Jump to content
IGNORED

Utd vs City

formerly known as ivan

By formerly known as ivan
in Football Chat

 Share

Recommended Posts

And Its Smith

And Its Smith

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, formerly known as ivan said:

Big Manchester derby!

Just an observation… Utd have over £160m worth of centre backs on the bench and have a left back at centre back.

I’m sure it makes sense to someone…

Shaw preferred to Maguire which makes sense as Maguire can’t play in this team. Martinez not fully fit 

GTFABM

GTFABM

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, formerly known as ivan said:

Big Manchester derby!

Just an observation… Utd have over £160m worth of centre backs on the bench and have a left back at centre back.

I’m sure it makes sense to someone…

Pearson

  • Funny 1
James54De

James54De

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, steviestevieneville said:

Winds me up this. Utd v city , like they’re the only teams with Utd & city in their name . Arrogance on another level from their fans & media 

But they are the biggest United and City in the land. 

AppyDAZE

AppyDAZE

Posted
Posted (edited)

That would have been one hell of a goal from Walker just before HT.

Tremendous strike of the ball.

Inches wide, unlucky because i'm not sure the keeper's stopping that.

Edited by AppyDAZE
formerly known as ivan

formerly known as ivan

Posted
  • Author
Posted
20 minutes ago, steviestevieneville said:

Winds me up this. Utd v city , like they’re the only teams with Utd & city in their name . Arrogance on another level from their fans & media 

I referred to them as Utd and City and I’m not a fan or the media. Just an easier way of writing it. Plus I bet you know the exact two times I was referring to straight away.

Merrick's Marvels

Merrick's Marvels

Posted
Posted (edited)
46 minutes ago, formerly known as ivan said:

Big Manchester derby!

Just an observation… Utd have over £160m worth of centre backs on the bench and have a left back at centre back.

I’m sure it makes sense to someone…

Yes, it just goes to show there might be more to picking a team than meets the eye.

Particularly when you're trying to re-invigorate a club going backwards, change the culture,  get rid of some high earners or wasters, bring in your own players and implement your own playing style.

Sounds familiar.

Edited by Merrick's Marvels
And Its Smith

And Its Smith

Posted
Posted
45 minutes ago, formerly known as ivan said:

And also of that is the case with Shaw and Maguire, which clearly it is, why are Utd refusing to let Maguire leave?

They arent refusing to let him leave as far as I know.  Seems to be linked to many clubs. See where he is on 1st Feb I guess

formerly known as ivan

formerly known as ivan

Posted
  • Author
Posted
13 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

They arent refusing to let him leave as far as I know.  Seems to be linked to many clubs. See where he is on 1st Feb I guess

I thought the turned down Villa’s bid and said they would not be letting him leave. Could be wrong on that though.

steviestevieneville

steviestevieneville

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Percy Pig said:

Hmm, it's City and Rovers here? All relative. If you said City v rovers you'd know it was Bristol, United v Wednesday, you'd know it was Sheffield, United v City you know it's the mancs. 

Not called city v rovers all over the country though is it. Would mancs call it that ! No they wouldn’t 

  • Like 1
miketh2nd

miketh2nd

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, joe jordans teeth said:

Them the rules,I personally agree but like salah tother game when the defender had to try to intercept we have to put up with it 

Yep i thought that about the Salah goal too

chinapig

chinapig

Posted
Posted
40 minutes ago, Malago said:

Rashford’s clearly interfering with play.

Law 11says:

A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:

interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or

interfering with an opponent by:

preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or

challenging an opponent for the ball or

clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or

making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball.

None of the above seems to apply to what Rashford did.

  • Like 2
  • Admin
Phantom

Phantom

Posted
  • Admin
Posted
3 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Law 11says:

A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:

interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or

interfering with an opponent by:

preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or

challenging an opponent for the ball or

clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or

making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball.

None of the above seems to apply to what Rashford did.

