Ref Watch

[jim tolmies perm]

I felt sorry for the lino. You seen him set-off to follow the play and then slows down, knowing that it’s offside, so stops way out of line of play. To me, this says he’s already pressed the the button to inform the ref (same ref flagged for a close offside against Foden) but the ref wanted it to play out. Following the incident he is overcome with a gulf of United players, which is bad enough against the backdrop of an angry crowd, but the ref then comes over and questions your judgement.

That whole episode stunk of Atwell deciding the outcome, even if it was to be questioned later. Just look at the way Atwell questioned the lino before giving his angry gesture to it being a goal. Atwell knew, the lino knew, and everybody who has even the least knowledge of the game knew that it was a decision to manipulate the result.

There is no question in anybodies mind that it should have been called so therefore the question had to be ‘why’. I think we all know the answer to that.

Still think lino a shithouse though for not flagging immediately

 

[jjctid]

Said last night. Loads missing this.

If you watch rerally closely he possibly even touches it.

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

Big game, big decision- why not look at the screen. Piss poor officiating.

It's these type of instances which help to increase the doubts about the " integrity " of such decisions .

Piss poor or intentional - I believe that is the relevence in view of the outcome.

 

[jjctid]

I cannot understand those who suggest that Rashford wasn't active. Had he been sitting in the stands then he's not offside, if he trundles after the ball then he's taking part in the play and he's nearer the goal when the ball was played so he's kippered. But, hey ho, it's at The Swamp. Was Fergie in the stand glowering at Attwell? Did AYardWideAttwell see the shadow stretching onto the field and thought, Oh Fuck - GOAL!

If Rashford holds his hands up and stops running then it is 100% a goal but he DOESN'T!

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

Still think lino a shithouse though for not flagging immediately.

Couldn't wait to get his flag up for Foden being a toenail offside in the first half.

Strange how BT didn't show us the lines...

 

[SatOnTheWall]

The only people to say it was the correct decision:

1) people who've never played the game
2) die hard United fans
3) idiots

That is often the same individual.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

if he runs towards the ball hes active though it isnt subjective its just a really bad /corrupt decision imo

But the laws specify what makes them active [edited - sorry about that] - they specify what makes the player count, and are couched in wording about impacting ability of opponents to play the ball/obstructing vision etc.
There is no line of the offside law that is clearly broken, just some where it comes down to an opinion of whether it was broken. Almost by definition, there is then no clear error, and VAR does nothing.

I think this is the relevant section:
A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:

• interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or [he didn't touch it]
• 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 [no City player was in range to play it, Ederson wasn't blocked]
  • challenging an opponent for the ball or [didn't happen]
  • clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or [this is the point in most question for me, and is subjective]
  • making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball [similar to the immediate point above]

or

• gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when it has:
  
  • rebounded or been deflected off the goalpost, crossbar or an opponent [didn't happen]
  • been deliberately saved by any opponent [didn't happen]

I think that particularly when Rashford cocked his left foot back as if to shoot, that was clearly impacted on Ederson as the ball would surely have gone to his right if Rashford shoots.

I think it was a terrible decision from a footballing opinion as it becomes impossible to defend against a player who is clearly in an offside position (see also the Salah goal vs Wolves recently), but I grew up when offside was simple, and now you get this.
I think if Rashford had stopped then Walker would have been more interested in challenging for the ball, but Rashford's continued running made him think that he must be impacting play.

 

[Chi-town blues]

The need to bring back Howard , might as well bring back Clattenburg while at it and get the band together. Rags can’t win on field until they get full support from var .

 

[Bozzie]

Big game, big decision- why not look at the screen. Piss poor officiating.

That’s the million dollar question because there’s no way (in real time) Atwell can be certain whether Rashford influences play or even if he gets a slight touch on the ball. The answer is almost certainly that he can’t go to the monitor, review the incident and then award the goal so best not to engage in the process at all.
If I was the linesman, and particularly that linesman who is hugely experienced, I’d expect my referee to back my call.

 

[Dicko69]

Don't think it's been mentioned yet, but the fact ederson raced off his line and was round by rashford in the first half will have played a huge part in ederson decision making for the offside goal seeing rashford sprinting towards him with the ball at his feet. If it was just fernandes chasing the ball, ederson could have had a couple of touches before picking his pass.