The question is:
Was Rashford interfering with play?
The rule about what "interfering" means has changed.
Was Rashford interfering with play?
- Thread starter PoTMS
- Start date
Was Rashford interfering with play?
The rule about what "interfering" means has changed.
Some people said Rashford should have stopped so he wont interfere with the play. But I mean even if he didn't stop, he still won't interfere. WAS GOAL.
Are you people trying to say the new rule impose on defenders to be more... how do you say it ? That word used by one chap on the touchline, you know........ Proactive ?
Rashford's actions certainly interfered with how the city players defended, but that's because those city players don't know the rules. They don't know that rashford's can do as he likes as long as he doesn't touch the ball or get in a defender/goalkeepers run/line of sight.
I do have sympathy with them in as much as it's probably never happened like that before, but ultimately they just have to play until the move is over - that's how football is since VAR and linesmen not flagging right away.
I do have sympathy with them in as much as it's probably never happened like that before, but ultimately they just have to play until the move is over - that's how football is since VAR and linesmen not flagging right away.
And I’m not even arguing that it’s a clear cut 100% easy onside… merely that it’s not really that controversial a decision. It’s a kinda 50/50 that id be annoyed/accepting of either way, but which we absolutely have grounds to consider fair.
I’m mostly just baffled how insistent people are about it being off just because Pep went all Kevin Keegan about it! Even the commentators in-game were like “sure, that probably makes sense!” because the main factors of an offside - the player scoring being on, the player off not touching it, and the defenders most likely not getting there anyway - are all in our favour.
Everyone’s just Gary Nevilling the shit out of themselves for some reason.
Here is another article:
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...nnot-disguise-shifting-of-sands-in-manchester
It says that the rule has changed, Rashford was not interfering (with the new rule).
He was interfering with the old rule, it is a matter of how exactly the rule defines the word "interfere".
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...nnot-disguise-shifting-of-sands-in-manchester
It says that the rule has changed, Rashford was not interfering (with the new rule).
He was interfering with the old rule, it is a matter of how exactly the rule defines the word "interfere".
Yes but not offside by current stupid rules
He basically dummied the ball and the city players are aggrieved that they fell for it. We’d be pissed off if it’d happened to us but c’est la vie. Next time those city players will play to the ref’s whistle.
I'd definitely feel aggreived, but if that were Lindelof, you bet we'd also be moaning about how he was weak as piss
I've just seen clips on youtube of Messi doing smart plays to avoid the offside trap. He stood still, but was closer to the ball in proximity than Rashford, yet no offside was called. Commentator stated, he didn't interfere with play there. Etc, despite half of the defenders raising their hand, and stop playing. The only thing not similar is the fact Rashford is running towards the ball after it has gone past him, whilst Messi just sort of stood there. Both in clear offside positions, Messi benefited from that position by scoring right after, but in Rashford situation he was actually less active, it's just that he moved with the pass for a bit, indicating involvement. I didn't think that was allowed but like Messi, it was smart not touching it.
I think City screwed up actually and it was a fair goal. I voted yes because i think its funnier to beat teams with shitty offside goals than anything else.
I think they were playing by an offside rule thats about 20 years out of date. Rashford can sit 10 feet offside every attack without it being a foul until he touches the ball or blocks a city player from touching the ball.
They stepped up, the pass came in with 1 player offside and they thought it was job done. They still had 10 other players to defend against which they failed to do.
It was definitely 100% a goal by the rules as they stand. Even accounting for that City only have themselves to blame here. They stopped and slowed down and waved their arms around to appeal for an offside whistle that stopped coming about 3 years ago.
I think they were playing by an offside rule thats about 20 years out of date. Rashford can sit 10 feet offside every attack without it being a foul until he touches the ball or blocks a city player from touching the ball.
They stepped up, the pass came in with 1 player offside and they thought it was job done. They still had 10 other players to defend against which they failed to do.
It was definitely 100% a goal by the rules as they stand. Even accounting for that City only have themselves to blame here. They stopped and slowed down and waved their arms around to appeal for an offside whistle that stopped coming about 3 years ago.
My 3 previous posts, including the one you quoted, and several other people's comments, have already answered this question:
No
The players need to be better aware, and better coached. Guardiola is trying to shift the blame, rather than publicly criticise them for mistakes. Or perhaps he's trying to build a sense of injustice in his players's minds in order to motivate them more
Last edited:
Hard to see how the referee came to that conclusion, though I'm more than happy to see it go in our favour after the last couple of years of dodgy calls against us.
Everybody in that stadium was getting ready for Rashford to hit it.
Everybody in that stadium was getting ready for Rashford to hit it.
