Ref Watch

[Bluearmy]

I recall Foden getting flagged a couple of times when he was right out on the touchline in the first half. But they weren’t in positions where a shot at goal was looking imminent. So there would be no reason for a delayed flag. Are you talking about a different incident in a more threatening position?

Im with you, the lino was 100% correct in following the process yesterday during the Rashford/foden incidents. Badly let down by the cheating referee, 100% on him!!

 

[dennishasdoneit]

Quite - the law wording is the problem.
They've fiddled with it for years and have ended up with the rubbish we now have.

Perhaps...purposely so...

 

[Dannyblue52]

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.

Interesting take on the rules. The very fact that Rashford was in between Akanji and the ball is not subjective. He clearly, as you stipulate in the laws of the game " Made an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball. By the way he also prevented an opponent (Akanji) from being able to see the ball. Nowhere does it say it has to be a goalkeeper. He also attempted to play the ball.
When all this is taken into consideration the goal should have been disallowed. The decision was farcical in the extreme.

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

Interesting take on the rules. The very fact that Rashford was in between Akanji and the ball is not subjective. He clearly, as you stipulate in the laws of the game " Made an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball. By the way he also prevented an opponent (Akanji) from being able to see the ball. Nowhere does it say it has to be a goalkeeper. He also attempted to play the ball.
When all this is taken into consideration the goal should have been disallowed. The decision was farcical in the extreme.

Wait till they start doing the full collection of mental gymnastics on SLY to explain why it was the correct decision.

Corrupt cunts in PiGMOL/PL/FA

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

I’ve seen a couple of quick replays. I’ve not studied facial expressions and jumped to conclusions about possible conversations.

Are you suggesting because Fernandez shouted at him it’s likely he told Fernandez he was going to change his mind and tell the referee he didn’t mean to flag really?

You are forgetting their earpieces. Anyone could have told the lino (the on field referee/ the VAR referee/the 'match commander'/the TV studio/the Piscan... ANYONE on that network) that it was going to be given onside, which it appeared was then relayed to Rat Face.

 

[Stephen230]

You are forgetting their earpieces. Anyone could have told the lino (the on field referee/ the VAR referee/the 'match commander'/the TV studio/the Piscan... ANYONE on that network) that it was going to be given onside, which it appeared was then relayed to Rat Face.

If that did happen it still isn’t the linesman fault his flag was ignored. He can’t make decisions, only give advice.

 

[richardtheref]

would love to know @richardtheref opinion

My opinion is that it should have been disallowed. Under the old interpretation it would have been given straight away. Even now, under the interpretation it's hard to understand how running with the ball at his feet cannot constitute not interfering. He also pulls his foot back, as if to shoot. I know he did not touch it but it's hard to argue that he wasn't attempting to. I also noted the law used to state that you would be offside for playing the ball or attempting to play the ball. The 2nd part about attempting could have been removed as i have not had updates since retiring.
Interesting to read Keith Hackett's comments. He thinks it should have been chalked off under the laws of the game & he certainly will have access to the PL's interpretation.

 

[Oystercatcher28]

You are forgetting their earpieces. Anyone could have told the lino (the on field referee/ the VAR referee/the 'match commander'/the TV studio/the Piscan... ANYONE on that network) that it was going to be given onside, which it appeared was then relayed to Rat Face.

With an accent from Glasgow.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

"He did precisely as he's instructed to do." Yes, instructed by Webb, maybe?

You just have to look at the clip circulating Twitter and other media. McCann is confronted by Fernandes and Rashford after he flagged for offside. After a brief discussion, Fernandes turns away with a smile on his face. This is before Attwell has spoken to McCann. McCann has already told Fernandes that the goal will stand.

Neither of us know what he said to Attwell, but my version is probably more credible than yours, which is to put the blame entirely on Attwell.

They are both equally culpable, as is VAR for not advising a screen review.

One of the cop outs is that it was a subjective decision. Really? No, not really.

This is an extract from Law 11. Rashford is offside probably on all four points. There is nothing subjective about this, he is offside as perfectly described in black and white.

Or there is this example, again from the Laws of the Game. This makes it quite clear that a player running towards the ball, preventing an opponent from being able to play the ball is offside.

This didn't boil down to a matter of opinion. It was offside according to the LOTG.

interesting that you say that the lino gave it prior to taking with Atwell. As he doesn’t have jurisdiction to give the goal, that says to me that it had already been decided, most probably in the VAR booth and would confirm why Walton was so willing to say the goal would stand.

Stinks.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

My opinion is that it should have been disallowed. Under the old interpretation it would have been given straight away. Even now, under the interpretation it's hard to understand how running with the ball at his feet cannot constitute not interfering. He also pulls his foot back, as if to shoot. I know he did not touch it but it's hard to argue that he wasn't attempting to. I also noted the law used to state that you would be offside for playing the ball or attempting to play the ball. The 2nd part about attempting could have been removed as i have not had updates since retiring.
Interesting to read Keith Hackett's comments. He thinks it should have been chalked off under the laws of the game & he certainly will have access to the PL's interpretation.

Akanji confirmed it was briefed by PGMOL prior to the season starting, and this was the exact same scenario.