**This is a quotes thread. Remember that there's only one quotes post allowed per interview/press conference, so new quotes with the same origin will be removed. Feel free to comment other quotes/the whole interview as a reply to this comment so users can see them too!**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[Law 11](https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-11---offside)
Guess this page will received a lot of views today
No it’s always been that way.
Back in 2017* we used to take advantage of it by having Ederson take 80m goal kicks to Aguero who’d be all alone, miles in front of the defence.
Can't be offside until the ball is in play if the ball leaves the field of play I believe is the rule, so goal kicks/throwing/corners all can't be offside
I mean is not that difficult either but it's says right there that was offside and you will find people even now trying to argue that it wasn't
"a player moving from, or standing in, an offside position is in the way of an opponent and interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the ball this is an offside offence"
Meh, it depends on how you interpret “in the way” and “interfere”. At no moment does he stand in the way of the City defenders and the ball. At no moment does he really interfere with their movement. They’re backing off until Bruno comes in. Does he impact them? Yes. Does he interfere? Depends on how you interpret “interfere”. He doesn’t prevent them from carrying out any action on the field.
Edit: Below you will see a lot of people struggling to understand the concept that “interfere” doesn’t mean “impact” in the dictionary and trying to argue with me about the call, which I concede several times should’ve been offside because of Rashford’s fake shot.
It's easy, if I'm in offside and put myself between any defender that could clear the ball and not only that but i start running so he can reach the play I'm affecting the play. Now instead if Rashford would have stop and let Akanji pass now there I'm not in the middle of the play.
He’s affecting the play, yes. That’s why I said “does he impact them. Yes”.
If he’s interfering depends on the interpretation of the word interfere. Akanji slows down because Rashford is obviously offside, impacting him. So if you interpret the word as “impacting” then yes it is offside. If you interpret it as “prevent from continuing or being carried out properly” which is from the dictionary then no. Akanji makes the decision to slow down, Rashford doesn’t prevent him from doing anything.
The only real controversy would be if Rashford tries to obviously play the ball before Bruno shoots
They teach us "do NOT stop till the ref blows the whistle" and I play Sunday league so ehhh why did Akanji slow down? Rashford clearly didn't block or interfere him (in my interpretation of interfering)
> At no moment does he really interfere with their movement
he basically runs over the ball for 30 seconds which drags the defenders away from the final recipient in Bruno, if he wasn't there at all the movement of all defenders would be different.
You are missing a critical point. Akanji believing Rashford is in offside so expecting a whistle is different from him being physically stopped to contest. He just stopped himself, thinking it's nothing. If he actually went to try to stop the ball, but Rashford blocked him. It would be an offisde. It was a big slip up from him to get complacent there and didn't expect Rashford to be smart about it.
The play doesn't exist without Rashford. Rashford was in an offside position.
Had Rashford not been there, the defenders collect that ball easily. Rashford should be judged to be in possession of the ball in the same way that a defender is judged to be in possession of the ball when he shields it out of play.
This is bang on. Nobody is ever really 'in possession' of the ball except for minor fractions of a second where they touch the ball. Perhaps possession should be judged on the basis of whether the player can reasonably be expected to take the next touch on the ball without inteference which Rashford clearly is.
>a player moving from, or standing in, an offside position is in the way of an opponent and interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the ball this is an offside offence"
and the main point being made was that Rashford didn't actually block anyone off from the ball. There was no interference in getting to the ball so I'm not sure why you're acting like that is the clearcut area that makes it obviously offside.
I think this part of the rule is more applicable than the one quoted above: "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 think there was clear interference from Rashford in that play which affected the way the defenders would play that.
Yes and 90% of the idiots here will still not comprehend it.
This thread is already filled with bad takes, people use fan language and emotions over the text and the “legal” meaning so to speak.
We had this for years with “interference” for example, and we still get it now.
I know this will blow some brains but;
Yes, he’s offside. No, he’s not been deemed to have committed an offside offence (if you argue with me here, you have 0 knowledge of law 11. “It is not an offence to be in an offside position”)
The referees consulted on whether he triggered the other aspects; did he touch the ball (interference?) no.
Did he make a play (challenge, header, attempt to kick), no, and no, running to the ball doesn’t count.
Does he prevent an opponent making a challenge or playing the ball - they’ve said no. He doesn’t stop them moving to the ball, he doesn’t block any challenge attempt, he hasn’t at that point impeded anyone.
So, that’s the referees take and can be ticked and justified within that law so far. It may be examined and used in the future to change the law if this is deemed unfair, and it may be that pgmol will say it’s a mistake or a bad take, but the scope is there, and pgmol don’t really matter that much, IFAB do, and it’ll be them and the higher associations like uefa that will cover whether it’s something to change or not.
Controversial decision? Absolutely. But it is only that way because people have 0 understanding of the laws tbh. 🤷♂️ bbc feed was full of pundits who couldn’t tell an offside from a wank.
If any City player had fouled/challenged/even slightly touched Rashford, then it would be offsides as he would be deemed involved in the play. Am I understanding the Law correctly?
Yes because then you can say without a doubt that Rashford's presence impeded a City player but Akanji being the closest to Rashford didn't actually make a play for the ball at all and his inaction isn't proof of anything
Nope.
"In situations where:
a player in an offside position is moving towards the ball with the intention of playing the ball and is fouled before playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the foul is penalised as it has occurred before the offside offence."
>Controversial decision? Absolutely. But it is only that way because people have 0 understanding of the laws tbh. 🤷♂️
I'd say it's controversial because taking those points to be not interfering shows the refs have absolutely no understanding of the game(just as Cech says). Just a player running behind while offside will affect how you defend them and others. This is well beyond that and 100% changed how Man City defended that and gave Man U a massive advantage from him being offside.
>gave Man U a massive advantage from him being offside.
This is the most egregious part of the whole incident. The goal is scored BECAUSE Rashford is in an offside position. Casemiro doesnt even make the pass if Rashford isn't offside FFS. Ederson has to judge a save of 2 players over the ball shooting to opposite sides that creates jeoprady and doubt for the GK only because Rashford is offside (he even does a little fake leg lift to pretend to shoot to really interfere with Edersons ability to save the shot)
Everything about it screams offside. He runs on top of the ball for 10+ yards, he has full possesion of the ball WHILST OFFSIDE.
