Ref Watch

[Dicko69]

@simon23
"making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball"

When he dummies the ball, that affected ederson as he came out, causing him to set himself against the anticipated shot. If not for the dummies ederson most likely would have got to the ball before fernandes and cleared it. So rashford actions prevented ederson from playing the ball.

 

[simon23]

I refer you back to my earlier point, what about when somebody impedes the GK’s vision standing in an offside position ? There’s nothing physical about it….YOU ARE TALKING SHITE!

If someone cant see the ball then he is physically impeeded...thats why a defender cant stand directly infront of the keeper on a free kick to block his vision. Its absolutely physical as far as goal keepers are concerned....

 

[Dicko69]

On what planet does Fernandes beat ederson to the ball without rashford interfering?
View attachment 66004

I know I'm quoting myself btw

@simon23
This is the through ball, take rashford out of that picture and no way is fernandes getting to the ball before ederson.
Also without rashford it makes it a foot race between fernandes and walker, I know where I'd put my money

 

[simon23]

@simon23
"making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball"

When he dummies the ball, that affected ederson as he came out, causing him to set himself against the anticipated shot. If not for the dummies ederson most likely would have got to the ball before fernandes and cleared it. So rashford actions prevented ederson from playing the ball.

does it stop Ederson or anyone else for that matter going for (play) the ball? No it doesnt. Ederson still is able to come out and play the ball....

 

[Bluearmy]

I agree he is interfeering...Ive said it all along. He affects the decision making of both city defenders and also the keeper

But not by the LOTG he aint

Still wrong, clearly blocking (Akanji) line of sight

 

[ancoats]

If you are talking about the clip that someone posted on here when the players hits the shot and it rebounds towards TAA and it goes out for a throw

If its that one you are talking about the Linesman is wrong (if TAA doesnt touch the ball, he is not interfeering with play as he doesnt touch the ball and makes no attempt to play it..)

If TAA plays the ball or makes an attempt to play it he is offside

WHAT ?
we see it week in, week out ? players not touching the ball given offside because they are interfering with play,
so all the referees and officials and VAR are getting it wrong ?

 

[Dicko69]

does it stop Ederson or anyone else for that matter going for (play) the ball? No it doesnt. Ederson still is able to come out and play the ball....

Yes because he has to take rashford, who has control of the ball into consideration

 

[SebastianBlue]

If someone cant see the ball then he is physically impeeded...thats why a defender cant stand directly infront of the keeper on a free kick to block his vision. Its absolutely physical as far as goal keepers are concerned....

Akanji was right behind the ball but Rashford blocked it for 15-20 yards (without changing the speed or direction), meaning Akanji couldn’t gain possession of the ball. Akanji couldn’t see the ball at various times.

And he couldn’t know if Rashford was actually offside, so he couldn’t go in to tackle him because he could give away a penalty or get sent off.

Beyond all that, you have made your point and are now entering WUM territory with your responses.

 

[bert38]

WHAT ?
we see it week in, week out ? players not touching the ball given offside because they are interfering with play,
so all the referees and officials and VAR are getting it wrong ?

It would seem so reading his replies….and some of those in football trying to defend it.

 

[simon23]

Akanji was right behind the ball but Rashford blocked it for 15-20 yards (it changing the speed or direction), meaning Akanji couldn’t gain possession of the ball.

And he couldn’t know if Rashford was actually offside, so he couldn’t go in to tackle him because he could give away a penalty or get sent off.

Beyond all that, you have made your point and are now entering WUM territory with your responses.

Im only responding to people who post directly quoting my posts (and some with petty name calling)