Was Rashford interfering with play?

[bosnian_red]

We don't know that because we don't see him sprinting and sliding for the ball. Why? Because Rashford, in an offside position, is influencing his decision. We will have to agree to disagree. In the current rules it isn't offside but I think that this decision and the Salah one vs Wolves means that in the summer we should see a rule change.

Yes but he doesn't know for sure that Rashford is offside. He might feel he is, but the whistle never goes. Being influenced mentally to do something based on something you think might happen is not a valid excuse, you play until the whistle and force the interaction if you think it is offside or you just play on to try and block the shot. Akanji for me slowed down as he wasn't getting to the ball anyway, and he was multiple yards away by the time the shot happened. No slide tackle is blocking that.

I don't think any rule change happens that makes that offside regarding Akanji or Walker. I think the direction there is entirely correct in both law and spirit. Both of them were too far away and perhaps made assumptions that influenced how they moved, but even if they didn't, they weren't getting there anyway, and no law will ever be there based on an assumption... it's taught from day 1 to play to the whistle. The only chance of a rule change is how it influenced Ederson, which on the balance I'd say is more leaning towards calling it offside rather than not, but it's a tight subjective decision, as it is quite far out. Ederson is prepping for a left footed shot, last second he gets a right footed shot so fair enough for me. Probably whatever call is made on the field stands. But if the goalkeeper stayed on his line, and the same thing happened, and the ref calls it offside... I do think VAR comes in to say no it's not offside.

 

[SilentWitness]

Yes but he doesn't know for sure that Rashford is offside. He might feel he is, but the whistle never goes. Being influenced mentally to do something based on something you think might happen is not a valid excuse, you play until the whistle and force the interaction if you think it is offside or you just play on to try and block the shot. Akanji for me slowed down as he wasn't getting to the ball anyway, and he was multiple yards away by the time the shot happened. No slide tackle is blocking that.

I don't think any rule change happens that makes that offside regarding Akanji or Walker. I think the direction there is entirely correct in both law and spirit. Both of them were too far away and perhaps made assumptions that influenced how they moved, but even if they didn't, they weren't getting there anyway, and no law will ever be there based on an assumption... it's taught from day 1 to play to the whistle. The only chance of a rule change is how it influenced Ederson, which on the balance I'd say is more leaning towards calling it offside rather than not, but it's a tight subjective decision, as it is quite far out. Ederson is prepping for a left footed shot, last second he gets a right footed shot so fair enough for me. Probably whatever call is made on the field stands. But if the goalkeeper stayed on his line, and the same thing happened, and the ref calls it offside... I do think VAR comes in to say no it's not offside.

I disagree but there we go, that's football.

 

[andy0]

Because Rashford is in front of him. It's fine to make these gifs to try and do a 'gotcha' moment but it doesn't work when doing so removes all context of why people have made decisions.


Because Walker is covering Bruno / Because in his words it was explained to him that this would be an offside offence and thus he believed it was offside. If Rashford isn't there then he obviously doesn't have any thought of this, and runs towards the ball and Bruno.

The whole situation is so controversial because there is too much ambiguity in the rules which is why so many players, pundits and fans are divided. I don't think it works as a rule if it's so ambiguous. Same with the handball rule currently, far too ambiguous.

Akanji's excuse it made up after the event, and what he says seems to omit some considerations.

There is less ambiguity in the rules now than there has been in the past, but quite a lot of the ex player comment shows they don't seem to have kept themselves up to date as it's evolved.

Some of the argument is now getting ridculous. The offside rule doesn't have to socialise out the possibility that a defender can overlook the presence of another non offside player, and if Akanji didn't think someone else could run in behind him that would be pretty foolish

Casemiro played a defence splitting pass, and the defence didn't contend with it properly. This sort of thing happens in matches all the time

 

[alexthelion]

United fans don't help themselves.

Just say. Yeah we got away with one. Happy days, we're owed a decision or two to be honest. Law needs fixing.

It's not hard man.

Because, according to the law, it's not offside.

 

[Escobar]

Because, according to the law, it's not offside.

Never mind. People are still stuck in 2001. MOTD had the wording of the new rule and the idiots still did not get it. Citys defenders messed up, we scored. Simple

 

[AbusementPark]

He did not shield the ball at any stage, he just ran with it. Akanji or any Chelsea player were nowhere near the ball.

I agree that I too thought it's offside but when the laws were explained then technically it's not offside. The players may feel aggrieved but that doesn't make the decision wrong.