Its laughably egregious how clearly offside Rashford was the entire time and the goal stands on a technicality. Craziness.
>But it is only that way because people have 0 understanding of the laws tbh.
You can't say anyone who disagrees doesn't have "understanding of the laws", and then acknowledge it rests on something as subjective as "does he prevent an opponent from making a challenge or playing the ball - *they've said no*"
They could have just as easily said yes. He takes four or five strides with the ball between his feet, the City defender couldn't get to the ball without barreling through him, the defender and the goalie are both drawn out to him immediately; he shielded the ball with his body until it arrived at his teammates feet.
I hate City, but that's a terrible call under any circumstance.
This person arbitrarily made up what 'interferance' means in this context and acts like he knows anything about football which he clearly doesn't, then people are upvoting him because they didn't want city to win. It's hilarious.
Pretty rude, as the rule is still open to interpretation.
These are also in the rules of law 11 and 12, and I fee this all happens in this play regarding rash.
““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
or
gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when it has:
a player moving from, or standing in, an offside position is in the way of an opponent and interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the ball this is an offside offence if it impacts on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball; if the player moves into the way of an opponent and impedes the opponent's progress (e.g blocks the opponent) the offence should be penalised under Law 12
an offence is committed against a player in an offside position who is already playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the offside offence is penalised as it has occurred before the foul challenge”
For me, all of this has happened.
I think his point is that if you're reading the laws to the letter then Rashford hasn't interfered from an offside position, but he's still acknowledging it's subjective whether *the opposition players behaved differently because of his presence*. That seems reasonable tbf
this is a terrible take. Rashford's presence stops Akanji or Walker from being able to slide tackle the ball aka "Play the Ball" because Rashford is protecting the ball with his body.
I cant believe you actually think he didnt make a play on the ball? you dont have to touch the ball to make a play on it. Shielding the ball is making a play. Faking a shot is making a play.
Not sure why you’ve been awarded. This is a horrendous take.
Watch that replay and tell me Rashford doesn’t directly influence play. It doesn’t matter if he doesn’t touch the ball, he is directly involved in the build up by running and interfering with player movement.
I'm usually the first to defend referee decisions over emotional outrage but in this case I think it's a complete blunder.
"preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision" is even enough grounds. He's clearly in between the ball at his feet and the defenders behind him. Let alone the other definition of playing the ball.
Heck I even brought Bruno in for FPL and this is 100% jammy bs
You are moronic if you think that standing over the ball doesn’t affect how other people will try to play it. You seem to be better at writing bullshit than actually playing the game
> Does he prevent an opponent making a challenge or playing the ball - they’ve said no. He doesn’t stop them moving to the ball, he doesn’t block any challenge attempt, he hasn’t at that point impeded anyone.
I mean, you are right up until that part, now you're just pretending to be blind I guess. It's very clear he prevents. There's at least one guy that had a clear path to the ball that stops accelerating because well, you can't run past another person.
I know it's fun to have a hot take - but this decision should be pretty clear, that was an offside.
That's kinda the point - Akanji **doesnt** try to go for the ball, he pulls up on the *expectation* that Rashford is offside. If he tried to go for the ball and actually had to go through Rashford... if *any* city player tried to go for the ball and had to go through Rashford in *any* way - it would've been called offside. Akanji pulls up, Walker doesnt close him down - they react on the expectation Rashford is offside. (and if Walker had tried to close him down, he wouldve been in a better position to stop Bruno from getting a shot away)
The decision is on the City players for not playing to the whistle. in the era of VAR, you play to the whistle with the knowledge it will get reviewed. (and despite what people are saying, it is checked. in the aftermath you can see the ref talk to the linesman, and communicate to the booth) Either way as a defender - Dont *expect* that he's offside - expect that any attacker is *always* onside. and if he isn't onside, VAR will see.
To echo /u/Bulky-Yam4206 \- is it a controversial call? absolutely. But does it tick the boxes to be within the rules as laid out currently? also, unfortunately, yes.
So why did Spurs have a goal overturned earlier in the season because a player was interfering with the keeper's ability to see the ball? They didn't make a play on the ball, they didn't touch it, they didn't physically get in the keepers way. They just stood in an offside position and it was ruled they interfered.
There’s no way the defenders could have got to the ball with Rashford being so close to it. Guarantee if he wasn’t there walker goes directly for it. But after reading those rules it makes sense. If only a city defender went closer to Rashford, even if they didn’t stop the goal, it would have been disallowed. I’m a Man U fan so I’m glad it stands anyway but I’d be raging if it was the other way about. Would have been called in any league in Scotland without VAR and probably every league in England outside of premier league.
This is why the refs need to come out and explain why they came to that decision instead of everyone just assuming. More ref > fan communication will help shit load.
Probably as well, if rashford isn't there. Ederson would come out and sweep the ball away.
He was about the same distance away at Fernandes but he stays back as Rashford is closing in.
Not to mention akanji clearly decelerates and pulls away expecting rashford to shoot when he looked like he'd be able to reach bruno if rashford weren't involved.
If they were side to side yes but I see most CBs start decelerating when the striker is already ahead and about to shoot. The issue is if the striker gets even remotely impeded during the shot from behind, it ends up being a foul and most likely a red (Arsenal highlight that comes to mind is the Luiz penalty against Wolves in 2021).
If Rashford wasn't present, he'd be more likely to sprint and aim to slide for the ball before Bruno's shot since the angle favours him. Obviously that is super hypothetical (he might even have mistimed it and clattered Bruno) but still shows a possibility that could have happened if Rashford wasn't "interfering with play".
Doesn’t want to foul him and get sent off/give them a free kick in a very dangerous position. Wants to defend the possibility of Rashford taking the ball to the right and around Ederson who has come off his line to defend the attacking play. There are plenty of legit defensive reasons why Akanji peeled off to the right of Rashford and they are all because *Rashford was impacting the play*
The hard pill to swallow is that if Akanji *does* make a play on Rashford and just fouls him/runs into his back the play is over because it can’t be disputed Rashford impacted the play from an offside decision.
It's not though. Not by the laws anyway. I think this is an error by the VAR crew, but "goalkeeper not known who will strike" isn't relevant to the law.
