Ref Watch

[Gordyola]

The part where the rules imply it has to be physcailly impeding someone...which Rashford doesnt.

I agree his actions impact on the goal but the rules say that he has to physicaly impact on players - which he doesnt ...

Physically is not in the offside law or interpretation of it

 

[Paladin]

a player in an offside position is moving towards the ball with the intention of playing the ball and is fouled before playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the foul is penalised as it has occurred before the offside offence


That's the wording from the law. Unless the whistle had gone, the foul would occur before the offside

Thanks for that. I wasn't aware of that. Mine was the common sense interpretation, which we all know doesn't exist in certain games.

 

[jaiguruKun]

but the lino flagged for offside, correctly, so the ref over ruled a linesmans call because he .........of fuck it I dont understand footy anymore!

The assistant ref changed his mind and they made a joint decision to give the goal.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

The ref judges what he saw - that is all.
VAR will only suggest a screen review if they think the decision is a clear error.

We already clearly have Walton agreeing with Atwell suggests that the VAR could as well, and then there will be no screen review.

But how 'clear and obvious' does it have to be before VAR steps in?

Oh, wait, that is't codified ANYWHERE because it it TOTALLY SUBJECTIVE.

I've said it recently in the VAR thread: If I were to design a perfect system for manipulation outcomes, VAR would be it.

 

[levets]

He is physically chasing after the ball

Therefore he becomes ‘active’ and ‘seeking to gain an advantage’…. Offside

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

The assistant ref changed his mind and they made a joint decision to give the goal.

We don't KNOW that for sure because ALL communications between officials are shrouded in the upmost secrecy.

Gee, I wonder why???

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

but the lino flagged for offside, correctly, so the ref over ruled a linesmans call because he .........of fuck it I dont understand footy anymore!

PiGMOL refs don't either - they just make it up on the hoof or call in VAR to shroud a decision with even more mystery so no fucker knows what's what..

 

[Paladin]

The part where the rules imply it has to be physcailly impeding someone...which Rashford doesnt.

I agree his actions impact on the goal but the rules say that he has to physicaly impact on players - which he doesnt ...

You are contradicting yourself here. You first say the rules imply there needs to be physical interference with an opponent for an offside, and then you confer this implication into fact with "but the rules say".

The law or clarification you are referring to is below. Neither of the two examples given for interfering necessarily involve physical contact. In fact the second one specifically precludes it. But these are given as examples, not a definitive list of circumstances that can be penalised as interference with an opponent. Just because the third example of "running 20 yards with the ball very close to you but without actually touching it" isn't cited, it doesn't mean that it is not to be viewed as offside.

 

[Gordyola]

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....

If a player sheilds the ball out of play and the ball is in playing distance he is deemed to be active Rashford affected opponents in his actions there is no denying that therefore according to the LAWS of the game he’s offside the actions do not need to be physical just running with the ball in playing distance means he is active, he then reacts to the shout from fernandes to leave it therefore he is active
The interpretation in the LAW is there for when a play is offside but doesn’t receive the ball then his team mate or opponent makes an action which then creates a second phase of play Atwell misinterpretation of the LAW won the game for the rags He has history of major cock up giving a goal when the ball went wide

 

[Maly]

The part where the rules imply it has to be physcailly impeding someone...which Rashford doesnt.

I agree his actions impact on the goal but the rules say that he has to physicaly impact on players - which he doesnt ...

You’re wrong mate. The laws don’t imply this at all, anywhere