Offside or not?

[redsturgeon]

I think you know the one I mean.

Was Rashford interfering with play?

I say yes.

[monabri]

If

Man U then

"Yes"

Or if England then

"Never"



(Not seen the incident! )

[Lootman]

I was surprised that the goal was given. A striker moving towards the penalty area with the ball under his feet is surely causing defenders and the goalie to adopt different positions and movements than they otherwise would have done. I guess the definition of "interfering with play" is narrower than I thought.

Of course one can argue that the decision to give the goal made the game more interesting, since it equalised the score, thus providing a better prospect for an exciting finish. After all the offside rule itself exists to make the game more interesting and entertaining, so perhaps decisions around it are the same?

[SalvorHardin]

It was a goal. The offside rule changed a few years ago, meaning that a situation like this was no longer offside. To be offside Rashford had to have touched the ball or blocked a defender (or caused them to change their line of motion).

Crazy for those of us who grew up with the old laws and Brian Clough / Bill Shankley's "If a player isn't interfering with play then he shouldn't be on the pitch". "Interfering with play" has a new meaning nowadays.

Lovely to see the ABU nation metaphorically foaming at the mouth. We're back and they hate it!

Once again football pundits have collectively shown how poor they are. They should keep up with the law changes but most of them clearly can't be bothered. If a cricket pundit was as bad as the typical football punditry they'd never be invited back.

Nice to see Pep having a rant after the match, reduced to talking about his Champions League wins. Liverpool losing 3-0 was the icing on the cake (guess that the Scousers' asthma "medication" isn't doing the business).

[dealtn]

It was a goal. The offside rule changed a few years ago, meaning that a situation like this was no longer offside. To be offside Rashford had to have touched the ball or blocked a defender (or caused them to change their line of motion).

Here is the (new) rule.

https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-go ... ---offside

I hate this (new) interpretation, and it can be argued that if you have to explain the rule to the ordinary fan, it isn't a well crafted rule.

For me Rashford has done sufficient for it to be offside in the Section 2

interfering with an opponent by:
preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
challenging an opponent for the ball or
clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

I find it hard to argue that to run directly at the ball in the direction of the goal doesn't impact on the defenders ability to play the ball, or on the goalkeepers positioning, and thus his ability to (potentially) save the goal, when they are confronted with 2 potential attackers each of whom could be next to kick the ball.

[SalvorHardin]

Here is the (new) rule.

https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-go ... ---offside

I hate this (new) interpretation, and it can be argued that if you have to explain the rule to the ordinary fan, it isn't a well crafted rule.

For me Rashford has done sufficient for it to be offside in the Section 2

interfering with an opponent by:
preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
challenging an opponent for the ball or
clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

I find it hard to argue that to run directly at the ball in the direction of the goal doesn't impact on the defenders ability to play the ball, or on the goalkeepers positioning, and thus his ability to (potentially) save the goal, when they are confronted with 2 potential attackers each of whom could be next to kick the ball.

Yes it's a terrible rule. Petr Cech summed it up on Twitter: "The first United goal just proved the people who make the rules don’t understand the game."

The former referees who have discussed it generally say that the goal was given because nothing Rashford did affected any Citeh player's ability to play the ball (presumably because they were all behind him and slower than him).

The retired Non League referee I know hates the new interpretation but says that he'd have had to give the goal.

A couple of years ago a goal was scored against us where an attacking player was offside and clearly obstructed the view of the goalkeeper (he was on the keeper's line of sight to the ball). But since the goal was scored against Manchester United there wasn't much of a fuss.

[Gerry557]

I think you know the one I mean.

Was Rashford interfering with play?

I say yes.

Obviously not offside as the goal was given. Was this after VAR?

I'm not sure if they were being very clever within the rules but it looked lucky to me. There was another goal last week where the defender tried to head a ball away but knocked it back towards his own goal and the (not) offside attacker who promptly scored.

Similar questions were being asked. So now, to me anyway, it seems a lot more confusing and it appears to some professionals too. I'd like to be able to watch it and know if it's on or off from the get go. The refs seem to have to follow the letter much more than the spirit. Common sense seems to have disappeared.

As a Man U fan, I think Rasford did effect those around him. Still things seem to go for and against you over a season and hopefully our luck has changed.

Not forgetting what a certain golfer said about practice and luck.