Manchester City vs. Manchester United - Offside or Not?

[Big Cat]

More to do with the fact we were going around in circles, with tempers seeming to fray so it was stopped before it escalated.

Nothing sinister about it.

Yeh, I mean it will go around in never-decreasing circles because the book does not specifically deal with this scenario. So whilst some seem to think this is an open and closed case and would possible mark a Referee down on it if being observed, quite clearly there's enough discord among the Refereeing Community to suggest that a black'n'white posture on this is wrong. In which case, do what the game expects, do what's in the spirit of the game, do the safe thing and disallow the goal

I for one am done with the discussion and shall wait on IFAB to add more words to the book, or releasing one of their clarifications which the majority of Referees will never see

 

[bloovee]

That's circular 3 released in 2016 (ifab website)
The explanation underlined didn't make it into the big rewrite but the "interfering with an opponent by......" Did, which that language was first circulated in this circular.
Up until 2016/17 we just had "interfering with an opponent"

Am I missing something or are those clarifications of clearly attempts and close not saying that what Rashford did was both attempting to play the ball and deliberately getting close to it?

Likewise, impact includes potential ability to play the ball.

And from what Dermot Gallagher says, I was right in my theory that Mr Attwell overruled Mr Cann. I can just imagine that... 'I will not overrule your offside call unless you're wrong in law...'

 

[Peter Grove]

Now does that mean this document is still valid for interpreting how an opponent including GK might be impacted (i.e. does not need to be physically impacted) and for how a player in an offside position should avoid being penalised for interfering with an opponent?

Again, not quite sure what you mean. What I would say, is that in the (non-IFAB) document that contains the bit about a goalkeeper needing to delay his action, it's used in a scenario that is somewhat different to this.

The scenario it is being applied to is where the ball is heading directly into the net and the goalkeeper's ability to play the ball is impacted by an offside-positioned player making a clear attempt to play the ball (but missing it).

 

[bloovee]

Again, not quite sure what you mean. What I would say, is that in the (non-IFAB) document that contains the bit about a goalkeeper needing to delay his action, it's used in a scenario that is somewhat different to this.

The scenario it is being applied to is where the ball is heading directly into the net and the goalkeeper's ability to play the ball is impacted by an offside-positioned player making a clear attempt to play the ball (but missing it).

I mean the principle is the same, in terms of impact on an opponent. "Goakeeper needs to delay his action to wait and see if the attacking player in an offside position touches/plays the ball" - Ederson didn't delay his action to see if the attacking player in an offside position touches/plays the ball but went to close the angle. To say he should have delayed his action and stayed back and that would make it offside whereas going to close down the player makes him onside, would sound rather ridiculous.

 

[GraemeS]

Feels a bit odd, but I'm going to quote myself again:

The ref/AR can't be expected to make a call based on the fact City fans think their GK is good at sweeping!

 

[Ori]

My current understanding is that the ref overruled his linesman, but VAR couldn’t overrule him as it’s subjective.

This will keep being debated, but the reality is that because the decision is subjective, both answers are correct. What I find strange is that even the people who say the decision is correct mostly agree that it should be made offside and laws clarified/corrected.

That being the case, why not just rule it as offside?

 

[RustyRef]

Yeh, I mean it will go around in never-decreasing circles because the book does not specifically deal with this scenario. So whilst some seem to think this is an open and closed case and would possible mark a Referee down on it if being observed, quite clearly there's enough discord among the Refereeing Community to suggest that a black'n'white posture on this is wrong. In which case, do what the game expects, do what's in the spirit of the game, do the safe thing and disallow the goal

I for one am done with the discussion and shall wait on IFAB to add more words to the book, or releasing one of their clarifications which the majority of Referees will never see

Clarity needed please. I said I would potentially mark down if they said it was for interfering with play or gaining an advantage, as it is black and white that they can't apply. I said that if they said it was interfering with an opponent and explained why I would support the decision even if I didn't necessarily agree with it.

 

[Libano Ref]

I can't believe that two-thirds of the 52 referees that have voted here think this is a good goal.

What an absolutely ridiculous decision that was! Strangest decision I've seen in years. More strange and ridiculous given that Darren Cann waited, and then flagged for a perfectly correct offside! Everything we know and are expected to do on a weekly, as ARs or referees in the middle with the understanding of the offside rule, just thrown into confusion with that goal being allowed on Saturday. This will now open a can of worms and make an otherwise simple & black/white type of rule more confusing.

 

[socal lurker]

My current understanding is that the ref overruled his linesman, but VAR couldn’t overrule him as it’s subjective.

This isn't correct re VAR in a couple of ways. First, VAR doesn't overrule anything, as VAR only makes recommendations. For objective calls, the R will 99% of the time accept the recommendation of the VAR in the same way he accepts the recommendation of an AR. Second, it's not true that VAR cannot get involved in subjective decisions--that's what happens everytime the VAR recommends an on field review regarding a foul call. For the VAR to get involved in the subjective decision of active involvement, the VAR would have to believe that the call on the field was a clear and obvious error. We can certainly debate whether the spirit of the game should make this an OS call, but it certainly doesn't come close to satisfying the clear and obvious error standard.

