United (A) | Post Match Thread

Rags in work actually believe it was onside fucking giddy know nowt twats(excuse the language but still a bit angry)
 
After a bit of reflection time, we were too slow moving the ball in thec1dt half but brilliant in the 2nd. That was a shocker of a decision that will have a big say in the title race, we were in total control and looked a class above them. What a sh** that bruno fernandes is, hom and richarlison have got to be the worst in the league.
 
That was tough to take - the offside decision, the passing, the form of some players, the increasing isolation of Haaland.....

There's so much been said on City in this thread, so i'll just say, if City had snuck a 1-0 away win, held onto it like at Chelsea, then that would have been a very good win, given form and circumstances. But we didn't, which in itself presents other issues to address. Rodri was my MOTM.

I'm really trying to absorb as much information and points of view on United's offside goal as possible. I understand that offside is changing, and that the rules are being amended and altered to the point where very few people actually understand them (similar to handball). From discussions with people who dont give a toss about United or City, it seems about 70/30 split in favour of an incorrect decision, not as one sided as I had imagined.

the rule appears to be, as explained on here, a very very woolly statement re intefering. It's argued, in some circles, that Rashford doesnt intefere in the defenders abilities to play the ball. And i will go as far as to say that if Rashford aborted his run half way through, and the outcome was still a goal, then i'd be inclined to agree that even though an offside trap was played, an onside player scored (you could argue about Rashford influencing Akanji's decision to play the trap and therefore placing Akanji 3 yards higher up the pitch but you have to make a decision on it somewhere). However i cannot escaoe the fact that a) Rashford runs so far towards the ball and goal and b) there is surely surely some influence on Ederson either through his presence or what looks to be a lifted left foot. I think this is the point where the technical defence of the goal breaks down - his actions in the second leading to Fernandes' shot are clear inteference. I have been told that this is not covered by the rules' definition of 'intefering', and that we are in a loophole/interpretation situation, but surely, surely Rashford inteferes. Tough decision to stomach.
 
Kippax77 said:
MOTD 2
Shearer Murphy and Chappers (utd fan) all saying Rashford impacts that goal and that it shouldn't of stood.
As well as other pundits this weekend.

Peter fuckin Walton obviously thought it to be perfect though, BT.
Next up tomorrow Dippy Dermot, SLY Sports
Click to expand...
dippy dermot and the 2 sue's wont mention it as it was on BT so didnt happen
 
shemnel said:
That was tough to take - the offside decision, the passing, the form of some players, the increasing isolation of Haaland.....

There's so much been said on City in this thread, so i'll just say, if City had snuck a 1-0 away win, held onto it like at Chelsea, then that would have been a very good win, given form and circumstances. But we didn't, which in itself presents other issues to address. Rodri was my MOTM.

I'm really trying to absorb as much information and points of view on United's offside goal as possible. I understand that offside is changing, and that the rules are being amended and altered to the point where very few people actually understand them (similar to handball). From discussions with people who dont give a toss about United or City, it seems about 70/30 split in favour of an incorrect decision, not as one sided as I had imagined.

the rule appears to be, as explained on here, a very very woolly statement re intefering. It's argued, in some circles, that Rashford doesnt intefere in the defenders abilities to play the ball. And i will go as far as to say that if Rashford aborted his run half way through, and the outcome was still a goal, then i'd be inclined to agree that even though an offside trap was played, an onside player scored (you could argue about Rashford influencing Akanji's decision to play the trap and therefore placing Akanji 3 yards higher up the pitch but you have to make a decision on it somewhere). However i cannot escaoe the fact that a) Rashford runs so far towards the ball and goal and b) there is surely surely some influence on Ederson either through his presence or what looks to be a lifted left foot. I think this is the point where the technical defence of the goal breaks down - his actions in the second leading to Fernandes' shot are clear inteference. I have been told that this is not covered by the rules' definition of 'intefering', and that we are in a loophole/interpretation situation, but surely, surely Rashford inteferes. Tough decision to stomach.
Click to expand...
I haven't spoken to a single person who isn't a united fan that hasn't said 'wtf was that decision'. Even the united fans are sheepishly laughing at the decision apart from a couple who have their heads so far up their arses they just refuse to even look at it and just say 'he didn't interfere..... know the rules'.
 
