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)

 

[SebastianBlue]

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

We have taken care of most of the petty name calling, which you are right is not acceptable.

But you have to know much of what you are posting is merely winding other posters up at this point.

 

[Bluearmy]

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....

Like this you mean. I concur

 

[ancoats]

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....

matey, at what point does Rashford running for the ball that's aimed for him and is down the middle, then he sets himself to shoot is NOT interfering with play, if Rashford stopped running then yes, but he runs towards the ball for 20 yards and catches up with the ball and ready to shoot,

its offside and nobody can change my mind or many others, even scums fans

 

[skillman]

VAR not getting involved for the first is scandalous.

 

[simon23]

matey, at what point does Rashford running for the ball that's aimed for him and is down the middle, then he sets himself to shoot is NOT interfering with play, if Rashford stopped running then yes, but he runs towards the ball for 20 yards and catches us with the ball and ready to shoot,

its offside and nobody can change my mind or many others, even scums fans

Not trying to change anyones mind

 

[AirbagsOptionalTheReturn]

Not trying to change anyones mind

Stop posting in multiple threads then!

 

[Sir peace frog]

@simon23 if you were the ref and your linesman flagged ,would you have allowed that goal ?

 

[BillCarlisle]

I've listed 2 of the next 4 games on the ticket exchange, and won't be doing the FA Cup because it's on a Friday night, so that's definitely 3 of the next 4 home games I won't be at, and next Sunday is no more than 50/50 at this point. Not all down the refereeing, but it's certainly not encouraging me to go, nor is the way City are currently playing either.

TBH if it wasn't for the days out with our SC Branch & spending time with my Manchester-based son I would have sacked it off some time ago. I've been supporting City since 1959 but really getting fed up with all this 'protecting the product' bullshit. Today's fiasco clearly shows they are taking the piss.

 

[trublue55]

Not trying to change anyones mind

You seem to be arguing, that the LoTG allow Attwell to deem Rashford onside. (They do), however, those same, often quoted laws, also allow him to make the CORRECT DECISION and disallow it!!

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

Here:

Law 11 - Offside

IFAB Laws of the Game

www.thefa.com

Yes, that's the offside law alright, but it STILL doesn't back up your assertions.