Defo no Chelsea defenders near any of them on the day

 

[OldSchoolManc]

The amount of furore over this goal shows how worried oppo fans are that United are back in the game.
It really isn’t that controversial when you compare it to some of the outrageous decisions from the last few seasons

 

[chisnall_red]

Interesting how all the balanced, reasonable, and reasoned, posters, who are calmly, lucidly, explaining how obvious it all is; - that at the very most it just needs a quick cursory glance at the new rules to instantly ‘get’ how onside the goal actually was - would have been screaming absolute blue murder about corruption, brown envelopes and ridiculous opaque and non comprehensible rules ruining the game (but only when they can be used to shaft the holy reds) had it been given the other way, are all in fine voice over these pages.

If only all potential ref errors could be so clearly and easily explained away to the baying hordes!

Really cannot understand what the fuss is about anyway, hardly even controversial this one especially also given how dominant city were at the time and how much it literally swung the whole game from one result to another.

Nothing to see here, move on lads

 

[Bilbo]

The amount of furore over this goal shows how worried oppo fans are that United are back in the game.

Thats the main takeaway from this. If it happened in Southampton vs Leicester, no big deal. My messages have been blowing up all weekend about this incident, and ultimately its because United are relevant again and that could be extremely relevant

 

[harms]

Isn’t it clear cut? I haven’t read one ex official or anybody credible saying that was offside.
It seems it’s a lot of fans arguing with vague interpretations of laws when the law itself seems quite clear cut

No, I've seen quite a few said interpretations including from professional referees even though most agree that it was a correct decision by the book.

Another discussion that originated from this decision was if that rule needs to be changed and this is a more interesting one as in my opinion this goal goes against the spirit of the offside rule (Rashford was clearly involved in the episode and his de-jure eligible actions influenced the episode significantly). And, judging by this poll, most of the posters on here agree.

The point is — this is something worth discussing. Unlike episodes where a player goes down too easily or a foul in the penalty box is ignored, which is most of the controversial mistakes that happen in football where the most you can say about it is that you think that there was or wasn't significant contact.

 

[UDontMessWith24]

We don't know that because we don't see him sprinting and sliding for the ball. Why? Because Rashford, in an offside position, is influencing his decision. We will have to agree to disagree. In the current rules it isn't offside but I think that this decision and the Salah one vs Wolves means that in the summer we should see a rule change.

You're scoring an own goal here and you don't know it. Rashford being offside is not a reason for defenders to just stop playing unless they've heard a whistle, which there wasn't. How long has VAR been around with the late offside flag? City's defenders failed to do their job, and a smarter player took advantage with a late run. All they had to do was take a couple more steps toward Rashford and the goal may very well not stand, and they'd likely also be in position to pick the late run up that scored the goal. They should have done their job instead of waiting on somebody else to.

 

[SilentWitness]

You're scoring an own goal here and you don't know it. Rashford being offside is not a reason for defenders to just stop playing unless they've heard a whistle, which there wasn't. How long has VAR been around with the late offside flag? City's defenders failed to do their job, and a smarter player took advantage.

It's an ambiguous rule which causes too much confusion hence the situation. Rashford is in the way of the ball in terms of Akanji, he's motioning to strike and is influencing Ederson.

 

[Salford_Red83]

Interesting how all the balanced, reasonable, and reasoned, posters, who are calmly, lucidly, explaining how obvious it all is; - that at the very most it just needs a quick cursory glance at the new rules to instantly ‘get’ how onside the goal actually was - would have been screaming absolute blue murder about corruption, brown envelopes and ridiculous opaque and non comprehensible rules ruining the game (but only when they can be used to shaft the holy reds) had it been given the other way, are all in fine voice over these pages.

If only all potential ref errors could be so clearly and easily explained away to the baying hordes!

Really cannot understand what the fuss is about anyway, hardly even controversial this one especially also given how dominant city were at the time and how much it literally swung the whole game from one result to another.

Nothing to see here, move on lads

Dry your eyes mate. Goal was given.

 

[ScarleyUtd]

They were too far away (especially Akanji) because they believed Rashford was offside and they weren't trying to get the ball ahead of him.

Yep. And he wasn't offside. Goal.

 

[mu4c_20le]

It's an ambiguous rule which causes too much confusion hence the situation.

I actually think the rule is very simple, perhaps overly so. Defenders were not physically blocked from the ball, keeper's vision was not obstructed, that's it, end of story. The player's state of mind is not in consideration, so what Akanji would've done or could've done if Rashy wasn't there is irrelevant. The bottom line is, he didn't do it.

I understand it goes against our instinct and how we grew up watching the game, but there must've been other examples of the old rule not working and being too ambiguous for them to change it.

 

[UDontMessWith24]

It's an ambiguous rule which causes too much confusion hence the situation. Rashford is in the way of the ball in terms of Akanji, he's motioning to strike and is influencing Ederson.

You're taught as a defender to play to the whistle, especially in the VAR age. It should have been fairly straight forward to prevent the goal actually. Defensive howler.