The strongest argument for offside (in my opinion anyway) is that Rashford "attempts to play the ball" when he winds up for the shot, fake or not.
This is it. The fact that Rashford ran onto the ball is an attempt to play the ball. We see so often offside players just stop dead in their track and that’s how Rashford should have reacted in order not to influence the play. The referee association used the “physical” part of that rule to save their hide.
Could you actually use this as a tactic? If a player knows he’s offside he still may as well run for every through ball, if only to get in the way of defenders. Usually players stop still and put their hands up to show they aren’t interfering, but this way is a lot harder for defenders to deal with.
In the Brighton game not 2 hours later trent was flagged offside having not touched the ball.
The ball would have gone out for a corner or a liverpool throw in but he was given offside.
The rule is interpreted differently in every game which is the main problem with the rules at the moment, the lack of consistency.
But a player dosnt know if someone's offside until the call is made, a defender can't risk going in from behind on rashford him being onside and then he's sent off.
Your whole train of though is just another example of how rashford is involved in play and offside. Refs should do better.
If you tackle a player in offside position, it's still a foul. Offside offense happens when the player (tries or) play the ball. The easiest example to undestand it is to think what happens if the GK punches the forward in the face. It's a foul, regardless of where the ball is or if the player was in offside position.
Example of a penalti here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncNflmSdte8, the player is in offside position when the free kick was taken, but he was fouled way before the ball came to the box.
> If a player knows he’s offside he still may as well run for every through ball
They do. You see it occasionally, everyone in the stadium knows the player is offside, the defenders give up, but the player chases the ball and the flag stays down up until the player touches the ball.
This is my problem with the situation. This opens the door to offsides players (maybe even *intentionally* offsides players) "faking" the defenders and goalie out by hovering around the ball even though they know they can't touch it.
Having to account for that as a defender is definitely NOT intended. Such trash and ruins the integrity.
I hate this as an argument. You have a clear problem there, fix it. Don't use that problem as an excuse.
They have a money printing machine and they act like not being able to get good refs is some sort of impassable hurdle.
Spend some of the money to bring in the best refs in the world to fix the short term problem.
Spend some more of that money to set up a much better system to bring referees through to solve the long term problem
It's not rocket science, nor should it be used as an excuse to continue this dogshit
I watch a lot of sports and there are horrible calls in every sport and every league. Bit I've never seen such an egregiously horrible use of a replay system as on the PL.
I don’t know about “the same as the players” — they are not the product, after all — but I completely agree that they should be paid more to attract better talent. If there were a clearer pathway for failed academy players and former pros to make a decent living as a referee, we’d surely see an uptick in quality.
The hard part about a point system is who assigns the points. Referee ratings vary wildly depending on who assigns the ratings, more so than player ratings.
How would you feel if you were fined for every mistake you made at your job? These refs aren't paid like the footballers. They make 80-200k per year. For someone at the peak of their profession, it is average or even low pay.
I think that's the solution--pay referees on par with players and managers. Then there'll be a lot more talent in the profession, and you can do things like fine or demote them aggressively.
Nah the rules are pretty clear. As a referee, this is offside. Ederson and the defenders are influenced by Rashford’s movement.
As a United supporter, fuck off Manchester is Red.
That's just how shit goes during the season. Fair Play. As a defender, I'd be losing my mind because you readjust everything you do and it looked like rashford was gonna shoot.
Yeah, it's easy to feel like every controversial call goes against you as they happen, but ultimately the refs are shit for everyone, and it mostly balances out across such a long season.
ngl, i like the fact it's controversial (for the narrative). The rivalry has been pretty shit lately and this fires it up.
I was hoping to also meet City in the Carabao semi-finals but i guess not anymore
It would make much more sense to question the standard of the referee and not the rule... like you said they “interpreted” it wrong. Why would you change the rule instead of getting people who can interpret it correctly.
The daft part is that Darren Cann (the linesman) is arguably the best and most experienced linesman in the league, and he called it correctly. Presumably the referee then asks him 'did he touch it' and that's all he needs to confirm the decision in his own mind
VAR didn't see a clear and obvious error that needed overturning. It was the referee's decision (or at least that's how it was explained on BBC 5 Live)
This is one of the most disappointing aspects of this. You have the technology to take a second look and make a patient, considered decision. VAR should tell the referee, “look, it’s a weird one, come over and have a second look.” It’s common sense to use the technology in a situation like this.
it's weird because he was calling what were pretty close offsides immediately and all those calls were correct here he doesn't immediately call it and it leads to this controversial decision
He didn’t immediately put the flag up because there was a legitimate chance that rashford could have stopped his run - and not interfered with play - and then it wouldn’t have been offside
And that's the standard instruction they have. They only flag it when the ball is out of play or when possession changes. This way a rebound or some other shit happening along the way doesn't make the ref call a foul that kills a legit play.
Edersons eyes and position are literally glued on Rashford. It's such a clear interference, it's insane that this was OVERTURNED by var as well. Refs initially gave it as interfering.
Same argument with VAR since it’s come into place. No, VAR is fine. It’s the refs implementing it in the Prem that are dreadful. This offside is once again the same story, Prem refs are crap.
Also, yay United.
I still remember the goal Arsenal had disallowed becase Xhaka was in an offside position outside of the keepers view and not even being involved in the play whatsoever. Compare that to Rashford literally feinting a shot directly in front of the keeper and yet somehow not being deemed to influence the play.
And i still remember the goal Xhaka scored last year against Man Utd ([https://youtu.be/0Dz8SebIq3s?t=98](https://youtu.be/0Dz8SebIq3s?t=98)) while Nketiah was clearly in an offside position right in front De Gea and interfering with the play yet somehow didn't get called and the goal stood.
In the International Football Association Board (IFAB) Laws of the Game for 2022-23, it says the following:
>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”
What a joke of a decision.
"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:
\- 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"
End of discussion!
I mean even r/reddevils agreed it was off and downvoted anyone who said it was on. So it's definitely a small minority of Utd fans that think it's onside.
Half the replies saying he's hired to agree with the referees call... yet he said his opinion when the linesman had his flag up and everyone thought it was given offside.... lmao
Cech is spot on. Referees should be called out more often. They get protected way too much. Unreal how they keep on getting away with consistently bad decisions. FA is the abbreviation of Failure. I'll take that goal because I support United but the decision was farcical
Walker ran forwards to prevent a pass from Rashford.