Exactly why the goal stood 

Even the linesman realised straight away that he flagged in error and spoke to the ref to confirm the goal should be given 

  • Like 1
chinapig

chinapig

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, phantom said:

Exactly why the goal stood 

Even the linesman realised straight away that he flagged in error and spoke to the ref to confirm the goal should be given 

Yes, he seemed to raise his flag then immediately put it down again.

grifty

grifty

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, phantom said:

Exactly why the goal stood 

Even the linesman realised straight away that he flagged in error and spoke to the ref to confirm the goal should be given 

Which he should have IMO, Rashford was a good 5-10 yards offside and ran after the ball and it seemed to take an eternity for Fernandes to be the next player to touch it.

Ref realised this and told the ref. Good officiating.

  • Like 1
MarcusX

MarcusX

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, miketh2nd said:

Very bizarre ref decisions  for the Fernando goal   doesn't even appear to use var and would of rashford clearly interefering with play.

Var checks everything I believe, the ref doesn’t need to “use var”, they tell him 

Malago

Malago

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, chinapig said:

Law 11says:

A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:

interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or

interfering with an opponent by:

preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or

challenging an opponent for the ball or

clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or

making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball.

None of the above seems to apply to what Rashford did.

Fundamentally disagree,

he clearly obstructs one, if not both, of the Man City defenders view of the oncoming Fernandes

and he dummies to play the ball which is an obvious action which impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball.

  • Like 3
  • Great Post 2
MarcusX

MarcusX

Posted
Posted

Even by the letter of the law it’s hard to make a case for that not being offside. He’s clearly interfering with play.

If Rashford isn’t there, the defender could possibly put a slide block in, he also checks his run when Rashford feigns to shoot (which in itself is interfering with the keeper and how he sets himself)

Walker could even have dragged Fernandes back if he’s the only striker, knowing he won’t get a red as there’s cover.

  • Like 2
  • Thank You 1
Maltshoveller

Maltshoveller

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, MarcusX said:

Even by the letter of the law it’s hard to make a case for that not being offside. He’s clearly interfering with play.

If Rashford isn’t there, the defender could possibly put a slide block in, he also checks his run when Rashford feigns to shoot (which in itself is interfering with the keeper and how he sets himself)

Walker could even have dragged Fernandes back if he’s the only striker, knowing he won’t get a red as there’s cover.

It is easy to make a case for it not being offside

Will Man Utd benefit from it? YES so it is not offside Simple  

  • Like 1
cityexile

cityexile

Posted
Posted (edited)

I can see how they interpreted the law to give it. However, the “interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate…” bit is key to me. It separates ‘playing’ and ‘touching’ as two different things. A lot of the ‘it’s ok’ argument seems to rest on them being the same.

Rashford charged after the ball and was in any meaningful sense in possession. He was ‘playing’ the ball, as otherwise why did he run where he ran? If he had stopped his run and allowed the other player to come through then I get it.

Otherwise the absurd defensive response to this is fouling Rashford, in which case he becomes active.

I also think he impacts opponents, but that is secondary.

 

Edited by cityexile
  • Like 1
chinapig

chinapig

Posted
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, cityexile said:

I can see how they interpreted the law to give it. However, the “interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate…” bit is key to me.It separates ‘playing’ and ‘touching’ as two different things. A lot of the ‘it’s ok’ argument seems to rest on them being the same.

Rashford charged after the ball and was in any meaningful sense in possession. He was ‘playing’ the ball. If he had stopped his run and allowed the other player to come through then I get it.

Otherwise the absurd defensive response to this is fouling Rashford, in which case he becomes active.

I also think he impacts opponents, but that is secondary.

 

Playing the ball might refer to e.g. passing or shooting whereas touching might refer to e.g. controlling or attempting to control the ball. The former is more active than the latter but it's hard to see how you can be regarded as playing the ball without actually touching it.

The problem with regular efforts to clarify the laws is that people just get more confused. Though it would help if managers, players, pundits and fans actually read the laws.

