn't be happy with us moaning about the ref if it was after 90 minutes of pointlessly passing the ball sideways.

 

[TheRedHearted]

No need mate. Did Rashford interfer or not. My view is that he did. If Rashford stopped running and the defenders stopped with him and Bruno continued on and scored. No problem. He continued his run towards goal. I don't need to predict what the defenders should have been thinking or doing.

He’s allowed to run towards goal since being offside doesn’t mean to have to exit the pitch, walk down the tunnel and go home.

 

[UDontMessWith24]

No need mate. Did Rashford interfer or not. My view is that he did. If Rashford stopped running and the defenders stopped with him and Bruno continued on and scored. No problem. He continued his run towards goal. I don't need to predict what the defenders should have been thinking or doing.

They sure as feck didn't do their job, and ultimately that's what put it in the referee's hands. Nobody to blame but themselves.

 

[The Boy]

I’m watching Liverpool Chelsea on BT Sport and the commentators have just spent the last 5 minutes saying that Rashford was offside!

commentator 1: Let’s not mention last week at OT

commentator2: it was definitely offside

commentator1: let’s not mention it … but it was clearly offside

commentator2: let’s not mention it ….. ad Infinitum