Man U v Man C

[Holy Joe]

How on earth is Man U's equalizer not offside? Lino flags it. Ref over rules as Rashford didn't touch the ball - but he must've been interfering with play?

 

[GNH]

How on earth is Man U's equalizer not offside? Lino flags it. Ref over rules as Rashford didn't touch the ball - but he must've been interfering with play?

No such thing as interfering with play now.

The only offence now is when you touch the ball or you impeed an opponent trying to defend, Rashford did neither.

 

[Holy Joe]

No such thing as interfering with play now.

The only offence now is when you touch the ball or you impeed an opponent trying to defend, Rashford did neither.

I might argue about impeding - need to see it again. He was very close to the ball and there were city defenders in the vicinity. Hard to tell from memory if he wasn't there would they have been able to challenge.

 

[GNH]

I might argue about impeding - need to see it again. He was very close to the ball and there were city defenders in the vicinity. Hard to tell from memory if he wasn't there would they have been able to challenge.

Looked dodgy at the time but the replay showed he actually didn't have an impact on anyone trying to get back

 

[ozzie]

all true....but being one of the worst players ever to kick a ball...i was taught..PLAY to the whistle

 

[hlane17]

Looked dodgy at the time but the replay showed he actually didn't have an impact on anyone trying to get back

He drew the CB off Fernandes and created the time and space for him to finish. Debatable as to whether that's the CB's fault for following Rashford.

You could also argue he was in the way of the nearest defender too.

 

[GNH]

He drew the CB off Fernandes and created the time and space for him to finish. Debatable as to whether that's the CB's fault for following Rashford.

You could also argue he was in the way of the nearest defender too.

I agree that he drew the attendtion of the defender away but the law states that isn't an offence. I think it should be but them's the rules!

He didn't get in the way though IMO

 

[Holy Joe]

Would the keeper have come out and cleared if rashford hadn't have been there.? Well never know. But his positioning is impeding the defence/goalie decision making, albeit he maybe isn't physically impeding someone - and hence is offside

 

[GNH]

Would the keeper have come out and cleared if rashford hadn't have been there.? Well never know. But his positioning is impeding the defence/goalie decision making, albeit he maybe isn't physically impeding someone - and hence is offside

I agree with you that it should be offside for the reasons you have given above.

The issue is that the current offisde law doesn't count that as an offence.

 

[Southminster Shrimper]

It can't be offside because it is Manchester United.

 

[londonblue]

It can't be offside because it is Manchester United.

Maybe, but if it means the financial cheats that are Man City get screwed, who really cares?

 

[Southminster Shrimper]

Maybe, but if it means the financial cheats that are Man City get screwed, who really cares?

Don't like either team, so would prefer both to get screwed.

 

[londonblue]

Don't like either team, so would prefer both to get screwed.

One at a time...

 

[Supa Shrimpa]

It's goal, but a silly Law now. It’s a bit like marrying your cousin. Feels wrong, lots of people unhappy about it, but technically it's within the law

 

[sufc4life21]

I feel this goal shouldn't of stood. Rashford admittedly didn't touch the ball but he was interfering with play. As in the picture the city defender would of got to the ball first without Rashford involved.

 

[Holy Joe]

It's goal, but a silly Law now. It’s a bit like marrying your cousin. Feels wrong, lots of people unhappy about it, but technically it's within the law

The law doesn't say impeding has to be physical though does it? So if Rashford position/movement has impeded the decision making of defendera/goalie then that looks like it meets the letter of the law

 

[Supa Shrimpa]

The law doesn't say impeding has to be physical though does it? So if Rashford position/movement has impeded the decision making of defendera/goalie then that looks like it meets the letter of the law

That's my point, Without doubt, it's correct by Law. But the law seems wrong

 

[Holy Joe]

That's my point, Without doubt, it's correct by Law. But the law seems wrong

No - I don't think the law says the impedement needs to be physical. So I think the law could rule that out as offside