Ref Watch

[simon23]

Why should Akanji risk tryping to tackle him, he knows he’s yards offside

Because you play to the whiste.....the risk outweighs the potential outcome.....potential goal vs freekick

 

[Gundogan's Moustache]

Why should Akanji risk trying to tackle him, he knows he’s yards offside

They’ve played him offside perfectly and know he’s in the way

 

[Hart of the Matter]

Do you have a refeering qualification as coaching quals mean little here

The board is for opinions...you think mine are bollocks...thats ok...

Go check out the KDB thread for my other posts since the derby since you were asking.

Ban this fucker... Obviously enjoys winding up City supporters on a City forum after an on obvious abuse of City... The poster is just being a ****.

 

[sh249]

There’s obviously a measure of room for interpretation, but looking at the wording of the rules, it seems pretty plain that it should have been ruled offside.
And leaving aside the current wording, it couldn’t be any more blatant that that type of situation should be recognised as offside. Utter fucking nonsense.
And as ever, no transparency on how the officials arrived at the decision. But we’ll sure as shit get some bollocks justification in the next few days.

 

[Bluearmy]

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

Of course he is. Rashford body blocks him from the ball. Akanji not knowing 100% if Rashford is offside, he knows if he goes near him he risks bringing him down. Ederson has not come out of the box because of rashford running with the ball. If you seriously think rashford doesn’t interfere then you are beyond parody

It clearly states in the laws the player doesn’t have to touch the ball to be interfering. I suggest you read the law

Law 11 - Offside

IFAB Laws of the Game

www.thefa.com

I’ve highlighted the 2 infringements for you

• preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision
• making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

You sound like Peter Walton, not a good look!!

 

[Jam Tomorrow]

Another fucking thing! VAR intervened on zero occasions today, we had two good penalty appeals, and then that “goal” again nada.
so here’s a thing, last week a bit spotlight was shone on Anfield, what not all cameras, what no big screen? So imagine, dishonest Oliver tells Twatwell he needs to look at something, what happens? A big spotlight is shone on Old Toilet, the natives are restless, what going on? Er no big screens here mate, hmmmmm another stadium not up to scratch. Imagine a prematch conversation, “we want nothing going to VAR unless it favours our buddies” hmmmmmm kind of explains things.

 

[Bluemoon1979]

Because you play to the whiste.....the risk outweighs the potential outcome.....potential goal vs freekick

He was clearly interfering with play I don't know how you can't see that. Maybe it's your red tinted glasses that are the problem!

 

[tregyblue61]

Because you play to the whiste.....the risk outweighs the potential outcome.....potential goal vs freekick

Free kick and a red card given to Akanji

 

[dansyb]

Quite sure Phil was given offside today more than once without touching the ball. Different rules for Different teams in same game

 

[Sky Blue]

Because you play to the whiste.....the risk outweighs the potential outcome.....potential goal vs freekick

Haha parody stuff now