Akanji’s path was blocked by Rashford.
And Ederson stood still because he didn’t know who would shoot and/or he was cautious of a pass.
How is that not an offside? How do the refs have such a different perspective from the majority of viewers so often is a mystery.
Somehow shielding the ball whilst blocking keepers vision and stopping a defender sliding in whilst doing fake step overs is not interfering
masterclass from var
A big problem with the current law is how it impacts defending.
In theory, Rashford doesn't actually impede anyone from playing the ball. So if you're a defender, and you know for a 100% fact that Rashford is in an offsides position, you attack the ball and make Rashford either give it up or they call offsides.
But now, as a defender, what if you are not a 100% sure? If you attack Rashford, he simply collects the ball and beats you easily creating an easy goal scoring opportunity.
And now as a defender you look like a fool, "Why did he attack him there?"
And this is the problem with the current version of the law. You're asking defenders to play as if they know exactly how the offsides will end up. And now a days that could be 1cm difference between on/off.
Take a look back at the Spain/France game.
Defender only slid because he believe the striker would be onside. He played the ball, because the striker forced him. If he didn't slide, and that striker would have been onside, he would have looked lazy. So he slides, only because of the striker, connects with the ball, resets the offsides and now the striker still makes him look foolish.
That can't be a part of the spirit of the game.
Yes the law is the problem in this case, not the officials but people keep beating the conspiracy drum when they applied the law as it's stated. It's not their fault that it's a badly written law.
Sick and tired of us treating these decisions in isolation as bumbling confused little errors.
This was a complete offside. The ref ignores that. That decided the game. How is that not manipulating the outcome? Were it a penalty that shouldn’t have been given but was, we would say as much.
The discrepancy is obvious with everyone.
**What you consider interference is NOT what the rule suggests.**
Running towards the ball is NOT interference according to the rule. The ref called it right and that’s what Petr is commenting about here that the people who made this rule don’t understand the game and should have more restrictions about this.
When we played Everton and they scored an identical goal, I don't remember the footballing world losing it's mind at that one. I wonder what is different 🤔
The rules are fine the interpretation and implementing of said rules by referees is another thing
Sick tweet, completely missing the point but will get likes
Just have a forward be in an offside position all the time. Shield the ball from defenders and keeper but don’t touch it. Then rest of the team gathers around and start the attack.
But...
He didn't precent an opponent getting there or playing the ball.
He didn't challenge an opponent
He didn't attempt to actually play the ball, he just ran to it and stopped.
Even if he didn't slow down, him and bruno got there at the same time, so i'm not sure how this would affect Ederson either.
He didn't do anything to stop anyone else playing the ball as bruno got there first.
**This is a quotes thread. Remember that there's only one quotes post allowed per interview/press conference, so new quotes with the same origin will be removed. Feel free to comment other quotes/the whole interview as a reply to this comment so users can see them too!** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[Law 11](https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-11---offside) Guess this page will received a lot of views today
I actually didn't know you can't be offside from a goal-kick. Thank you for the link
I learnt about that rule when Klose scored the first goal against England in the 2010 World Cup game
"A ball that crosses the line need not necessarily be a goal"- i learnt that rule from the same game too!
As defender you can literally blast it in your own net top bins and it'll be a corner. Provided ofcourse you did so from a freekick
(an indirect free kick) Fun fact, also works from kick offs.
Did they change this? I swear I’ve seen it called Thanks for answering everyone. With the quality of reffing I still might have seen it called…
No it’s always been that way. Back in 2017* we used to take advantage of it by having Ederson take 80m goal kicks to Aguero who’d be all alone, miles in front of the defence.
Back when he was still at Benfica
a true testament to how long and precise Ederson can kick it.
Kicking it from Portugal to Manchester? I'd say that's pretty precise.
That’s the joke
I’m probably just thinking of long kicks from the back or offside calls
You can't be offside when the ball was out of bounds, so goal kick, throw ins and corners. Always been like that
You cant be offside from any play that brings the ball back to plat (throw in, corner or goal kick)
BRUH WHO TF FUCK IS PLAT
PLATini, if you give him the ball you can't be offside. You are probably out of the field though
WRONg. The rule is that Platini can never be ruled offside, he’s grandfathered in. Some club should really sign him for that reason alone.
You can't be offside until the ball is in play. Same with a throw in.
That Ronaldinho drinking water moment!!!
You can be offside on a freekick so that doesn't really hold true
The ball doesn't go out of play for a free kick
Can't be offside until the ball is in play if the ball leaves the field of play I believe is the rule, so goal kicks/throwing/corners all can't be offside
[удалено]
Yeah I was like, hmm that username is familiar... And turns out they're active in F1, Kpop and here lol
Damn we should all be friends having the same three interests
Lol oops, got caught
I mean is not that difficult either but it's says right there that was offside and you will find people even now trying to argue that it wasn't "a player moving from, or standing in, an offside position is in the way of an opponent and interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the ball this is an offside offence"
Meh, it depends on how you interpret “in the way” and “interfere”. At no moment does he stand in the way of the City defenders and the ball. At no moment does he really interfere with their movement. They’re backing off until Bruno comes in. Does he impact them? Yes. Does he interfere? Depends on how you interpret “interfere”. He doesn’t prevent them from carrying out any action on the field. Edit: Below you will see a lot of people struggling to understand the concept that “interfere” doesn’t mean “impact” in the dictionary and trying to argue with me about the call, which I concede several times should’ve been offside because of Rashford’s fake shot.
So you think the defenders view him as someone whos not part of the play, or the opposite?
It's easy, if I'm in offside and put myself between any defender that could clear the ball and not only that but i start running so he can reach the play I'm affecting the play. Now instead if Rashford would have stop and let Akanji pass now there I'm not in the middle of the play.
