Greenlizard0 PL & Championship Football Thread ** spoilers ** [13th - 19th January 2023]

[JamesH85]

Whos ability did he impact to play the ball? The only one who has a credible claim on that is the keeper. As mentioned in the article as well, if any City player had got close enough to Rashford to have to do literally anything to avoid him then it would have been offside. If Akanji would have had to slow down, break his stride or move in any direction to avoid him it would have been offside. As it was Akanji didn't make the effort to do that so he wasn't impeded. Walker didn't take any action that involved Rashford either.

You can argue that their actions were informed by Rashford but thats not the rule.

The rule may be changed on the back of what happened at the weekend, however for decision like this, the depth of detail required to make a decision may become ridiculous. So.many factors to consider. We are getting into depths of looking how Rashford's body actions affected Akanji's judgement of if the ball is safe, of who Ederson is anticipating to shoot. These decisions could go on for 5-10 minutes for full depth analysis if the rules are changed in that way, can't be good for the game.

However at the same having rules that reside in grey areas is bad for the game, causing such controversy. Whichever way you look at it, if that goal is scored against your team you'll feel aggrieved. If it's for you, you take it.

 

[fez]

However at the same having rules that reside in grey areas is bad for the game, causing such controversy. Whichever way you look at it, if that goal is scored against your team you'll feel aggrieved. If it's for you, you take it.

This is the crux of it. We have (like I'm sure almost every team) had some silly decisions go against us so when a questionable one goes in your favour you aren't too cut up about it.

Football isn't a simple game and with a lot of the rules they work in 95% of situations but that 5% is grey. Same as the question of what should be a penalty. What should be a handball etc. The constand flux of the rules quite often doesn't fix the problem though, it just opens up another grey area in a different spot.

 

[HangTime]

I'm no expert on the laws but it looked offside to me, it was different from the scenarios where you see a player beyond the last defender literally standing still and letting his mate run on to it, Rashford was going for it and then bailed at the final moment. I mean like the keeper probably has to set himself on the basis that it will be Rashford taking the shot etc.

As mentioned however these sort of nuanced situations are hard to get right without causing delays, so there's only two options really:
1) Reduce ambiguity by changing the laws so that either a) Players are always considered offside regardless of whether they are having an impact b) Players are never offside unless they touch the ball
2) Accept that these sort of scenarios will occur, and that VAR can't always solve them (VAR is very good for dealing in absolutes like balls crossing the line, clear infringements not spotted by the ref etc, less good where ambiguity is involved)

 

[Martini1991]

Casermiro was playing the ball to Rashford not to Bruno.
Surely it's at simple as that?
Rashford in an offside position has therefore influenced the game.

 

[bayo000]

Casermiro was playing the ball to Rashford not to Bruno.
Surely it's at simple as that?
Rashford in an offside position has therefore influenced the game.

That's subjective, he'd say he played it into open space for a team mate to run onto it.

As I said during the game. I think it should have been offside but as united fan and the way rules are written I take it.

 

[sigma]

Casermiro was playing the ball to Rashford not to Bruno.
Surely it's at simple as that?
Rashford in an offside position has therefore influenced the game.

There were two players running towards the ball, surely the opposite team should focus on both players?

I'm on the fence, I can see arguments for it being given and not.

 

[manic111]

There were two players running towards the ball, surely the opposite team should focus on both players?

I'm on the fence, I can see arguments for it being given and not.

But that's exactly the point. The presence of two players means they have to divide their attention. Therefore Rashford is interfering.

To be clear, under the current rules I don't think it's offside, but the current rules are insane.

 

[fez]

But that's exactly the point. The presence of two players means they have to divide their attention. Therefore Rashford is interfering.

To be clear, under the current rules I don't think it's offside, but the current rules are insane.

If you want to take that route though you would go back to the old days when offside was offside. Defenders always have to consider offside players in their actions even if they are not ultimately involved. If you didn't then your manager would be screaming at you because you completely ignored an offside player who came back onside later in an attack and finished the move. The rules make sense for the most part.

Defenders need to know how to play them as much as attackers. If Akanji had been quicker and caught up with Rashford it would have been given as offside.

 

[manic111]

If you want to take that route though you would go back to the old days when offside was offside. Defenders always have to consider offside players in their actions even if they are not ultimately involved. If you didn't then your manager would be screaming at you because you completely ignored an offside player who came back onside later in an attack and finished the move. The rules make sense for the most part.

Defenders need to know how to play them as much as attackers. If Akanji had been quicker and caught up with Rashford it would have been given as offside.

Not really. There's a massive difference between a player walking back from offside with his hands up, and a player actively trying, or looking like he is actively trying, to engage with play. To me that's where the line should be drawn. If you're in an offside position, you're offside unless you make it very clear that you're actively avoiding play, so as to avoid confusion amongst the referee and your opponents.

 

[Converge]

Soon we’ll just have all the players on both teams running around with their hands up in the air then. What next?

It’ll turn into an 11 a side excited Jonah Hill gif.

 

[robfosters]

Most debated offside decision ever without doubt

 

[adam cool dude]

If you want to take that route though you would go back to the old days when offside was offside. Defenders always have to consider offside players in their actions even if they are not ultimately involved. If you didn't then your manager would be screaming at you because you completely ignored an offside player who came back onside later in an attack and finished the move. The rules make sense for the most part.

