United (A) | Post Match Thread

That doesn't affect the law though.Of course he was interfering with play as common sense would dictate but he didn't affect an opponents ability to reach the ball.

The law is total bollocks.
Of course he did . What are you talking about. It’s like you know you’ve made a mistake in what you are talking about but rather than hold your hands up and admit you’re wrong you’re banging on with a load of rubbish.
 
Almost certainly been posted on the thread, but should be posted over and over, a hundred times, till the thread is closed or abandoned:

"If a player isn’t interfering with play then he shouldn’t be on the pitch."
— Brian Howard Clough

to be complemented that other great manager (I think, to Ian St John):

"If you’re not interfering with play then you should be."
— Bill Shankly
 
I still havnt seen a plausible let alone credible reason as to why Rashford was not interferring with play and deemed not to be offside for their first goal?
 
You are correct that the ‘words’ of the clause don‘t expressly mention his type of interference as an offside.

However, he was ‘shepherding the ball’ and protecting it from the defenders.

He was actively playing the ball by doing this, he doesn’t need to touch it, that is clear in the clause.

You have to understand how to interpret laws, rules and regualtions and, if you do, you know this goal should have been disallowed.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.