No its not the same at all...So Rashford standing in front of the ball isn’t the same? Honestly fella you’re making yourself look silly
As in thick as in having to use foul language to make a point......You are definitely on the wind up, you are chatting absolute shite. However if you are not on the wind up, you really are one thick ****. You clearly know fuck all about football and the impact an offside player has the on game.
Are you simple?You clearly cant take it...calling anyone an idiot who dares to not believe that the refs are deliberately screwing us over (do you believe in lots of conspiracy theories)
You may not like facts but its in black and white in the laws of the game...
The law doesnt account for interfeering with play other than by impeding/blocking/intefering with the movement of the player (defenders).
Ive already said the law is wrong - as for me Rashford DOES interfere with play as he affects the defenders decsions...but this aint in the rules.....and Fernandes certainly aint offside thats for sure.
Whats the excuse for the second goal?
You have no idea what you're talking about. He has the ball at his feet for at least 5 strides. Just the fact that Ederson has to account for him is more than enough. Its bullshit explanations like yours that allow for the officials to get away with thievery, even in its most blatant form. Because there are plenty of people who despise City and don't give one fuck about right or wrong as long as it goes against City.Is he in the way of an opponent - No
Is he interfering with the movement of the player towards the ball - No
Is he impacting the ability of the opponent to play orchallenge for the ball - No
All he does is run with the ball WITHOUT touching it not making an attempt to touch it
And for the last highighted bit...How deosnt he makean action which impacts the ability of an opponent to play the baall...the keeper still comes out and challenges....the defenders could still try and slide in and tackle the ball - they dont
Would it have stood if we scored it? I think fucking not.No its not the same at all...
Standing infront of the keeper so he cannt see, therefore cant react etc is not the same as running next tot he ball.....all the players around rashford can still see the ball and can still react
What it does do (which is where the rule is wrong for me) is afffect the desision making of Akanji and Walker ......but thats not physically stopping them
Linesman called offside. Rabid animals surrounded ref and lino. Decision changed by onfield ref in 10 seconds with no actual review of whst happenedAre you simple?
The second goal is a direct consequence of the first. The decision for the first goal completely flips the game on its head.
Also, you have ignored my post with the rules. The entire movement of every player within camera shot of the goal revolves around a player who is in an offside position.
If he moves towards the ball (which does) and faints a shot (which he does) he then attracts attention of all our players and keeper ( which does) and his presence allows Fernandes to sneak in and score.. it is offside as he couldn’t interfere more if he tried. He also faked a shot in faint to leave it for his mate to slot home. It
Also, was it me or did the officials give it as offside only for VAR to intervene. In which case how on earth is it a clear and obvious error.
It was fucking nonsense and you are being contrary Simon.
Yes, yes and yes. His mere presence chasing the ball influences every players decision. It’s offside, clear as day.Is he in the way of an opponent - No
Is he interfering with the movement of the player towards the ball - No
Is he impacting the ability of the opponent to play orchallenge for the ball - No
All he does is run with the ball WITHOUT touching it not making an attempt to touch it
And for the last highighted bit...How deosnt he makean action which impacts the ability of an opponent to play the baall...the keeper still comes out and challenges....the defenders could still try and slide in and tackle the ball - they dont
I think yes.Is he interfering with the movement of the player towards the ball - No
He shielded the ball, and ran across the line of it, therefore hiding it from the defender, and blocking his vision of the ball, it might not be the same incident but the intention is the sameNo its not the same at all...
Standing infront of the keeper so he cannt see, therefore cant react etc is not the same as running next tot he ball.....all the players around rashford can still see the ball and can still react
What it does do (which is where the rule is wrong for me) is afffect the desision making of Akanji and Walker ......but thats not physically stopping them
I agree there is no need for puerile name calling.How old?
Irrelevant point which cant be proved either way.....Would it have stood if we scored it? I think fucking not.
He doesnt stop the defender from making a challenge....the defenders can see ball...He shielded the ball, and ran across the line of it, therefore hiding it from the defender, and blocking his vision of the ball, it might not be the same incident but the intention is the same
Is he in the way of an opponent - No
Is he interfering with the movement of the player towards the ball - No
Is he impacting the ability of the opponent to play orchallenge for the ball - No
All he does is run with the ball WITHOUT touching it not making an attempt to touch it
And for the last highighted bit...How deosnt he makean action which impacts the ability of an opponent to play the baall...the keeper still comes out and challenges....the defenders could still try and slide in and tackle the ball - they dont
Fair enough....i think others are wrong and its become a tired old cliche that whenever we lose a bug game we blame the refs.....I agree there is no need for puerile name calling.
It's a forum and everyone has the right to express their opinion.
But I do think you are completely wrong on this.
They also see the flag go up, don't they? It was flagged and then reversed. Let's keep the facts straight.No its not the same at all...
Standing infront of the keeper so he cannt see, therefore cant react etc is not the same as running next tot he ball.....all the players around rashford can still see the ball and can still react
What it does do (which is where the rule is wrong for me) is afffect the desision making of Akanji and Walker ......but thats not physically stopping them
The linesman did flag for offside - from what I can gather the refereee overruled it (not VAR).I couldn’t disagree more.
The moment Rashford goes towards the ball he is impacting the decision making of our defenders and goalkeeper. I mean his run gets him within 30 cm of the ball, he practically shields it towards Fernandes.
How a linesman doesn’t flag for a player who is three yards offside running towards the ball is beyond me.
He did flag. He was then overruled by the referee.I couldn’t disagree more.
The moment Rashford goes towards the ball he is impacting the decision making of our defenders and goalkeeper. I mean his run gets him within 30 cm of the ball, he practically shields it towards Fernandes.
How a linesman doesn’t flag for a player who is three yards offside running towards the ball is beyond me.
The whole of the ball? No chance, it also effects Akanji’s decision making, in his mind he now has to decide if he makes a last man challenge & possible red card offenceHe doesnt stop the defender from making a challenge....the defenders can see ball...
what he does do is affect their decision making.