 

[Ori]

This isn't correct re VAR in a couple of ways. First, VAR doesn't overrule anything, as VAR only makes recommendations. For objective calls, the R will 99% of the time accept the recommendation of the VAR in the same way he accepts the recommendation of an AR. Second, it's not true that VAR cannot get involved in subjective decisions--that's what happens everytime the VAR recommends an on field review regarding a foul call. For the VAR to get involved in the subjective decision of active involvement, the VAR would have to believe that the call on the field was a clear and obvious error. We can certainly debate whether the spirit of the game should make this an OS call, but it certainly doesn't come close to satisfying the clear and obvious error standard.

VAR rules goals ass offside or inside all the time. Rarely do they ask the ref to look at the screen for an offside decision.

I agree with you about clear and obviously but this seems to be applied when it suits var like the arsenal goal at old Trafford. Saka being fouled during the World Cup.

It’s still a mess.

 

[JamesL]

Anyway, what I really want to know is has any one decision ever seen so many posts. We've had one thread shut which also had posts deleted and so far we've added another 2 pages to this one.

 

[JamesL]

I can't believe that two-thirds of the 52 referees that have voted here think this is a good goal.

I know, right, how strange?!?

 

[RustyRef]

VAR rules goals ass offside or inside all the time. Rarely do they ask the ref to look at the screen for an offside decision.

I agree with you about clear and obviously but this seems to be applied when it suits var like the arsenal goal at old Trafford. Saka being fouled during the World Cup.

It’s still a mess.

They only decide themselves if it is black and white, i.e. the technology has shown that the player is onside or offside. If it is subjective, as was the case with the Rashford decision, the referee will always be advised to go and look at the monitor.

 

[Libano Ref]

I know, right, how strange?!?

I've seen the other thread James and your opinion as well.

You've quoted an image from the LOTG, which is not the same as Saturday's situation whatsoever. We've seen players run towards the ball and then stop at a distance, but chasing after the ball with that proximity, in addition to shielding the ball from a defender who's chasing it as well, is that not interference?

What's Akanji meant to do then? If he barges into the back of Rashford, is that a foul or is Rashford deemed offside, so offside? Or are we going with the (pardon me) silly sentence of "he didn't touch the ball?"

What would you have done as a referee in that situation? Having seen the forward who's in an offside position run after the ball for 3 seconds (which is a lot in real play btw)? I don't know many refs who'd have not given an offside in that situation.

Which begs the question, what are we meant to do from now on? Because as you know, the can of worms has been opened by our colleagues at the top!

 

[JamesL]

What would you have done as a referee in that situation?

Having had a very similar thing happen in an FA cup tie this season I over ruled and allowed a goal.

And...That's exactly what I would have done here.

 

[santa sangria]

I am still happy with no offside. Rashford is close to the ball, yes. But he doesn’t make an obvious action that impacts an opponent. The defenders are far too far away. They are not blocked, they are not impacted.

I understand why there are questions about the GK. But we can’t base decisions on what the GK might have done differently. The GK - or either defender - could have got closer to the ball - they could have - and that would have probably caused Rashford to play the ball or block them - and that would have triggered offside. But they did not.

The defenders and GK were not smart here. If they slowed down expecting offside that’s a basic error.

 

[RustyRef]

It isn't that dissimilar to the much more common situation where the ball is played towards an attacker in an offside position and a defender is forced to try and head the ball clear, bit like the Salah goal against Wolves last week. It doesn't feel right as the attacker has benefited from being in an offside position, the defender has been disadvantaged, but law says it is not offside as long as the defender played the ball and it wasn't a deflection.

 

[Libano Ref]

It isn't that dissimilar to the much more common situation where the ball is played towards an attacker in an offside position and a defender is forced to try and head the ball clear, bit like the Salah goal against Wolves last week. It doesn't feel right as the attacker has benefited from being in an offside position, the defender has been disadvantaged, but law says it is not offside as long as the defender played the ball and it wasn't a deflection.

The Salah goal goes under the "deliberate play" category, and by law it's a goal and I dislike that rule as a football fan (you're telling defenders that leaving the ball is better than attempting to clear it sometimes.. but that's for another debate).

The Bruno goal sees a player in an offside position run and chase a ball with the attempt to play it, interfering with Akanji (who can easily clear it before Bruno gets there if Rashford is not there) before changing his mind when he sees Bruno. Yes, interfering! He runs towards the ball, after the ball, and is the closest to the ball for the majority of the play once the pass is made. If he leaves it, and runs alongside it, it's something else. He makes an attempt to run after the ball, shielding it in the process until he sees a teammate run from behind and just leaves it. This now promotes having players try different ways to shield a pass when offside for others who are not offside.

A can of worms for us to deal with in the future, but a big can of worms to properly define the offside rule, a rule that was once upon a time a black/white decision!!

 

[GraemeS]

You don't get to bold a word and then make up what you think the definition of it is. The LOTG tells us how to consider interference - we're therefore obliged to do that.

 

[bloovee]

I am still happy with no offside. Rashford is close to the ball, yes. But he doesn’t make an obvious action that impacts an opponent. The defenders are far too far away. They are not blocked, they are not impacted.
n err
I understand why there are questions about the GK. But we can’t base decisions on what the GK might have done differently. The GK - or either defender - could have got closer to the ball - they could have - and that would have probably caused Rashford to play the ball or block them - and that would have triggered offside. But they did not.

The defenders and GK were not smart here. If they slowed down expecting offside that’s a basic error.

The GK went to close the angle on the player in an offside position. Was that an error?