 

[jeff_goldblum]

Akanji will mostly be fuming because literally all he had to do was challenge for the ball in any capacity and it wouldn't have been a goal. The second he tried to play the ball and found Rashford in the way, Rashford would be unambiguously interfering with play. The fact is he never tried to play the ball, so he can't complain he was stopped from doing so.

 

[reddevilz007]

When there’s a grey zone, we have to look at the hard evidence and facts, not interpretation, and then go by the law.


Being in an offside position but never touches the ball.
Rashford does start in an offside position, but never touches the ball. That’s a fact.
By the rule, he is technically not offside unless he touches the ball.

Does Rashford impede Akanji?

Let’s take a look at this one.
Is Akanji anywhere close to the ball or even the attacker, or even close to be able to attempt a play? No.
In fact, going purely by the images over time, he even slows down which creates an even bigger gap between him, Rashford and the ball, which is what the referee sees, kudos to him, then excludes him from being involved in the play.
You can interpret that he slowed down seeing Rashford in front. But the hard evidence, the images will show the gap does get bigger over time. You can rewind that sequence a thousand times. VAR will prove you this, as it is computer generated and not a psychologist trying to interpret Akanji’s decision to slow down.
You can use the law of physics, and the biomechanics of the body, and in no way will Akanji ever be able to touch Rashford or the ball, by decelerating the way he did.
Thus, by law, Rashford does not impede the opponent, as Akanji pulled himself out of the play by slowing down.
If Akanji maintained his speed or accelerated and was able to pull Rashford’s shirt or clip his heel, a free kick would’ve been given to United, but then overruled for offside, as Akanji is now in play.

You cannot use Walker being impeded as Fernandes’ onside run negates it.

Finally, does Ederson have a clear sight of the ball? You can interpret that he was influenced by Rashford’s run.
But the hard evidence will show you that at any given moment, none of Rashford’s body parts get in between the ball and Ederson. You can draw a line between the ball and Ederson at bird’s view, and you will see that Ederson sight is never obstructed at any moment by Rashford.
Therefore, at any given moment, by law, Ederson has clear sight without a shout of a doubt of the ball.
You can interpret Ederson’s anticipation, but at the end of the day, his purpose is not to stop Rashford from going into the goal, rather the ball.

By adding all the measurables and hard evidence, the goal is good.

 

[Shane88]

We are not going a single decision next week because of this.

 

[andy0]

It's an ambiguous rule which causes too much confusion hence the situation. Rashford is in the way of the ball in terms of Akanji, he's motioning to strike and is influencing Ederson.

If you're going to carry on like this, you might look up the word ambiguous in a dictionary.

The rules are clearly stated. If defenders don't understand it, or should know but occasionally forget, or look the wrong way at the wrong moment and ignore what is behind them, that is a coaching issue.

If Rashford or the ball was within range of Akanji, the defender could do a tackle or interception; if not then the pass has beaten him. If he had a chance and forwent it, that's not a fault of the rule.

It's not the purpose of the rule to compensate for inadequate coaching or indecisive players; all this discussion of mentality, what some player might have thought, is spurious. It's perfectly within the rules to pretend to something, but not do it.

 

[SilentWitness]

If you're going to carry on like this, you might look up the word ambiguous in a dictionary.

If it isn't ambiguous if Rashford is interfering with play then why is there such a debate? Also, someone in the other thread posted the laws the other day and there are various ways to interpret those too.

Also, I don't think most of the discussion in here is about whether in the rule books is he offside or not. It's mostly about whether it should be or not.

EDIT: Anyway, I'm gonna dip out of the thread now. Said my piece. Think he's offside and interfering with play and it should have been ruled out. Most of the forum feel the same.

 

[andy0]

If it isn't ambiguous if Rashford is interfering with play then why is there such a debate? Also, someone in the other thread posted the laws the other day and there are various ways to interpret those too.

Also, I don't think most of the discussion in here is about whether in the rule books is he offside or not. It's mostly about whether it should be or not.

The fact there is debate does not mean the rule is ambiguously framed.

But it has shown that several people who earn money from commenting on football either haven't checked it, or can ignore it even when they see it, and instead waffle off into idealised notions of what they think it should be (and surprise: they may not be constant).

If they want to canvass for change, fair enough. But that's in the future, and then only maybe, not yesterday.

 

[The Boy]

It was without any doubt offside, but good teams make their own luck. Rashford was very clever in leaving it for Bruno. Shouldn’t have been a goal, but overall you deserved your win. Take your luck when you can get it!

 

[Zlatan 7]

If it isn't ambiguous if Rashford is interfering with play then why is there such a debate? Also, someone in the other thread posted the laws the other day and there are various ways to interpret those too.

Also, I don't think most of the discussion in here is about whether in the rule books is he offside or not. It's mostly about whether it should be or not.

