United (A) | Post Match Thread

[CPPSC]

Rags in work actually believe it was onside fucking giddy know nowt twats(excuse the language but still a bit angry)

 

[Stiff Little Wingers]

Rags in work actually believe it was onside fucking giddy know nowt twats(excuse the language but still a bit angry)

Similar to those who follow David Icke, these nutters will hang on every word Ferdinand says

 

[roubaixtuesday]

Rags in work actually believe it was onside

Nobody actually believes that, they're just pulling your plonker.

 

[herrock]

After a bit of reflection time, we were too slow moving the ball in thec1dt half but brilliant in the 2nd. That was a shocker of a decision that will have a big say in the title race, we were in total control and looked a class above them. What a sh** that bruno fernandes is, hom and richarlison have got to be the worst in the league.

 

[shemnel]

That was tough to take - the offside decision, the passing, the form of some players, the increasing isolation of Haaland.....

There's so much been said on City in this thread, so i'll just say, if City had snuck a 1-0 away win, held onto it like at Chelsea, then that would have been a very good win, given form and circumstances. But we didn't, which in itself presents other issues to address. Rodri was my MOTM.

I'm really trying to absorb as much information and points of view on United's offside goal as possible. I understand that offside is changing, and that the rules are being amended and altered to the point where very few people actually understand them (similar to handball). From discussions with people who dont give a toss about United or City, it seems about 70/30 split in favour of an incorrect decision, not as one sided as I had imagined.

the rule appears to be, as explained on here, a very very woolly statement re intefering. It's argued, in some circles, that Rashford doesnt intefere in the defenders abilities to play the ball. And i will go as far as to say that if Rashford aborted his run half way through, and the outcome was still a goal, then i'd be inclined to agree that even though an offside trap was played, an onside player scored (you could argue about Rashford influencing Akanji's decision to play the trap and therefore placing Akanji 3 yards higher up the pitch but you have to make a decision on it somewhere). However i cannot escaoe the fact that a) Rashford runs so far towards the ball and goal and b) there is surely surely some influence on Ederson either through his presence or what looks to be a lifted left foot. I think this is the point where the technical defence of the goal breaks down - his actions in the second leading to Fernandes' shot are clear inteference. I have been told that this is not covered by the rules' definition of 'intefering', and that we are in a loophole/interpretation situation, but surely, surely Rashford inteferes. Tough decision to stomach.

 

[dadnlad]

MOTD 2
Shearer Murphy and Chappers (utd fan) all saying Rashford impacts that goal and that it shouldn't of stood.
As well as other pundits this weekend.

Peter fuckin Walton obviously thought it to be perfect though, BT.
Next up tomorrow Dippy Dermot, SLY Sports

dippy dermot and the 2 sue's wont mention it as it was on BT so didnt happen

 

[willipp]

That was tough to take - the offside decision, the passing, the form of some players, the increasing isolation of Haaland.....

There's so much been said on City in this thread, so i'll just say, if City had snuck a 1-0 away win, held onto it like at Chelsea, then that would have been a very good win, given form and circumstances. But we didn't, which in itself presents other issues to address. Rodri was my MOTM.

I'm really trying to absorb as much information and points of view on United's offside goal as possible. I understand that offside is changing, and that the rules are being amended and altered to the point where very few people actually understand them (similar to handball). From discussions with people who dont give a toss about United or City, it seems about 70/30 split in favour of an incorrect decision, not as one sided as I had imagined.

the rule appears to be, as explained on here, a very very woolly statement re intefering. It's argued, in some circles, that Rashford doesnt intefere in the defenders abilities to play the ball. And i will go as far as to say that if Rashford aborted his run half way through, and the outcome was still a goal, then i'd be inclined to agree that even though an offside trap was played, an onside player scored (you could argue about Rashford influencing Akanji's decision to play the trap and therefore placing Akanji 3 yards higher up the pitch but you have to make a decision on it somewhere). However i cannot escaoe the fact that a) Rashford runs so far towards the ball and goal and b) there is surely surely some influence on Ederson either through his presence or what looks to be a lifted left foot. I think this is the point where the technical defence of the goal breaks down - his actions in the second leading to Fernandes' shot are clear inteference. I have been told that this is not covered by the rules' definition of 'intefering', and that we are in a loophole/interpretation situation, but surely, surely Rashford inteferes. Tough decision to stomach.

I haven't spoken to a single person who isn't a united fan that hasn't said 'wtf was that decision'. Even the united fans are sheepishly laughing at the decision apart from a couple who have their heads so far up their arses they just refuse to even look at it and just say 'he didn't interfere..... know the rules'.

 

[City Mike 1969]

MOTD 2
Shearer Murphy and Chappers (utd fan) all saying Rashford impacts that goal and that it shouldn't of stood.
As well as other pundits this weekend.

Peter fuckin Walton obviously thought it to be perfect though, BT.
Next up tomorrow Dippy Dermot, SLY Sports

Walton is a complete wanker who clearly had an agenda against us when he was on the pitch, which continues now he's stealing a living from the exceptionally poor BT Sport. That said, these tossers, especially walton, are complete arse lickers for their fellow refs and generally back them on everything.

Has anyone asked Mark Halsey for his opinion?

 

[City Mike 1969]

And for Rashford (who I normally at least respect for his off-pitch stuff)

no respect due... pays the same amount of tax as a 30K pa earner, but thinks he's got the right to lecture the Government on how to spend the money of people who don't cheat the system.

 

[dadnlad]

I know it would never happen - but I wonder, what would happen if we walked off the pitch because the decision was diabolically incorrect, and said that ref was not fit for the purposes of reffing the game. Probably points deduction, but it might have been worth it in the long run to highlight the shitness

we did walk off the pitch they scored again while our defence went awol with minutes to go and an unjust draw in bag