Ref Watch

i didn't see the game because i was working, however i have seen the goals , when rashford is played through he goes towards the ball, that action alone is offside ,has the ball under control without touching it doesn't matter he is offside still, he then sort of shimmies, so he makes an action towards the ball,so offside again , he could clearly be given offside 3 times , the fact he doesn't touch the ball is neither here or there ,
 
Once upon a time it was deemed to be a foul to shout "leave it" to an opponent to gain an advantage. No physicality involved just intent.
 
Gundogan's Moustache said:
The premier league need to come out and explain how Rashford isn’t interfering.

if they do this ill take it on the chin but they won’t cause

1. They’re fucking corrupt
2. it doesn’t fit the narrative
Click to expand...
They could explain it,but it’ll be some silly bollocks to explain it away,it’ll happen again then if it’s ruled out that’s the time to call into play corruption and cheating,as they have moved the goalposts to suit a narrative..
 
trublue55 said:
The laws do not say he isn't, they are sufficiently vague to allow interpretation . Unfortunately (allegedly) VAR could not get involved as it was a subjective decision.

Equally unfortunately it would appear, bearing in mind the lino flagged, that only Twatwell (how he ever got another game after the ghost goal), rag fans and YOU, think he was onside!
Click to expand...
Absolutely agree that they are vague...they need to be changed and simplified......If you are in the attacking half you are interfeering with play....real easy..all players have to be onside in the attacking half at al times....

As Ivesaid they imply physicality with words such as
Moves into the way of an opponent...Now does that mean deliberate obstuction or what rashford does as he wasnt holding the player off player
Impedes progress - does he physically stop anyone from playing (or attempting to play) the ball.....no...
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
Rashford does none of these. he is not obstructing anyones view, he hasnt challenged anyone and he makes no attempt to play the ball

Most decisions (besides whether the ball crosses the goal line or not) are subjective.
 
Gundogan's Moustache said:
The premier league need to come out and explain how Rashford isn’t interfering.

if they do this ill take it on the chin but they won’t cause

1. They’re fucking corrupt
2. it doesn’t fit the narrative
Click to expand...

spot on

when the officials make a so-called mistake, nothing is said for weeks and weeks, then they say a mistake was made and it's part of the learn curve, but making this look like a mistake will take years, because it was not a mistake but clear and obvious CHEATING
 
deano ou812 said:
They could explain it,but it’ll be some silly bollocks to explain it away,it’ll happen again then if it’s ruled out that’s the time to call into play corruption and cheating,as they have moved the goalposts to suit a narrative..
Click to expand...
It won’t ever happen again.

The backlash from today has made sure of it.
 
simon23 said:
Absolutely agree that they are vague...they need to be changed and simplified......If you are in the attacking half you are interfeering with play....real easy..all players have to be onside in the attacking half at al times....

As Ivesaid they imply physicality with words such as
Moves into the way of an opponent...Now does that mean deliberate obstuction or what rashford does as he wasnt holding the player off player
Impedes progress - does he physically stop anyone from playing (or attempting to play) the ball.....no...
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
Rashford does none of these. he is not obstructing anyones view, he hasnt challenged anyone and he makes no attempt to play the ball

Most decisions (besides whether the ball crosses the goal line or not) are subjective.
Click to expand...
he hasnt challenged anyone and he makes no attempt to play the ball
Click to expand...

go and watch the replay, he does make the attempt to play the ball ? he even sets himself to shoot
 
Bluearmy said:
No they dont. The laws have a specific part which addresses this, see below

  • making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
As others have shown you if Rashford isnt there Akanji/Ederson would get to the ball first…..
Click to expand...
Akanji isnt stoped by anyone from trying to tackle Rashford....Rashford doesnt touch Akanji, put him off balance or anything.
As Rashford never touches the ball he never changes the direction or speed of the ball
 
Referee should be told to book players when they surround them! This Attwell shit his pants at the rags surrounding him and right in his face that what changed that decision because if they excepted it it wouldn’t been changed! What’s Oliver doing on var? He can see it he knows the rules he has to tell him it’s not allowed
 
PeterBarnesShorts said:
Not enough will be made of it,for sure.We just wouldn’t have got near to scoring that goal,as the flag would’ve been raised straight away.That’s another ‘subtle’ difference!
Click to expand...
I am very very pissed, and when they scored it I was waiting to be allowed by GMP’s finest to go for a piss at the swamp (second half they were literally allowing one Blue at a time down the stairs for a piss) so I haven’t seen it, but based on messages I’ve received from Blues who watched it on tv it sounds really fucking bent. It’s very regular that shit like this seems to happen against us and in favour of the rags and dippers. Not particularly subtle though?
 
trublue55 said:
The laws do not say he isn't, they are sufficiently vague to allow interpretation . Unfortunately (allegedly) VAR could not get involved as it was a subjective decision.

Equally unfortunately it would appear, bearing in mind the lino flagged, that only Twatwell (how he ever got another game after the ghost goal), rag fans and YOU, think he was onside!
Click to expand...

I have heard this said but since when did something being subjective stop VAR getting involved in reviewing a goal? They review every goal for infringements like fouls and handballs which are subjective. They've also been banging on about how offside is objective, which they also review.

So...
If it's an objective element of the offside rule (the player's positioning) they get involved
If it's a subjective element that isn't offside (handball or foul) they get involved
If it's a subjective element of this one specific part of the offside rule, they... don't get involved? Why? Sounds literally fucking insane, am I going insane?

Somebody show me where it says in the rules that VAR only reviews subjective decisions with the exception of the elements of the offside rule which are subjective.
 
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