1927
Funnier than he thinks he is.
How is it unambiguous?
Man United 2021-24, 'Best of the Rest'
- Thread starter Wilf
- Start date
Lord Camomile
Yipchaa!
Aye, not to get all "anyone who's played the game will tell you...", but the defending players (incl. the 'keeper) would have run different lines and taken different positions to defend against Fernandes if Rashford hadn't been bearing down behind the ball.
Doesn't matter if Rashford touched it, they had to anticipate him touching it, and therefore he influenced the passage of play from an offside position.
Again, though, it comes down to the tension between wanting consistency, so you have a very simple but blunt rule, or allowing for interpretation/nuance, but then getting differences and discrepancies across decisions.
Zapp Brannigan
Built like a steakhouse, handles like a bistro
According to the rules, it shouldn't have stood. The rules says something like a player is offside if he makes a deliberate move to play the ball which impacts a defender's ability to impact the play. Akanji correctly slowed to play Rashford offside which left him 5 yards behind the play in terms of tracking Fernandes' run; in other words, Rashford's run from an offside position onto a ball clearly intended for Rashford impacted on Akanji's position to defend.
I agree with the idea of what you're saying but look at this exact example and nobody else on the pitch - Akanji or Walker - would have got to the ball before Bruno. They're using it as an excuse. Akanji checks his run and is playing Rashford offside, which is just a mistake now that we know the officials wait for VAR anyway and don't flag, and he's unaware of Bruno. And Walker doesn't get to him.
Zapp Brannigan
Built like a steakhouse, handles like a bistro
Akanji was well in front of Fernandes, until he slowed to make sure the guy who the ball was passed to was offside. In other words, without Rashford's offside presence Fernandes doesn't score.
This is a direct consequence of ditching the subjective part of a rule (in this case "interfering with play") and trying to legislate precisely for every scenario. I get why that's the case (removing the referee's opinion wherever possible to ensure consistency) but not every play fits into the pre-planned scenarios and it means that sometimes the intention behind the law gets lost. Offside is about gaining an advantage by goal-hanging; Rashford (and Salah last week vs Wolves as another example) gained an advantage by goal-hanging.
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
Webb to become Chief Refereeing Officer at PGMOL
51-year-old former referee to assume new post in coming months
www.premierleague.com
Lord Camomile
Yipchaa!
How is it a mistake for Akanji to play Rashford offside because the officials will wait for VAR
If he doesn't play Rashford offside, there's no decision to make?
Lord Camomile
Yipchaa!
Right, but he stopped to play Rashford offside, right? The only way refs "let play continue" is if he stops.
Or, coming at it from the other direction: are you suggesting the right thing to do was not stop? In which case, what happens?
Zapp Brannigan
Built like a steakhouse, handles like a bistro
Don't be daft. He didn't stop because he was expecting a flag. He stopped to cause the flag.
Raheem
Well-Known Member
Yes, but the rules are what they are, so Rashford didn't commit an offside offence.
Many years ago, advancing on the ball used to be specified as an offence, but it was taken out because it was felt it made it too easy for defenders to trap a player offside by running away from the goal as the ball was passed. So what Rashford did was play that has been expressly made legal.
Raheem
Well-Known Member
Because the offside rule lists exactly what can be classed as an offence, so that it isn't a subjective question. Rashford didn't do anything that's listed, so he didn't commit an offence.
Last edited:
1927
Funnier than he thinks he is.
Well that isn't necessarily true. plenty of people have commented in last 24 hours that they felt he did interfere with play, so therefore not unambiguous.
Raheem
Well-Known Member
Interfering with play is not enough for an offence, according to the rules. You have to interfere with play by doing xyz.
Zapp Brannigan
Built like a steakhouse, handles like a bistro
"A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:
It should have been given as offside according to the current rules, to old rules ("interfering with play"), to the spirit of the game, and to plain old common sense.
- making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball"
It should have been given as offside according to the current rules, to old rules ("interfering with play"), to the spirit of the game, and to plain old common sense.
Raheem
Well-Known Member
This is clutching at straws. It's indisputable that an offside player can legally follow the ball, which is all Rashford did. He hasn't impacted Akanji's ability to do anything, and he's not even in possession, because he can't legally touch the ball. Akanji has been misled, whether deliberately or not, but that's because he hasn't read the situation. He was perfectly able to react better.
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
And if we had to drop 3 points, I'd have been happy losing to Arsenal that City. Silver linings etc,
newme
Giant in Pastyland now
Yeh seems unlikely we won't get 4th minimum now, which is fine, Champions League and a team that has less leechers and people who can play football? Yes please, Just need a striker first, midfielder second and probably third, then another defender. Sell the squad players currently playing in the first team in those positions and we could afford it. Well more so if whoever the rich dude is buys the place but either way its doable anyway with some finangling. At least a striker and midfielder anyway which is most of the way there.
Exactly. Arteta and Arsenal fans are annoying but got to remember the bigger picture.
Missed Casemiro and McTominay isn't up to it. Weghorst is an option but not really convinced he'll offer that much.
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
yes+yes+yes.
I actually thought they were awful against Palace. Decent 'game management' till the very end, but hopeless up front. Just about every attack broke down due to misplaced passes.
received the ball in his own half
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
Yep, Glazers v Saudis. Not often I can feel morally secure (sort of) supporting United!
newme
Giant in Pastyland now
Rumours of Qatar wanting to buy us tho... that's a difficult one.