Edited by chinapig
Midred

Midred

Posted
Posted

It's not so much the rules as the inconsistant interpretation of them. The interpretation of offside being different every week.

Was the Birmingham penalty any worse than those that city have been refused?

Midred

Midred

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Playing the ball might refer to e.g. passing or shooting whereas touching might refer to e.g. controlling or attempting to control the ball. The former is more active than the latter but it's hard to see how you can be regarded as playing the ball without actually touching it.

Will be interesting to see how many other teams will try to test this  "loop hole"?

chinapig

chinapig

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Midred said:

Will be interesting to see how many other teams will try to test this  "loop hole"?

I'm not sure there is a loophole. Law 11 defines the circumstances in which a player should be deemed active and the referee is entitled to judge whether any of those conditions are met. The test is not whether you or I agree with him it's whether he could reasonably have made the decision in the circumstances.

Plus it was a spontaneous act by Rashford to leave the ball, which is not something you can really plan for.

But as I say, if you constantly tinker with the laws because some people don't like particular decisions you just end up with more things to interpret. They'll end up like an Act of Parliament with an interpretation section defining lots of individual words. You'll end up having a lawyer on the bench!

James54De

James54De

Posted
Posted
22 hours ago, steviestevieneville said:

Not called city v rovers all over the country though is it. Would mancs call it that ! No they wouldn’t 

Below 

22 hours ago, James54De said:

But they are the biggest United and City in the land. 

 

MarcusX

MarcusX

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, cityexile said:

I can see how they interpreted the law to give it. However, the “interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate…” bit is key to me. It separates ‘playing’ and ‘touching’ as two different things. A lot of the ‘it’s ok’ argument seems to rest on them being the same.

Rashford charged after the ball and was in any meaningful sense in possession. He was ‘playing’ the ball, as otherwise why did he run where he ran? If he had stopped his run and allowed the other player to come through then I get it.

Otherwise the absurd defensive response to this is fouling Rashford, in which case he becomes active.

I also think he impacts opponents, but that is secondary.

 

It’s the same as shielding a ball out for a goal kick etc isn’t it, ball is within playable distance so the defender is “in possesion” 

Would have been interesting to see what would have happened if the defender had fouled Rashford

MarcusX

MarcusX

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Midred said:

It's not so much the rules as the inconsistant interpretation of them. The interpretation of offside being different every week.

Was the Birmingham penalty any worse than those that city have been refused?

The same day, Trent was offside for Liverpool for simply following the ball out of play to go take the throw with no one around him. He even held his hands up to signal to the linesman he wasn’t going to play the ball.

Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
On 14/01/2023 at 15:00, phantom said:

Exactly why the goal stood 

Even the linesman realised straight away that he flagged in error and spoke to the ref to confirm the goal should be given 

I’ll tell you why the goal should’ve been disallowed on this point, IMO, albeit it’s slightly nuanced with a goalkeeper’s head on but…

On 14/01/2023 at 14:55, chinapig said:

making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball.

Immediately before Fernandes strikes the ball it’s still within striking range of Rashford.

Because of the angle at which both approached the ball, both players would’ve had to hit it with their in-step across the goalkeeper - so if Rashford strikes it he goes to the keeper’s left, if Fernandes strikes it - as he did - he would go to the keeper’s right.

On this basis alone it should’ve been disallowed because Ederson is unable to anticipate which corner the ball will end up.

I recognise you’ll only likely understand this point if you’ve played in goal, but it’s 100% valid IMO and it should’ve been disallowed.

chinapig

chinapig

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, The Journalist said:

I’ll tell you why the goal should’ve been disallowed on this point, IMO, albeit it’s slightly nuanced with a goalkeeper’s head on but…

Immediately before Fernandes strikes the ball it’s still within striking range of Rashford.

Because of the angle at which both approached the ball, both players would’ve had to hit it with their in-step across the goalkeeper - so if Rashford strikes it he goes to the keeper’s left, if Fernandes strikes it - as he did - he would go to the keeper’s right.

On this basis alone it should’ve been disallowed because Ederson is unable to anticipate which corner the ball will end up.

