Sorry mate you are wrong Rashford has impacted on the play and interfered with it even though he didn't touch the ball every defender and Ederson were focused on him and Ederson thought he was going to shoot. He's offside and it's a terrible decision.Rashford was offside,Fernandes wasn't.
Rashford never touched the ball so the rules don't cover interfering with play in the manner in which you claim.He didn't ACTIVELY obstruct Akanji,who waas 2 yards behind and never getting back,neither did he obstruct Walker or Ederson.
Rashfords presence most definitely affected the decisions of the our players,but seemingly that isn't against the rules and is the reason the officials came to their decision.
And just in case you are confused.....once again,i agree that it is bollocks and the game has gone if that is deemed a legitimate goal.
apparently VAR not involved in the decision because subjective decision (what the Ref thought).The fact that var and ref were both in agreement says all.
Entitled mardarses ha ha, people can see we are poor this season, guardiola does have a good record, but this season he seems to have no answer to our problemsMost supporter would trust a manager with such a great record.
Suppose entitled mardarses can't handle a drop in form that sees us 2nd and topping our CL group..
My opinion is based on that he interfered with the defenders/Edersons decision making.......not physically getting in there way, stopping them tackling etc...which is where the vaguity of how the rules are written come into it...they allow the ref to say he hasnt interfered with play as Rashford hasnt touched the ball or an opponent.So it's offside then as he interfered with play glad we've finally got that through to you.
I agree with you on this.....when i read the rules and watch the goal and if Im reffing that game then I disallow the goal (without bias)...however the rules allow the ref to allow the goal which is what ive said previously.My apologies for the assumption of you being a "rule follower". But in this case you are still wrong. The rule allows for interpretation, yes, but not for a gross lack of adherence...
I agree with you on this.....when i read the rules and watch the goal and if Im reffing that game then I disallow the goal (without bias)...however the rules allow the ref to allow the goal which is what ive said previously.
wasnt me that mentioned facts to startHe’s back. Your opinion is allowed. Unlike anybody else’s opinion because they’re not facts. We know. Day fucking two of Simon decides what a fact is. Ffs.
as do you and others....And you persist.