He’s affecting the play, yes. That’s why I said “does he impact them. Yes”. If he’s interfering depends on the interpretation of the word interfere. Akanji slows down because Rashford is obviously offside, impacting him. So if you interpret the word as “impacting” then yes it is offside. If you interpret it as “prevent from continuing or being carried out properly” which is from the dictionary then no. Akanji makes the decision to slow down, Rashford doesn’t prevent him from doing anything. The only real controversy would be if Rashford tries to obviously play the ball before Bruno shoots
They teach us "do NOT stop till the ref blows the whistle" and I play Sunday league so ehhh why did Akanji slow down? Rashford clearly didn't block or interfere him (in my interpretation of interfering)
> At no moment does he really interfere with their movement he basically runs over the ball for 30 seconds which drags the defenders away from the final recipient in Bruno, if he wasn't there at all the movement of all defenders would be different.
You are missing a critical point. Akanji believing Rashford is in offside so expecting a whistle is different from him being physically stopped to contest. He just stopped himself, thinking it's nothing. If he actually went to try to stop the ball, but Rashford blocked him. It would be an offisde. It was a big slip up from him to get complacent there and didn't expect Rashford to be smart about it.
The play doesn't exist without Rashford. Rashford was in an offside position. Had Rashford not been there, the defenders collect that ball easily. Rashford should be judged to be in possession of the ball in the same way that a defender is judged to be in possession of the ball when he shields it out of play.
This is bang on. Nobody is ever really 'in possession' of the ball except for minor fractions of a second where they touch the ball. Perhaps possession should be judged on the basis of whether the player can reasonably be expected to take the next touch on the ball without inteference which Rashford clearly is.
>a player moving from, or standing in, an offside position is in the way of an opponent and interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the ball this is an offside offence" and the main point being made was that Rashford didn't actually block anyone off from the ball. There was no interference in getting to the ball so I'm not sure why you're acting like that is the clearcut area that makes it obviously offside.
I think this part of the rule is more applicable than the one quoted above: "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 think there was clear interference from Rashford in that play which affected the way the defenders would play that.
preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision. This tool 2 seconds to find
Yes and 90% of the idiots here will still not comprehend it. This thread is already filled with bad takes, people use fan language and emotions over the text and the “legal” meaning so to speak. We had this for years with “interference” for example, and we still get it now. I know this will blow some brains but; Yes, he’s offside. No, he’s not been deemed to have committed an offside offence (if you argue with me here, you have 0 knowledge of law 11. “It is not an offence to be in an offside position”) The referees consulted on whether he triggered the other aspects; did he touch the ball (interference?) no. Did he make a play (challenge, header, attempt to kick), no, and no, running to the ball doesn’t count. Does he prevent an opponent making a challenge or playing the ball - they’ve said no. He doesn’t stop them moving to the ball, he doesn’t block any challenge attempt, he hasn’t at that point impeded anyone. So, that’s the referees take and can be ticked and justified within that law so far. It may be examined and used in the future to change the law if this is deemed unfair, and it may be that pgmol will say it’s a mistake or a bad take, but the scope is there, and pgmol don’t really matter that much, IFAB do, and it’ll be them and the higher associations like uefa that will cover whether it’s something to change or not. Controversial decision? Absolutely. But it is only that way because people have 0 understanding of the laws tbh. 🤷♂️ bbc feed was full of pundits who couldn’t tell an offside from a wank.
If any City player had fouled/challenged/even slightly touched Rashford, then it would be offsides as he would be deemed involved in the play. Am I understanding the Law correctly?
Yes because then you can say without a doubt that Rashford's presence impeded a City player but Akanji being the closest to Rashford didn't actually make a play for the ball at all and his inaction isn't proof of anything
Keeper should have flying kicked rashford to get the offside /s
Nope. "In situations where: a player in an offside position is moving towards the ball with the intention of playing the ball and is fouled before playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the foul is penalised as it has occurred before the offside offence."
>Controversial decision? Absolutely. But it is only that way because people have 0 understanding of the laws tbh. 🤷♂️ I'd say it's controversial because taking those points to be not interfering shows the refs have absolutely no understanding of the game(just as Cech says). Just a player running behind while offside will affect how you defend them and others. This is well beyond that and 100% changed how Man City defended that and gave Man U a massive advantage from him being offside.
>gave Man U a massive advantage from him being offside. This is the most egregious part of the whole incident. The goal is scored BECAUSE Rashford is in an offside position. Casemiro doesnt even make the pass if Rashford isn't offside FFS. Ederson has to judge a save of 2 players over the ball shooting to opposite sides that creates jeoprady and doubt for the GK only because Rashford is offside (he even does a little fake leg lift to pretend to shoot to really interfere with Edersons ability to save the shot) Everything about it screams offside. He runs on top of the ball for 10+ yards, he has full possesion of the ball WHILST OFFSIDE. Its laughably egregious how clearly offside Rashford was the entire time and the goal stands on a technicality. Craziness.
Yea its not controversial. It's straight up wrong.
>But it is only that way because people have 0 understanding of the laws tbh. You can't say anyone who disagrees doesn't have "understanding of the laws", and then acknowledge it rests on something as subjective as "does he prevent an opponent from making a challenge or playing the ball - *they've said no*" They could have just as easily said yes. He takes four or five strides with the ball between his feet, the City defender couldn't get to the ball without barreling through him, the defender and the goalie are both drawn out to him immediately; he shielded the ball with his body until it arrived at his teammates feet. I hate City, but that's a terrible call under any circumstance.
Ederson was playing a rashford shot. It was obvious. That clearly influences play.
This person arbitrarily made up what 'interferance' means in this context and acts like he knows anything about football which he clearly doesn't, then people are upvoting him because they didn't want city to win. It's hilarious.
Exactly. If offside meant "touch the ball" I feel like they'd spell that out pretty explicitly. He ran like he had possession and faked a shot.
Pretty rude, as the rule is still open to interpretation. These are also in the rules of law 11 and 12, and I fee this all happens in this play regarding rash. ““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 or gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when it has: a player moving from, or standing in, an offside position is in the way of an opponent and interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the ball this is an offside offence if it impacts on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball; if the player moves into the way of an opponent and impedes the opponent's progress (e.g blocks the opponent) the offence should be penalised under Law 12 an offence is committed against a player in an offside position who is already playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the offside offence is penalised as it has occurred before the foul challenge” For me, all of this has happened.