Guardiola knows it was a legitimate goal. He has got out the message now that City were badly treated, so the refs will have that in mind going forwards. However, behind closed doors, he will be walking his defenders through what they did wrong. Akanji in particular thought his job was done when Rashford was offside and was jogging back.
Not the first time City have been sold an expensive dummy
I think the Liverpool situation is far more blatant and outrageous.
I loved the bitterness on MOTD. They were also clueless, especially Richards (who would have thought), saying something like yeah I would have focused only on Rashy and it would have been offside, totally forgetting another player who wasn’t. Again, the new rule means it is not offside, as both defenders could have interfered if they were close enough. But they were not
But that is not the point. He did not block anyone‘s view, he did not prevent a defender to clear the ball. It is the defender‘s fault for thinking he will hit it. Bruno was not offside, so you have to focus on all the players, not just the closest one.
What, the feck, is this?
It’s the sort of question that could have kept medieval theologians occupied for a lifetime. Duns Scotus and Thomas Aquinas would have written controversial tracts upon it, then those tracts would have been analysed and those analyses themselves analysed. Whole libraries would have been devoted to the theme. To what extent, if God is omniscient, can we have free will? If our thinking is flawed, can any revelation escape flaw? What is interfering?
Yep, you're right. They should have acted differently. They pussied about and got punished. Rashford is in their heads
I just want goals to stand generally, the "spirit of the offside rule" was to stop teams pumping the ball up from 70 yards to a big man, not to stop goals like this occuring. It's a bit pathetic to moan about things like this - and it's always dialled up to the maximum when it's Manchester United that benefit. I'm happy that it stood and I'm happy with the reasons why. I'd probably be annoyed if it went against us but I wouldn't be frothing at the mouth angry the way so many oppo fans are right now. To be fair it's glorious in a way.
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?
Thank you good sir
Defo not, rules are in place to avoid confusion. Didn’t interfere with a defender or touch the ball. Akanji should play to the whistle so can’t say he stopped for the offside, same as Ederson. Flag up after Bruno scored, linesman should have flagged before then as it was an obvious offside.
Happened to us before, can’t remember the game or the players involved but hopefully someone remembers. So opposition player offside, our defender headers it and miscues it and then offside player is judged onside, would this header have happened if the offside player isn’t there? No so influences play, they then go on a score from it. Think it was last season.
Happened to us before, can’t remember the game or the players involved but hopefully someone remembers. So opposition player offside, our defender headers it and miscues it and then offside player is judged onside, would this header have happened if the offside player isn’t there? No so influences play, they then go on a score from it. Think it was last season.
Have you seen the goal? Walker doesn’t get near either Bruno or Rashford? Let’s just say what you say is true, wouldn’t chasing Rashford instead of Bruno mean the presence of Rashford is making them run faster towards the ball thus making it a disadvantage for United?
Equally guilty of not scanning and covering all threats.
They can try and blame shift all they want, Bruno was through.
It was a more innocent time when you could make fun of the missus for not understanding the offside rule instead of replying ‘I don’t fecking know’.
For me if he steps out immediately it's grand, running along on top of the ball in my view *should* constitute interfering, mostly I think with Ederson, as positioning himself for an imminent rashford touch or shot is very different to positioning and trying to save a Bruno shot. In the end he is in no man's land covering both, giving Bruno such an easy finish.
If rashford was simply never there I think Ederson plays that differently.
Per the new rules though it was correct to let it stand I think, and the ridiculous nuance of the argument shows they have once again fecked it with their silly rules.
MOTD and a lot of analysis on it has been very poor.
If rashford was simply never there I think Ederson plays that differently.
Per the new rules though it was correct to let it stand I think, and the ridiculous nuance of the argument shows they have once again fecked it with their silly rules.
MOTD and a lot of analysis on it has been very poor.
Yeah. Why the he'll isn't Walker breaking his bollocks to catch Rashford in the first place? The saltiness is blinding them
Its not the defenders that I think make it offside, it's how Ederson is setting up for Rashford to shoot.
The only argument that really has much merit for me is that the keeper shouldn't have had to think about Rashford and Fernandes and wondering which would shoot. If any of the defenders would have put in enough effort or been able to get close enough to Rashford for them to have to consider his presence in their stride or move at all to avoid him it would have been chalked off. They didn't so he wasn't interfering with anything. Thats what the rule is getting at. If you are offside, it doesn't matter unless you directly impede the opposition in some way either by blocking their line of sight or making them take action to avoid you. Rashford did neither. Only thing that is questionable is whether the keeper was in two minds about who was going to shoot.
