Offside or not?
Posted: January 15th, 2023, 11:36 am
I think you know the one I mean.
Was Rashford interfering with play?
I say yes.
Was Rashford interfering with play?
I say yes.
Shares, Investment and Personal Finance Discussion Forums
https://www.lemonfool.co.uk/
SalvorHardin wrote: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).
dealtn wrote: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.
redsturgeon wrote:I think you know the one I mean.
Was Rashford interfering with play?
I say yes.