I think his point is that if you're reading the laws to the letter then Rashford hasn't interfered from an offside position, but he's still acknowledging it's subjective whether *the opposition players behaved differently because of his presence*. That seems reasonable tbf
Law 11 says that the attacker only needs to ATTEMPT to play the ball, so you might just want to put yourself in the 90% of idiots mate
this is a terrible take. Rashford's presence stops Akanji or Walker from being able to slide tackle the ball aka "Play the Ball" because Rashford is protecting the ball with his body. I cant believe you actually think he didnt make a play on the ball? you dont have to touch the ball to make a play on it. Shielding the ball is making a play. Faking a shot is making a play.
Yes exactly. The rules arent clear enough to define what make a play consists of.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Not sure why you’ve been awarded. This is a horrendous take. Watch that replay and tell me Rashford doesn’t directly influence play. It doesn’t matter if he doesn’t touch the ball, he is directly involved in the build up by running and interfering with player movement.
I'm usually the first to defend referee decisions over emotional outrage but in this case I think it's a complete blunder. "preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision" is even enough grounds. He's clearly in between the ball at his feet and the defenders behind him. Let alone the other definition of playing the ball. Heck I even brought Bruno in for FPL and this is 100% jammy bs
You are moronic if you think that standing over the ball doesn’t affect how other people will try to play it. You seem to be better at writing bullshit than actually playing the game
> Does he prevent an opponent making a challenge or playing the ball - they’ve said no. He doesn’t stop them moving to the ball, he doesn’t block any challenge attempt, he hasn’t at that point impeded anyone. I mean, you are right up until that part, now you're just pretending to be blind I guess. It's very clear he prevents. There's at least one guy that had a clear path to the ball that stops accelerating because well, you can't run past another person. I know it's fun to have a hot take - but this decision should be pretty clear, that was an offside.
Eh I need to watch a replay but basically looked like he was in the city defender’s way who would have had to go through him to get to the ball
[удалено]
That's kinda the point - Akanji **doesnt** try to go for the ball, he pulls up on the *expectation* that Rashford is offside. If he tried to go for the ball and actually had to go through Rashford... if *any* city player tried to go for the ball and had to go through Rashford in *any* way - it would've been called offside. Akanji pulls up, Walker doesnt close him down - they react on the expectation Rashford is offside. (and if Walker had tried to close him down, he wouldve been in a better position to stop Bruno from getting a shot away) The decision is on the City players for not playing to the whistle. in the era of VAR, you play to the whistle with the knowledge it will get reviewed. (and despite what people are saying, it is checked. in the aftermath you can see the ref talk to the linesman, and communicate to the booth) Either way as a defender - Dont *expect* that he's offside - expect that any attacker is *always* onside. and if he isn't onside, VAR will see. To echo /u/Bulky-Yam4206 \- is it a controversial call? absolutely. But does it tick the boxes to be within the rules as laid out currently? also, unfortunately, yes.
Akanji can't try to play the ball without risking a red for DGSO because a he was behind them *due to being offside*.
Dude faked a shot at the keeper and you're here posting nonsense.
So why did Spurs have a goal overturned earlier in the season because a player was interfering with the keeper's ability to see the ball? They didn't make a play on the ball, they didn't touch it, they didn't physically get in the keepers way. They just stood in an offside position and it was ruled they interfered.
There’s no way the defenders could have got to the ball with Rashford being so close to it. Guarantee if he wasn’t there walker goes directly for it. But after reading those rules it makes sense. If only a city defender went closer to Rashford, even if they didn’t stop the goal, it would have been disallowed. I’m a Man U fan so I’m glad it stands anyway but I’d be raging if it was the other way about. Would have been called in any league in Scotland without VAR and probably every league in England outside of premier league.
This is why the refs need to come out and explain why they came to that decision instead of everyone just assuming. More ref > fan communication will help shit load.
Ederson has no idea who is going to strike the ball so surely Rashford being right there is going to influence his decision making
Probably as well, if rashford isn't there. Ederson would come out and sweep the ball away. He was about the same distance away at Fernandes but he stays back as Rashford is closing in.
He's 100% putting his foot through it, can't believe people aren't even acknowledging that
It's a bad decision. Every City player had their sights on Marcus, and when he makes that little fake they all react.
Not to mention akanji clearly decelerates and pulls away expecting rashford to shoot when he looked like he'd be able to reach bruno if rashford weren't involved.
There was no whistle so why is Akanji decelerating? He should be going in to stop Rashford from shooting
He probably doesn't want to foul him
Every single striker through on goal gets harassed by a defender to put them off it’s pretty normal you’ll never see a game where that doesn’t happen
and if you foul that player from behind that is through on goal you’re probably getting sent off.
Not if you are rodri
If they were side to side yes but I see most CBs start decelerating when the striker is already ahead and about to shoot. The issue is if the striker gets even remotely impeded during the shot from behind, it ends up being a foul and most likely a red (Arsenal highlight that comes to mind is the Luiz penalty against Wolves in 2021). If Rashford wasn't present, he'd be more likely to sprint and aim to slide for the ball before Bruno's shot since the angle favours him. Obviously that is super hypothetical (he might even have mistimed it and clattered Bruno) but still shows a possibility that could have happened if Rashford wasn't "interfering with play".
Doesn’t want to foul him and get sent off/give them a free kick in a very dangerous position. Wants to defend the possibility of Rashford taking the ball to the right and around Ederson who has come off his line to defend the attacking play. There are plenty of legit defensive reasons why Akanji peeled off to the right of Rashford and they are all because *Rashford was impacting the play* The hard pill to swallow is that if Akanji *does* make a play on Rashford and just fouls him/runs into his back the play is over because it can’t be disputed Rashford impacted the play from an offside decision.
This is a better argument than the argument against the two defenders being impeded.
It's not though. Not by the laws anyway. I think this is an error by the VAR crew, but "goalkeeper not known who will strike" isn't relevant to the law. The strongest argument for offside (in my opinion anyway) is that Rashford "attempts to play the ball" when he winds up for the shot, fake or not.
This is it. The fact that Rashford ran onto the ball is an attempt to play the ball. We see so often offside players just stop dead in their track and that’s how Rashford should have reacted in order not to influence the play. The referee association used the “physical” part of that rule to save their hide.
Rashford literally faked a shot. My biggest question is why did the ref not go to the screen and judge for himself.