Defenders need to know how to play them as much as attackers. If Akanji had been quicker and caught up with Rashford it would have been given as offside.

Also how did Akanji even know that Rashford was offside. The flag didn't go up. For all he knew Walker could have potentially been playing him on. There is no way he would have known for sure. The defenders were had imo and Ederson has always been subject when rushing out anyway.

If Akanji knew he was offside why didn't he take him out as a card wouldn't be given as it was offside.

 

[fez]

Most debated offside decision ever without doubt

Its got everything. Rule interpretations. Questionable decisions. Man Utd. Different scenarios to take into account.

Blockbuster.

Not really. There's a massive difference between a player walking back from offside with his hands up, and a player actively trying, or looking like he is actively trying, to engage with play. To me that's where the line should be drawn. If you're in an offside position, you're offside unless you make it very clear that you're actively avoiding play, so as to avoid confusion amongst the referee and your opponents.

Loads of goals have been scored by players who were in an offside position when the ball was played and they ignored it for their teammate to collect. This is just the extreme end of that.

Watch any freekick and you will normally see a bunch of players offside and others coming from onside. Loads of goals are scored in the confusion of who defenders need to worry about, who was offside and who should be considered 'in-play'. Its all part of attacking tactics. As long as you don't impede a player or block the keepers line of sight its fine.

 

[robfosters]

They’ve got the moron who kicked Ramsdale

 

[adam cool dude]

They’ve got the moron who kicked Ramsdale

It was jay from the Inbetweeners. I thought everyone knew?

 

[manic111]

Loads of goals have been scored by players who were in an offside position when the ball was played and they ignored it for their teammate to collect. This is just the extreme end of that.

Watch any freekick and you will normally see a bunch of players offside and others coming from onside. Loads of goals are scored in the confusion of who defenders need to worry about, who was offside and who should be considered 'in-play'. Its all part of attacking tactics. As long as you don't impede a player or block the keepers line of sight its fine.

I don't agree that it's fine. There are three options for how to enforce it:

1. Only call a player offside if they touch the ball. This leads to situations in which players can impede defenders, block the keeper's line of sight, etc. Clearly, that doesn't work.

2. Enforce it as you've suggested. This is a huge grey area, and essentially allows the attacking team to exploit the fact that it is impossible to enforce consistently or effectively.

3. Call any player in an offside position offside, unless they are clearly not interfering with play.

I'm not sure that I can see what is wrong with the third option. You argue that loads of players stand offside at certain times. That's true, and it's led to nothing but arguments.

You might argue that being as restrictive as I'm suggesting limits attackers' options. However, this was the rule until about 10 years ago and I'm not sure I can see any argument that the changes since then have improved anything. Van Niistelrooy is a prime example of a player who played at a time when the offside rule was essentially number 3, and he still used it beautifully by hanging offside until a fraction before the ball was played.

 

[fez]

3. Call any player in an offside position offside, unless they are clearly not interfering with play.

There is no such thing as "clearly not interfering", thats the issue. The only time they would be clearly not interfering is when they were miles away and didn't make any movement to join the attack. Anything else could be seen as an advantage gained by being offside.

The current rule is fine and it doesn't cause issues often at all and when it does its usually pretty universally agreed upon what the correct decision is.

Basically leave it as is, give us an extra point for beating City and give us another extra point for doing it in a questionable manner.

 

[Vandle]

Whos ability did he impact to play the ball? The only one who has a credible claim on that is the keeper. As mentioned in the article as well, if any City player had got close enough to Rashford to have to do literally anything to avoid him then it would have been offside. If Akanji would have had to slow down, break his stride or move in any direction to avoid him it would have been offside. As it was Akanji didn't make the effort to do that so he wasn't impeded. Walker didn't take any action that involved Rashford either.

You can argue that their actions were informed by Rashford but thats not the rule.

The goalkeeper is squaring up, expecting a shot from Rashford or at the least for him to take him on. If Rashford was not there you would expect the keepers positioning to change imo. I think it impacts his ability to make a save - I'd argue that's the same as playing the ball. You could probably argue against it given his distance from it. Super contentious either way.

 

[IronSpider]

So now you all accept that City do in fact look the more likely to drop points this season over Arsenal. City are worse this year than at any time in the last 5 years. I wouldn't be surprised to see them finished 3rd. Amazing the amount of people that wrote this off as a City canter after 3 games.

People keep saying Arsenal still have to play them, but that's a harder game home and away for City than it is Arsenal. I don't see this City having enough about them to close down and chase Arsenal.

 

[RobDogDog]

Rashford influences the keeper.

The goalkeeper is squaring up, expecting a shot from Rashford or at the least for him to take him on. If Rashford was not there you would expect the keepers positioning to change imo. I think it impacts his ability to make a save - I'd argue that's the same as playing the ball. You could probably argue against it given his distance from it. Super contentious either way.

I used to play in goal and I would be thinking Rashford would be taking on the shot, trying to go around me, or squaring it with his running through clear and proximity to the ball and knowing that he is predominantly right footed.

If he's not there, my body position would be slightly different to accommodate where Fernandes is approaching from. You can see that Ederson has done his best to narrow down the angle for Rashford and not Fernandes. Yes, it's a case of moving your body by about 10 degrees which doesn't sound like much, but small margins as a goalkeeper can either save or hinder you.

So is Rashford interfering? Most definitely for me.