Ref Watch

[mcfcphil]

No because he could still do it...he isnt physcailly impeded from putting in a challenge...

how many times have you seen a player commit a deliberate foul with little orno attempt to play the ball...Ferna was a master of the challenge that never actually happened and looking innocent about it.

You’ve literally just said Akanji couldn’t get to the ball without fouling Rashford.

That means Rashford is physically impeding Akanji.

if you’re going to argue against that then you’re just on the wind up and should probably be banned because it’s against the CoC.

 

[David Silva]

We have to take it and move on but.... how can it be that a player is not interfering with play when he is, at one time less than 6 inches from the ball and is in possession of the ball but without touching it for 15m+? i hope this will be one of those decisions that will be used to change the rule in the future

Not sure what there is for them to change really. The decision isn’t even up for debate to me, he’s ran for 20m with the ball under control.

“Interfering with play” is always going to be a bit subjective, you can’t account for refs like Atwell today either being completely incompetent, or worse, deliberately ignoring the rules to impact the result.

 

[Gazza]

The referee showed his intention in the first minute when he didn't book Erickson for a clear tactical foul on Cancelo when he had gone passed him..

 

[Chak19]

No because he could still do it...he isnt physcailly impeded from putting in a challenge...

how many times have you seen a player commit a deliberate foul with little orno attempt to play the ball...Ferna was a master of the challenge that never actually happened and looking innocent about it.

Explain this then mate

 

[simon23]

Actually that is not what the rule says. You've injected this physical element to suit your own ridiculous argument.

No words/phrases such as (direct quotes here):
"interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the ball". no player on our side was stopped or intefered with in moving towards the ball
"impacts on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball" - our players can still physically challenge for the ball.
if the player moves into the way of an opponent and impedes the opponent's progress (e.g blocks the opponent)

All of that implies physicallity

AS I have said however....I do believe Rashford impacts on play as it affects the decision making (which is a mental process not physical) of the defenders and Ederson.

For me it should be offside but the rule (which needs to be ammended) says otherwise.

For me if you are on the pitchand in the attacking half you are physically affecting the game....but the rules suggest you have to actually use you body to do that.

 

[zandvoort blue]

Can you post the paragraph from the LOTG that says you have to physically play or try to play the ball for it to be deemed offside?

Similarly if a player is in the keeper`s eyeline (as Rashford is) in an offside position goals are chalked off. Rashford influences Ederson`s choice of action.

 

[cleavers]

The blatent decisions to hold us back are putting me off going to games now.

It costs a fortune in travel, and I feel I'm just wasting my money, don't think I've felt so low about football after the referees in the last few games, an absolute joke.

 

[mcfcphil]

No words/phrases such as (direct quotes here):
"interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the ball". no player on our side was stopped or intefered with in moving towards the ball
"impacts on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball" - our players can still physically challenge for the ball.
if the player moves into the way of an opponent and impedes the opponent's progress (e.g blocks the opponent)

All of that implies physicallity

AS I have said however....I do believe Rashford impacts on play as it affects the decision making of the defenders and Ederson.

You’re now arguing against yourself because you’ve already admitted Akanji couldn’t play or challenge for the ball without fouling Rashford.

 

[simon23]

Explain this then mate

Inconsistent and bad reffing/linesman

 

[ManCityGR!]

I'm still in a shock! I didn't even watch the 2nd goal and learnt it from the news that we lost.
I stopped caring about the match when they allowed that 1st goal.

It was clearly an offside violation for interfering with play and even impeding our defenders that got distracted by his movement on the ball and even got in their way.
It's shocking but I think I'm gonna pass on watching anymore that disgraceful Premier League of this year that all they want is City to not make 5/6. We are trying hard too ourselves, but this is irrelevant.