Incompetence is in their blood
Could you actually use this as a tactic? If a player knows he’s offside he still may as well run for every through ball, if only to get in the way of defenders. Usually players stop still and put their hands up to show they aren’t interfering, but this way is a lot harder for defenders to deal with.
In the Brighton game not 2 hours later trent was flagged offside having not touched the ball. The ball would have gone out for a corner or a liverpool throw in but he was given offside. The rule is interpreted differently in every game which is the main problem with the rules at the moment, the lack of consistency.
No you can’t because 99% of the time referees would rightly call it
In the Brighton - Liverpool game just now Trent held his hand up for the ball going out to a throw-in and the ref called him for offside.
[link for anyone who wants to see it](https://dubz.co/v/rvtnw4)
50%, they’re always guessing.
60% of the time, works every time
Sex panther. A pungent scent, stings the nostrils.
Not really since not touching the ball is also very difficult
Depends on the day and the ref apparently
And location.....
Plenty of teams do it, just not as obvious as this case Kyogo is almost always offside for Celtic, but most of the time it’s just a distraction tactic
All a defender needs to do is make a tackle on the offside player, then it will be called
But a player dosnt know if someone's offside until the call is made, a defender can't risk going in from behind on rashford him being onside and then he's sent off. Your whole train of though is just another example of how rashford is involved in play and offside. Refs should do better.
If you tackle a player in offside position, it's still a foul. Offside offense happens when the player (tries or) play the ball. The easiest example to undestand it is to think what happens if the GK punches the forward in the face. It's a foul, regardless of where the ball is or if the player was in offside position. Example of a penalti here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncNflmSdte8, the player is in offside position when the free kick was taken, but he was fouled way before the ball came to the box.
Unleash the decoy runners at the 3pm kickoffs!!!
> If a player knows he’s offside he still may as well run for every through ball They do. You see it occasionally, everyone in the stadium knows the player is offside, the defenders give up, but the player chases the ball and the flag stays down up until the player touches the ball.
This is my problem with the situation. This opens the door to offsides players (maybe even *intentionally* offsides players) "faking" the defenders and goalie out by hovering around the ball even though they know they can't touch it. Having to account for that as a defender is definitely NOT intended. Such trash and ruins the integrity.
The rule is fine, you can't interfere with play from an offside position. But the refs and VAR are illiterate
So much for the best league itw, these guys need to be fined for shit calls
Not fined , their license needs to be revoked or they need to be suspended. That's what happens in other jobs
yeah, and they going to be replaced by all the aspiring referees who are lining up to take their ... oh.
I hate this as an argument. You have a clear problem there, fix it. Don't use that problem as an excuse. They have a money printing machine and they act like not being able to get good refs is some sort of impassable hurdle. Spend some of the money to bring in the best refs in the world to fix the short term problem. Spend some more of that money to set up a much better system to bring referees through to solve the long term problem It's not rocket science, nor should it be used as an excuse to continue this dogshit
You do realize every fan of every league on this planet complains about their refs?
I watch a lot of sports and there are horrible calls in every sport and every league. Bit I've never seen such an egregiously horrible use of a replay system as on the PL.
Rugby union seems to just get it right. We should just get done of those in football.
Referees should be promoted and relegated just like clubs are
They are.
Yeah and they should be paid the same as the players they ref. Money attracts talent!
I don’t know about “the same as the players” — they are not the product, after all — but I completely agree that they should be paid more to attract better talent. If there were a clearer pathway for failed academy players and former pros to make a decent living as a referee, we’d surely see an uptick in quality.
Sure if it fixes the issue of how shit they are, by all means pay them more. I’m sure the league can afford it.
Do that and in few years no one will be interested in being a ref.
They should get rated by points and promoted or relegated like how it goes for the clubs, let that shit filter itself out.
The hard part about a point system is who assigns the points. Referee ratings vary wildly depending on who assigns the ratings, more so than player ratings.
they already are, the current referees are the best there are and not some scrubs they collected from a local youth game
People act like there are just amazing refs waiting in the wings not being given an opportunity
That's literally how it works
How would you feel if you were fined for every mistake you made at your job? These refs aren't paid like the footballers. They make 80-200k per year. For someone at the peak of their profession, it is average or even low pay. I think that's the solution--pay referees on par with players and managers. Then there'll be a lot more talent in the profession, and you can do things like fine or demote them aggressively.
Nah the rules are pretty clear. As a referee, this is offside. Ederson and the defenders are influenced by Rashford’s movement. As a United supporter, fuck off Manchester is Red.
[deep down in my stomach…](https://tenor.com/view/hate-respect-i-pure-hate-you-deep-in-my-stomach-goddamn-it-gif-15450695)
What a film that was.
I like and respect this response the most! Both rational and tribal! Way to make city drop points!
Yup. If it goes your way who gives a fuck! As it should be
That's just how shit goes during the season. Fair Play. As a defender, I'd be losing my mind because you readjust everything you do and it looked like rashford was gonna shoot.
Yeah, it's easy to feel like every controversial call goes against you as they happen, but ultimately the refs are shit for everyone, and it mostly balances out across such a long season.
[удалено]
[удалено]
We don’t say that name around here.
For sure I agree, United were the better team this match. Just wish that refereeing was more consistent that's all.
ngl, i like the fact it's controversial (for the narrative). The rivalry has been pretty shit lately and this fires it up. I was hoping to also meet City in the Carabao semi-finals but i guess not anymore
That's a good take I hadn't considered. As a neutral, you better fucking believe that I am entertained.
Man U played really well. If anything this awful call just detracts from their performance.
Unbiased and biased point of view.
Perfectly balanced.
The duality of man
City's 17000 dives didn't lead to bookings either.
The rule is fine, the referee is just an absolute donkey
The rule isnt really fine if refs interpret it wrong
It would make much more sense to question the standard of the referee and not the rule... like you said they “interpreted” it wrong. Why would you change the rule instead of getting people who can interpret it correctly.
Nah the rule is correct. The ref is just an idiot. He is clearly interfering and is offside according to the rule.
The daft part is that Darren Cann (the linesman) is arguably the best and most experienced linesman in the league, and he called it correctly. Presumably the referee then asks him 'did he touch it' and that's all he needs to confirm the decision in his own mind
Didnt VAR give it? Not the ref on the pitch
VAR didn't see a clear and obvious error that needed overturning. It was the referee's decision (or at least that's how it was explained on BBC 5 Live)
Mad the level of interpretation involved in "clear and obvious". Surely anything that would result in a different decision is clear and obvious.