EDIT: Anyway, I'm gonna dip out of the thread now. Said my piece. Think he's offside and interfering with play and it should have been ruled out. Most of the forum feel the same.

I thought it was offside until I seen the rules these days in black and white, which clearly states it was onside. Rashford didn’t do any of the things written down to make the goal offside.

the rules may be shit but as they are written (or I’ve seen) the goal was onside.

 

[Shakesy]

I thought it was offside until I seen the rules these days in black and white, which clearly states it was onside. Rashford didn’t do any of the things written down to make the goal offside.

the rules may be shit but as they are written (or I’ve seen) the goal was onside.

I think the rules state that if the player attempts to play the ball then he's interfering. While Rashford chased that ball and prepared to shoot he did just that.

 

[Strelok]

We don't know that because we don't see him sprinting and sliding for the ball. Why? Because Rashford, in an offside position, is influencing his decision. We will have to agree to disagree. In the current rules it isn't offside but I think that this decision and the Salah one vs Wolves means that in the summer we should see a rule change.

Someone above made a very good point about an offside player 'influence' a defender's or keeper's decision.

For example in an 1vs1 situation there is another striker who is offside say 10 yards away from the keeper. Could the keeper argue that that said offside striker 'influence' his decision thus makes him unable to save the goal?

 

[Zlatan 7]

I think the rules state that if the player attempts to play the ball then he's interfering. While Rashford chased that ball and prepared to shoot he did just that.

But he didn’t attempt to play it, if he wanted to kick it he could have

 

[Shakesy]

But he didn’t attempt to play it, if he wanted to kick it he could have

Yeah, but he chased it and even started his back lift... If he stopped running it'd be a clear goal. Anyway. I'm no rulebook

 

[Zlatan 7]

Yeah, but he chased it and even started his back lift... If he stopped running it'd be a clear goal. Anyway. I'm no rulebook

yeah it was a close one and I’d have hated it against us

 

[Wing Attack Plan R]

The offside law is a joke.

 

[Shakesy]

yeah it was a close one and I’d have hated it against us

We've had our fair share. We were just insanely lucky that it happened in arguably our most important game of the season.

 

[reddevilz007]

If Ederson did 4 backflips because he was influenced by Rashford’s incredbile feint and anticipated that the ball would eventually hit him at the 4th backflip, would the call be offside then?
Ederson mis-antipication shouldn’t even be considered as his sight of the ball was never at any given moment interferred, as Rashford was always behind the ball.
You can put a stick between Ederson’s eyes and the ball, and there would be no obstacles at any given moment.
You can be a proactive keeper or reactive, but it’s not up to the referees to determine which one you are.
As a keeper, what’s more important to you, the shooter in front of you or the ball?
By definition, I’m pretty sure the keeper’s main purpose is stopping the ball from going to into his net, not the player.
Correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[Redlyn]

It's one of those that can go either way. You can see why it stands and could see why it could be given offside. In either case you would be absolutely furious if the call is not in your favour. If it was called offside or city scored that goal against us this thread would be even longer with a bunch of pissed of reds screaming bloody murder.

 

[Matthew84!]

Why is this still being debated? Its in the past now, it won't change anything, lock the thread and let everyone move on.

 

[U.N.C.L.E]

Feck me is this thread still going?

 

[U.N.C.L.E]

Why is this still being debated? Its in the past now, it won't change anything, lock the thread and let everyone move on.

Amen, brother. Mods, please, this conversation is done.

 

[reddevilz007]

Someone above made a very good point about an offside player 'influence' a defender's or keeper's decision.

For example in an 1vs1 situation there is another striker who is offside say 10 yards away from the keeper. Could the keeper argue that that said offside striker 'influence' his decision thus makes him unable to save the goal?

I’d be sad for the team that has a keeper that doesn’t focus on what’s in front of him first.

And as a referee, I would laugh out loud if the keeper does give me that excuse

 

[Wheato]

Just watched a ref on TV explaining the definition of interfering with play.

* Blocking the line of site of the goalkeeper.
* Physical contact with an opposition player (whilst not touching the ball)

Rashford did neither of those things. He didn't touch the defenders or the ball, and when Bruno struck the shot, Rashford was behind him, so Ederson had a clear line of sight. Neither of those defenders were able to stop the ball reaching Bruno, as they had moved up to play the offside trap. So regardless of who they were tracking, they weren't getting to that ball before Bruno hit it. Walker actually realised that Rashford hadn't touched it, which is why he is desperately trying to block the shot.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

I used cutting edge technology to show that Akanji was never getting to the ball before Bruno anyway

I saw him, right at the end there. El diablo cazador trofeo des los hombres.

 

[MF1138]

He influenced the city players, he didn't interfere with them. I like when attacking players use the offside rule to their advantage. Defenders have been using it to theirs forever.