Utd vs City

[miketh2nd]

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

[joe jordans teeth]

2 minutes ago, Malago said:

Rashford’s clearly interfering with play.

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 

[joe jordans teeth]

Is Haaland still playing because I haven’t seen him touch the ball in about 60 minutes 

[Super]

Superb 2nd half. Big cheers for the united goal at AG.

 

 

[miketh2nd]

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

[joe jordans teeth]

2 minutes ago, Super said:

Superb 2nd half. Big cheers for the united goal at AG.

 

 

How’s the protest going mate 

[Super]

14 minutes ago, joe jordans teeth said:

How’s the protest going mate 

No idea I'm in ground. E32 is busy!

[Engvall’s Splinter]

2 hours ago, And Its Smith said:

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

Wonder if United fans call it the “naughty step”. 

[phantom]

Can't stand either side but was a cracking second half to watch 

[chinapig]

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.

[phantom]

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 

[chinapig]

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]

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.

[MarcusX]

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]

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.

[phantom]

It makes a nice change to have an old fashioned football debate 

VAR has robbed us 

[MarcusX]

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.

[Alex_BCFC]

Rashford clearly interfering - ridiculous decision.

[Maltshoveller]

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  

[cityexile]

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 January 15, 2023 by cityexile

[chinapig]

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 January 15, 2023 by chinapig

[Midred]

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]

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]

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]

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. 

 

[Super]

Surely as soon as he runs after the ball he is interfering. The offside rule is ridiculous. 

[MarcusX]

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]

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.

[The Journalist]

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]

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.