Ref Watch

[ancoats]

didn't somebody call out Anfield and OT with VAR angles in mid-week ? why do funny mistakes always happen there

 

[jim tolmies perm]

Like I say, if you are going to cheat, make it look like a good mistake, so you can brush it under the carpet and not look like fools, NOBODY can come out and say it was not offside ? NOBODY can defend the match officials and referee for cheating, WHY was VAR not used, WHY did the linesman flag after the goal was score

Both ref and lino should be banned for life

 

[trublue55]

Also an ex city player.. who Ive seen disagree/challenge others opinions

I thikn it should be given offside as Rashford in my mind is interferring with play (Ive said this all along) BUT the laws say he isnt...the laws as far as Im concerned are wrong.

The laws do not say he isn't, they are sufficiently vague to allow interpretation . Unfortunately (allegedly) VAR could not get involved as it was a subjective decision.

Equally unfortunately it would appear, bearing in mind the lino flagged, that only Twatwell (how he ever got another game after the ghost goal), rag fans and YOU, think he was onside!

 

[ancoats]

you are not offside until you touch it unless you are intefeering with the players ability to play the ball -which he isnt

loads of times players run towards the ball and then stop to let their own player take over who wasnt offside ....rashofrd ran next to/with the ball but never once played it/touched it

I agree with everything you are saying...the rules dont

bollocks ? have you seen the Liverpool vs brighton game and TTA given offside

 

[Maly]

Dont the highlighted bits imply physicality?

Nope
Does Rashfords position interfere with Akanji’s the movement towards the ball? Absolutely as Akanji can’t run through him, he would have to run around him

Take a look at the photo, take Rashford out of the picture. If Akanji can run in a straight line to the ball, wouldn’t you agree he comfortably beats Fernandes to the ball? If you do, Rashford has interfered with Akanji’s movement

Exactly the same thing applies to Ederson not coming out of his goal. Rashford’s position & the fact that the ball is under control at his feet interferes with Ederson’s movement

Take Rashford out of the pic & does Ederson or Fernandes get to the ball first? If it’s Ederson, Rashford has interfered with Ederson’s movement.

Plus Ederson’s movement is to cover a shot from Rashford, which again is interfering with Ederson’s movement

There is zero mention of physically impeding anyone in LotG. You’ve read something which isn’t there

Hence I think you’ve completely misinterpreted the law my friend & why you’re pretty much the only one with this opinion

 

[Bluearmy]

you are not offside until you touch it unless you are intefeering with the players ability to play the ball -which he isnt

loads of times players run towards the ball and then stop to let their own player take over who wasnt offside ....rashofrd ran next to/with the ball but never once played it/touched it

I agree with everything you are saying...the rules dont

Incorrect. From the FA law

• making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

Law 11 - Offside

IFAB Laws of the Game

www.thefa.com

Rashford being in the direct vacinity of the ball impacts Ederson/Akanji/Walkers decision making therefore interfering.


Akanji just said Bruno Fernandes literally shouted at Rashford to leave it. Why is he doing that is Rashford is not interfering with play?!?! The whole thing is a total nonsense

 

[PeterBarnesShorts]

I didn’t mean on here. I clearly meant in/on the media. If we’d scored that goal to get back in the game I am pretty sure it would be big media news, the fact that scored it means the media will ignore it, in my humble opinion

Not enough will be made of it,for sure.We just wouldn’t have got near to scoring that goal,as the flag would’ve been raised straight away.That’s another ‘subtle’ difference!

 

[moomba]

not to move towards the ball he isnt.....which is what the rule says

Do you have a link to that rule. I'm pretty sure it days something about impacting an opponents positioning.

 

[ancoats]

you are not offside until you touch it unless you are intefeering with the players ability to play the ball -which he isnt

loads of times players run towards the ball and then stop to let their own player take over who wasnt offside ....rashofrd ran next to/with the ball but never once played it/touched it

I agree with everything you are saying...the rules dont

so dancing his feet around the ball is not interfering ? he even went to shoot ? what are you not seeing

 

[bert38]

not to move towards the ball he isnt.....which is what the rule says

‘Making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball.’

 

[Hart of the Matter]

I agree

But the law seems to imply that you need to physically be playing the ball (or attempting to as well).....

Again I agree as I think he is physically affecting the play but the laws seem to be about contact or attempted contact.

Fuck off.

 

[Bluearmy]

Also an ex city player.. who Ive seen disagree/challenge others opinions

I thikn it should be given offside as Rashford in my mind is interferring with play (Ive said this all along) BUT the laws say he isnt...the laws as far as Im concerned are wrong.

No they dont. The laws have a specific part which addresses this, see below

• making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

As others have shown you if Rashford isnt there Akanji/Ederson would get to the ball first…..

 

[BeerIsTheBest]

Vagueness suits those that control the game

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

Also an ex city player.. who Ive seen disagree/challenge others opinions

I thikn it should be given offside as Rashford in my mind is interferring with play (Ive said this all along) BUT the laws say he isnt...the laws as far as Im concerned are wrong.

You still haven't posted the actual referenc in the LoTG that backs up your position, like I asked you a few pages back...

 

[deano ou812]

Just seen Gakpo for Liverpool have shot blocked and the ball has gone to Trent who was standing in an offside position but let the ball go off for a throw in without touching it or attempting to touch it. Linesman put his flag up and ref blew his whistle. So inconsistent. Can't make it up really.

But they can make it up and they have ..

 

[Hart of the Matter]

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

Fuck off.

 

[Hart of the Matter]

He doesnt stop the defender from making a challenge....the defenders can see ball...

what he does do is affect their decision making.

Fuck off.

 

[Gundogan's Moustache]

The premier league need to come out and explain how Rashford isn’t interfering.

if they do this ill take it on the chin but they won’t cause

1. They’re fucking corrupt
2. it doesn’t fit the narrative

 

[ancoats]

The laws do not say he isn't, they are sufficiently vague to allow interpretation . Unfortunately (allegedly) VAR could not get involved as it was a subjective decision.

Equally unfortunately it would appear, bearing in mind the lino flagged, that only Twatwell (how he ever got another game after the ghost goal), rag fans and YOU, think he was onside!

allow interpretation

what the fuck was running toward the ball, dancing his feet, setting himself to shoot not interfering in play
Matey, you're making a fool out of yourself ? nobody can defend what happened today, not even on the scum side

 

[bluesince76]

so dancing his feet around the ball is not interfering ? he even went to shoot ? what are you not seeing

I think he goes to shoot, Fernandes shouts to leave it and then shoots himself. The slight movement from Rashford's left leg is the one bit that probably makes him offside (according to the current law, not what's sensible). I don't think the assistant or referee could have spotted it, which is where VAR comes in. What I don't get, is why they didn't review it.
If the assistant hadn't flagged, they'd have definitely reviewed it. He does, the ref talks to him and they decide it's onside and therefore VAR does nothing. I'd like to see the rule for that bit.