yes and it's fecking disgrace to humanity. Somebody think about the children watching it!
Was Rashford interfering with play?
- Thread starter PoTMS
- Start date
According to the rules it's a legit goal, hence why they give the goal.
However I think the rules are too generous towards the attacking team. Rashford is so close to the ball it causes confusion in the defensive team even if he's not directly interfering with any individual opponent.
However I think the rules are too generous towards the attacking team. Rashford is so close to the ball it causes confusion in the defensive team even if he's not directly interfering with any individual opponent.
According to Peter Walton on BT, no.
In my opinion, yes.
But it's City so I don't care.
In my opinion, yes.
But it's City so I don't care.
Was the turning point of the game; the life drained out of them and we came to life. You can imagine they're spitting flames, as I think we would be the other way round.
Wonder if Pep will say anything about that rule.
Who the feck was he interfering? There was noone near Bruno. They should try to defend instead of complaining.
My vote is Yes and Eboue
Close this tread, it was a legit goal. Period.
I thought so initially, however rewatching it I don't see any difference to the outcome whether Rashford is there or not.
If Akanji could have gotten there he would have done so regardless and Walker was on Fernandes anyway.
If Akanji could have gotten there he would have done so regardless and Walker was on Fernandes anyway.
I mean, if you watch the clip you can clearly see that Akanji has Rashford between him and the ball so he's in a position where he is in danger of fouling him. If Rashford isn't there he can run at a different angle for the ball and doesn't need to think of these possible outcomes. You're a lot different when you're running behind someone in football compared to if you're running with nobody in front of you.
I don’t know if Akanji gets it regardless but it probably influences Ederson so maybe.
Rules say no. VAR said no. So no.
It's not a goal @ the Etihad.
Wouldve been furious if Feyenoord conceded such a goal, but totally fine if we scored it. Who cares.
He's interfering but under the existing rules it's not offside, so that's that. Fully expect the FA to make a big deal of it even though Salah did similar for Liverpool.
If Rashford tries to intentionally block Akanji then yes, 100% offside. But he doesn't. Rashford is just so brilliant.
If this was scored against us I’d be fecking furious and call it a giant disgrace in VAR era. But we won against City, shit happens 
Just seen the replay from behind and he definitely impacts on Ederson.
I think he was becuase he purposely slowed down so akanji has a tougher route to get to the ball. But it's subjective
BT doing the magnifier glass camera . feck off
. feck offHe makes life hard for both Akanji and Ederaon… But who cares, the cheating Abu Dhabi cnuts don’t deserve anything else. And we’ve not had many decisions go our way recently. Enjoy it.
He clearly is in the way of the defender trying to get to the ball, so he does interfere that way.
As I said, if it happened to us, I'd be livid. But hey, who cares?!
As I said, if it happened to us, I'd be livid. But hey, who cares?!
No: City were expecting him to touch it and be flagged so they didn't bother themselves with and left it for Bruno to take it - City's fault.
We lost a goal in similar circumstances at Goodison a few years ago when the lino didn't flag an off-side player who didn't get involved, and that was back in the days before they were told to keep the flag down until the move plays-out - can't have it both ways.
We lost a goal in similar circumstances at Goodison a few years ago when the lino didn't flag an off-side player who didn't get involved, and that was back in the days before they were told to keep the flag down until the move plays-out - can't have it both ways.
Fair plays and derby doesn't go well together. I'm glad we won with that massive shithousery.
In the end it is all about if he interferes with Akanji, City will claim yes obviously, but Bruno was always ahead for the ball
You cant stop defending because a player is offside, if he slacks on the run back because Rashford is offside, then it is on him that he is not further ahead to challenge Bruno
If Akanji has made more of a run for it, and was clearly impeded by Rashford, then it would be offside, otherwise not.
You cant stop defending because a player is offside, if he slacks on the run back because Rashford is offside, then it is on him that he is not further ahead to challenge Bruno
If Akanji has made more of a run for it, and was clearly impeded by Rashford, then it would be offside, otherwise not.
I mean, who cares? It help us beat City. As the rules are it probably is the right decision but I would imagine being very irritated if that happened to us.
Love EtH
It is one of those that I just instinctively think should be offside from playing and watching the game for near on 40 years. The Law keep changing but down at your local amateur match I think the ref calls that off more times than not. I feel the same around some of the ridiculously soft pens that are given for unavoidable handballs, might be the current interpretation but it doesn't feel right.
For me, yes but I don't care. The rules are written in such a way any decision could have been made
I'd have been fecking seething if that decision went against us.
But I'd have been seething a lot more with our defence if they went to sleep like City's did and let the onside player take the shot.
But I'd have been seething a lot more with our defence if they went to sleep like City's did and let the onside player take the shot.
It was ridiculous but the problem is with the law itself. It was applied correctly. Not our problem. Get the feck in!
Borderline for me but not offside IMO. It's on the right side for us of the pass going to Bruno naturally and City defenders being out of the equation and Rashford letting it run.
My immediate reaction was that he was taking part in the play, so I would have accepted a offside ruling.
Yes he does, but I'm ecstatic the goal stood, because it's a goal for us.
Do not give a shit. Any of you cnuts who said we should sell him to PSG should be ashamed of themselves. Bunch of fecking traitors, this win isn't for you.
If Akanji and Walker hadn't switched off they would have engaged Rashford with the ball. It's a total 50/50 call on whether you think he actually interfered with them, but it was easily preventable.
He was interfering, the defender could have maybe put on afterburners and got there with a slide tackle but was distracted. It's also their fault for not playing to the whistle.
No real point in debating about it as that rule is entirely at the refs discretion. The VAR and the governing body of refs both said it should have stood so you can't really argue. City can have no complaints, they were dominating then for the 5 minutes beforehand they clearly let us back into the game and we killed them.
Didn't touch the ball, didn't impede a defender from getting to the ball, by the letter of the law he's not interfered with play.
The funny thing is if one of the defenders just took Rashford out it would have been a city free kick for offside. What a bizarre rule the way it stands.
I think the first point is completely right. Play till the whistle, otherwise dont complain. Akanji clearly doesnt go all in on the runback because he knows Rashford is offside, but that doesnt mean the play stops