I recognise you’ll only likely understand this point if you’ve played in goal, but it’s 100% valid IMO and it should’ve been disallowed.

Though Rashford didn't take any action, obvious or otherwise. The ball being in playing distance doesn't constitute an action.

I don't see anything in Law 11 that equates to a player being active if the goalkeeper is unsure who might play the ball. To capture that you would have to make yet another change to the law, though how a referee could judge whether a keeper is confused by the presence of an inactive (as defined) player is unclear.

Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Though Rashford didn't take any action, obvious or otherwise. The ball being in playing distance doesn't constitute an action.

I don't see anything in Law 11 that equates to a player being active if the goalkeeper is unsure who might play the ball. To capture that you would have to make yet another change to the law, though how a referee could judge whether a keeper is confused by the presence of an inactive (as defined) player is unclear.

I guess it’s interpretation isn’t it? I think Rashford continues to move towards the ball even if he doesn’t swing a boot at it.

maxjak

maxjak

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 14/01/2023 at 14:16, miketh2nd said:

Very bizarre ref decisions  for the Fernando goal   doesn't even appear to use var and would of rashford clearly interefering with play.

Great isn't it?   Despite VAR,  4th officials, and bags of technology........they still managed to get the absurd Man utd goal and the Saudi Arabia utd penalty/penalties wrong?  Maybe it's just a conspiracy to make sure the Gunners don't win the Premier league by too far?

Edited by maxjak
  • Like 2
MarcusX

MarcusX

Posted
Posted
19 hours ago, chinapig said:

Though Rashford didn't take any action, obvious or otherwise. The ball being in playing distance doesn't constitute an action.

I don't see anything in Law 11 that equates to a player being active if the goalkeeper is unsure who might play the ball. To capture that you would have to make yet another change to the law, though how a referee could judge whether a keeper is confused by the presence of an inactive (as defined) player is unclear.

He dummied a shot didn't he? certainly looked like that

13 hours ago, maxjak said:

Great isn't it?   Despite VAR,  4th officials, and bags of technology........they still managed to get the absurd Man utd goal and the Saudi Arabia utd penalty/penalties wrong?  Maybe it's just a conspiracy to make sure the Gunners don't win the Premier league by too far?

That doesn't make sense, City losing made the gap bigger?

  • Like 1
maxjak

maxjak

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, MarcusX said:

He dummied a shot didn't he? certainly looked like that

That doesn't make sense, City losing made the gap bigger?

I cannot stand pedantry..............Saudi Arabia Utd and Man U Both increased their points totals by 3...........meaning they are Both getting closer to the top of the league, and thus are gaining closer proximity to the current leaders....which ultimately may help them in the long term to close the gap.  Whatever...........I am bored with this conversation now.  Ha!!

Paul G

Paul G

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, MarcusX said:

He dummied a shot didn't he? certainly looked like that

That doesn't make sense, City losing made the gap bigger?

I think he means Newcastle as Saudi, not man city

maxjak

maxjak

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

I’m late to this…just seen the Fernandez goal. ???

Dermot Gallagher says he would’ve given offside.

Anybody with any sense would have given offside............but unfortunately Anybody was not refereeing the match?

downendcity

downendcity

Posted
Posted
On 14/01/2023 at 14:12, Malago said:

Rashford’s clearly interfering with play.

Always reminded of Brian Clough's quote on the issue - " if a player is not interfering with play then he shouldn't be on the pitch!"

downendcity

downendcity

Posted
Posted
21 hours ago, chinapig said:

Though Rashford didn't take any action, obvious or otherwise. The ball being in playing distance doesn't constitute an action.

I don't see anything in Law 11 that equates to a player being active if the goalkeeper is unsure who might play the ball. To capture that you would have to make yet another change to the law, though how a referee could judge whether a keeper is confused by the presence of an inactive (as defined) player is unclear.

Law 51 states that if the incident occurred at Old Trafford then it is always a Man Utd goal.:)

  • Like 2

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...