Would I have been annoyed if it was the other way around? Yep. In the grand scheme of questionable decisions this season its not even a footnote. United are just the biggest club in the country when it comes to attention so anything that happens with us is magnified. When Kane cheats to win Spurs penalties and games its not given this much scrutiny. When a handball is given or not given its not given this scrutiny.
Would I have been annoyed if it was the other way around? Yep. In the grand scheme of questionable decisions this season its not even a footnote. United are just the biggest club in the country when it comes to attention so anything that happens with us is magnified. When Kane cheats to win Spurs penalties and games its not given this much scrutiny. When a handball is given or not given its not given this scrutiny.
Virtually all offsides "interfere" with play. Even if the player is obviously 10 yards off, you still would take your eye off the ball and look at the player and lino. In the same vein, of course he's interfering.
However If you replayed that again but you told the City players that Rashford is 100 percent offside beforehand, nothing Rashford does there would stop the City players from being able to play the ball. Therefore it's a goal.
However If you replayed that again but you told the City players that Rashford is 100 percent offside beforehand, nothing Rashford does there would stop the City players from being able to play the ball. Therefore it's a goal.
No and no.
Akanji plays one player off and then switches off, doesn't look at other players running from deep. When he does realise, he runs back but he is behind Bruno and it's too late.
Akanji plays one player off and then switches off, doesn't look at other players running from deep. When he does realise, he runs back but he is behind Bruno and it's too late.
The Motd analysis was shocking. They put the rule up and then let Richards go on a rant about it, with no regard to what the law actually says. They should have analysed it under the rules first (probably a legitimate goal but some debate about Ederson) and then considered whether the rule is correct.
Personally, this is not a rule I would change. We want to see more goals and defenders need to learn to play to the whistle, not think they’ve done their job because one player is offside. Plus, the speed of thought of Rashford/Bruno should be rewarded.
Edit - and actually I think technically on the specific wording of the rule any impact that he had on Ederson’s positioning shouldn’t be taken into account.
But that can happen in another situation as well as another player comes from behind or from the side. Imo he positioned himself wrong as he was too far out anyhow
This. All Akanji has to do is touch Rashford and he's 'interfering' at that point. But what he does instead is leave him to run in behind, waiting for the whistle, which panics the keeper into coming out, Walker then expects one of them to deal with it and Bruno nips in to score. Classic case of what happens when you don't deal with a situation.
You play to the whistle lads, you don't wait for an official to give you an out. Deal with the situation then argue with the ref afterwards. Fair, unfair, whatever, you bring that shit on yourself. I'd be fuming if one of our CB's switched off like that and allowed that to happen.
Akanji might also think Rashford is offside but the linesman doesn't flag for a long time, so what's he doing between the point where the ball is played and the goal? Nothing, just waiting for the whistle while the ball is legitimately in play.
Probably in the minority here but I think the new rule is an improvement in that it reduces the need to judge intent. Of course, this swings the balance of power towards the attacking team.
I’ve got zero sympathy for Akanji. Playing 11 a side on Sundays using amateur linesmen, I could never really tell whether we were successful playing the offside trap so we’d just keep going till the ref blew the whistle. Does Akanji know for sure that someone else hasn’t played Rashford on?
As for Ederson, we seem to be trying to fit the line of sight principle to this situation. Yes, Ederson might have played it differently if Rashford wasn’t there. But then he did charge out stupidly in the first half so maybe he wouldn’t have. Who knows? That’s why this rule is better imo.
I’ve got zero sympathy for Akanji. Playing 11 a side on Sundays using amateur linesmen, I could never really tell whether we were successful playing the offside trap so we’d just keep going till the ref blew the whistle. Does Akanji know for sure that someone else hasn’t played Rashford on?
As for Ederson, we seem to be trying to fit the line of sight principle to this situation. Yes, Ederson might have played it differently if Rashford wasn’t there. But then he did charge out stupidly in the first half so maybe he wouldn’t have. Who knows? That’s why this rule is better imo.
I was just thinking this. Ederson couldn't set himself to stop both Rashford and Bruno, and he couldn't afford to ignore either at the time.
It's not comparable.
Ederson was confused and had to take guess which United player was going to take shot. Walker was confused, if he had knew Rashford wasn't going to get the ball he would've closed Bruno down.
Your strongest argument is Akanji should've played to the whistle no matter what but it still doesn't explain above.
If offside player can just make feign moves & dummy run and get away with it then no point playing off side trap anymore.
They categorically failed on that front. The rules are such a mess after being changed repeatedly that the lino flagged him off and people whose job it is to know the rules better than most - officials, managers, players, pundits etc...all thought it was off.
Plus, it’s Casemiro! Everyone in that stadium, including the refs, knew he meant that for Bruno. Not offside.