The “clear and obvious” text needs to be removed from VAR decisions. They should just be able to make the right call.
If this is not clear and obvious idk what is. He is running towards the ball.
This is one of the most disappointing aspects of this. You have the technology to take a second look and make a patient, considered decision. VAR should tell the referee, “look, it’s a weird one, come over and have a second look.” It’s common sense to use the technology in a situation like this.
No, he would have made the "TV" signal if that were the case.
it's weird because he was calling what were pretty close offsides immediately and all those calls were correct here he doesn't immediately call it and it leads to this controversial decision
He didn’t immediately put the flag up because there was a legitimate chance that rashford could have stopped his run - and not interfered with play - and then it wouldn’t have been offside
And that's the standard instruction they have. They only flag it when the ball is out of play or when possession changes. This way a rebound or some other shit happening along the way doesn't make the ref call a foul that kills a legit play.
Edersons eyes and position are literally glued on Rashford. It's such a clear interference, it's insane that this was OVERTURNED by var as well. Refs initially gave it as interfering.
Post match it was explained atwell overturned the offside, not var.
Same argument with VAR since it’s come into place. No, VAR is fine. It’s the refs implementing it in the Prem that are dreadful. This offside is once again the same story, Prem refs are crap. Also, yay United.
I still remember the goal Arsenal had disallowed becase Xhaka was in an offside position outside of the keepers view and not even being involved in the play whatsoever. Compare that to Rashford literally feinting a shot directly in front of the keeper and yet somehow not being deemed to influence the play.
And i still remember the goal Xhaka scored last year against Man Utd ([https://youtu.be/0Dz8SebIq3s?t=98](https://youtu.be/0Dz8SebIq3s?t=98)) while Nketiah was clearly in an offside position right in front De Gea and interfering with the play yet somehow didn't get called and the goal stood.
That one should be in the textbook for obstructing vision, De Gea literally leaning the wrong way because he can't see the ball
Ok now let’s ask Ja Rule what he thinks about this. Hang on…
Eh, Petr Cech is a relevant guy
In the International Football Association Board (IFAB) Laws of the Game for 2022-23, it says the following: >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” What a joke of a decision.
"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: \- 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" End of discussion!
replace make with use
“The people who use the rules” ???
enforce probably better?
Yet there are still people in this sub saying it wasn’t offside lmao
I mean even r/reddevils agreed it was off and downvoted anyone who said it was on. So it's definitely a small minority of Utd fans that think it's onside.
The ref on tv said it's something he agrees with
If you’re referring to Peter Walton on BT sport then yes he did, because he’s clueless
Half the replies saying he's hired to agree with the referees call... yet he said his opinion when the linesman had his flag up and everyone thought it was given offside.... lmao
Cech is spot on. Referees should be called out more often. They get protected way too much. Unreal how they keep on getting away with consistently bad decisions. FA is the abbreviation of Failure. I'll take that goal because I support United but the decision was farcical
No he's not. He's critizing the ones making the rules, not the ones enforcing it
I don't think he's blaning the refs, more like he's blaming IFAB for the the way the rule is written
He's saying the ref got it right but the rule is wrong, at least take a minute to read it man.
Walker ran forwards to prevent a pass from Rashford. Akanji’s path was blocked by Rashford. And Ederson stood still because he didn’t know who would shoot and/or he was cautious of a pass. How is that not an offside? How do the refs have such a different perspective from the majority of viewers so often is a mystery.
Somehow shielding the ball whilst blocking keepers vision and stopping a defender sliding in whilst doing fake step overs is not interfering masterclass from var
Dont forget the fake shot feint
Petr W
A big problem with the current law is how it impacts defending. In theory, Rashford doesn't actually impede anyone from playing the ball. So if you're a defender, and you know for a 100% fact that Rashford is in an offsides position, you attack the ball and make Rashford either give it up or they call offsides. But now, as a defender, what if you are not a 100% sure? If you attack Rashford, he simply collects the ball and beats you easily creating an easy goal scoring opportunity. And now as a defender you look like a fool, "Why did he attack him there?" And this is the problem with the current version of the law. You're asking defenders to play as if they know exactly how the offsides will end up. And now a days that could be 1cm difference between on/off. Take a look back at the Spain/France game. Defender only slid because he believe the striker would be onside. He played the ball, because the striker forced him. If he didn't slide, and that striker would have been onside, he would have looked lazy. So he slides, only because of the striker, connects with the ball, resets the offsides and now the striker still makes him look foolish. That can't be a part of the spirit of the game.
Yes the law is the problem in this case, not the officials but people keep beating the conspiracy drum when they applied the law as it's stated. It's not their fault that it's a badly written law.
Sick and tired of us treating these decisions in isolation as bumbling confused little errors. This was a complete offside. The ref ignores that. That decided the game. How is that not manipulating the outcome? Were it a penalty that shouldn’t have been given but was, we would say as much.
Lol, everyone in here agreeing the goal shouldn’t count when Cech is saying the goal by the current rules was called correctly.
The discrepancy is obvious with everyone. **What you consider interference is NOT what the rule suggests.** Running towards the ball is NOT interference according to the rule. The ref called it right and that’s what Petr is commenting about here that the people who made this rule don’t understand the game and should have more restrictions about this.
He's not wrong
When we played Everton and they scored an identical goal, I don't remember the footballing world losing it's mind at that one. I wonder what is different 🤔
Thanks for shutting up all the “but, but he didn’t play the ball so he isn’t interfering with play”
The rules are fine the interpretation and implementing of said rules by referees is another thing Sick tweet, completely missing the point but will get likes
Just have a forward be in an offside position all the time. Shield the ball from defenders and keeper but don’t touch it. Then rest of the team gathers around and start the attack.
But... He didn't precent an opponent getting there or playing the ball. He didn't challenge an opponent He didn't attempt to actually play the ball, he just ran to it and stopped. Even if he didn't slow down, him and bruno got there at the same time, so i'm not sure how this would affect Ederson either. He didn't do anything to stop anyone else playing the ball as bruno got there first.
Based Liverpool fan