Kippax77 said:
MOTD 2
Shearer Murphy and Chappers (utd fan) all saying Rashford impacts that goal and that it shouldn't of stood.
As well as other pundits this weekend.

Peter fuckin Walton obviously thought it to be perfect though, BT.
Next up tomorrow Dippy Dermot, SLY Sports
Click to expand...
Walton is a complete wanker who clearly had an agenda against us when he was on the pitch, which continues now he's stealing a living from the exceptionally poor BT Sport. That said, these tossers, especially walton, are complete arse lickers for their fellow refs and generally back them on everything.

Has anyone asked Mark Halsey for his opinion?
 
MichaelBBack said:
And for Rashford (who I normally at least respect for his off-pitch stuff)
Click to expand...
no respect due... pays the same amount of tax as a 30K pa earner, but thinks he's got the right to lecture the Government on how to spend the money of people who don't cheat the system.
 
Shuffs said:
I know it would never happen - but I wonder, what would happen if we walked off the pitch because the decision was diabolically incorrect, and said that ref was not fit for the purposes of reffing the game. Probably points deduction, but it might have been worth it in the long run to highlight the shitness
Click to expand...
we did walk off the pitch they scored again while our defence went awol with minutes to go and an unjust draw in bag
 
willipp said:
I haven't spoken to a single person who isn't a united fan that hasn't said 'wtf was that decision'. Even the united fans are sheepishly laughing at the decision apart from a couple who have their heads so far up their arses they just refuse to even look at it and just say 'he didn't interfere..... know the rules'.
Click to expand...

yeah, i have, as i say perhaps 2 or 3 in ten. Perhaps i wasnt very clear - they are not all happily in favour and support the goal standing, more that they can see why it was given and so on. Slight difference perhaps. We have a very large football squad, most dont like top 6 prem, so couldnt care less about City/United dynamics. Personally i thought it was a very poor decision. Very.
 
One of the worst refereeing decisions I've ever witnessed (and I've seen a few). An engineering of the rule by Atwell to appease his OT paymasters. Appalled (but not surprised) at how the linesman buckled under the torrent of abuse from Fernandez. Honestly, as a defender how can you now defend using the offside trap not knowing what the officials interpretation of the rule actually is. Akanji was spot on in his assessment. There has to be a full review of this as it could be a watershed moment (but I doubt there will be).
 
Close the thread and move on. They had their cheated derby win but we were never at the races anyway, so fuck them.

It’ll drive you crazy if you keep on. We play again Thursday, so focus on that and have it safe in your knowledge that come May we will be crowned champions for the third time in a row.

This game though, let it go and you’ll be all
the better for it, mentally.
 
I'm still fuming, but hope Pep and the boys use it as fuel to win our next home two home games. Do or die time, we owe the league a reaction and response. Don't mind losing the league but want to see some fight from the players and the crowd.
 
jimharri said:
Two United flags taped up in the canteen at work. Bless their little cotton socks, they all emerge from under their rocks after winning against a team that, apparently, aren't even their biggest rivals these days.
Click to expand...
Their best season in a decade and on a run of form they have only been able to dream of in recent years and they're a point behind us at our poorest with their old Sky Sports Retro rivals way out in front of both. It'd be sad if it wasn't so funny how far they've fallen.
 
I've had long debate on the referees' chat page about the "letter of the law" - and can see the argument about "action", "attempting to play the ball" and that these have to "impact" on opponents, and that whatever Rashford did, it didn't offend under the precise wording of the law. But then I found this, and it obviously applies to this case. Even if the illustrations are in the penalty area, they cover when a "goalkeeper needs to delay his action to wait and see if the attacking player in an offside position touches/plays the ball" (and the illustrations for not attempting to play the ball don't include doing bloody stepovers).

https://thirdblindmouse.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/ifab-law-11-illustrations.pdf
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top