Man Utd V Man City

[RustyRef]

Wouldn't that be DOGSO?

No, because then the offside would be given. Not really relevant though as neither defender were close enough at any point to put a challenge in.

 

[Mooseybaby]

Don't support either side and have no real vested interest as a fan as my own team's season descends into chaos...

Appreciate and can see both sides of the argument and what the law states (splinters I know), but curious to know would anyone really complain if this happened on a Sunday during a u11-18s match and the referee disallowed the goal? My gut feeling from 10 years of watching and ref'n junior footy is there would be more complaints if the goal was allowed to stand than if it was disallowed.

 

[bloovee]

No, because then the offside would be given. Not really relevant though as neither defender were close enough at any point to put a challenge in.

It would be a foul, even if it couldn't be DOGSO.

"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."
  

 

[bloovee]

View attachment 6297

If the offside player is not there, wouldn't the defender easily clear the ball? But the defender would probably not have chased after the ball if the offside player wasn't there. But would it then have run to Fernandes to score anyway?

 

[bloovee]

Take Rashford out of this phase of play, none of the Man C defenders can get to the ball before Fernandez.

I'm not sure. Walker is actually ahead of the ball by the time Fernandes by the time hits it. So prevented by an onside player from tackling a player in an offside position...

 

[Pembroke]

Hmm

If he wasn't "attempting to play the ball" it's the nearest you'd get to "feinting to attempt to play the ball" and the opponent impacted is the GK who has clearly tried to narrow the angle to prevent a shot by the player in an offside position.

I suspect Rashford's leg movements were to give himself a better angle and he didn't intend it to run to Fernandes.

Everything about that shape says he is looking to hit it. His head, his standing foot, and he draws his leg back ..

Ederson is in a position that is directly related to the offside player with the ball. Ederson positions his feet and hands in relation to the offside player.

 

[MR1]

Biggest thing here for me is it once again underlines how players, managers, pundits and public (and maybe some refs on here!) just don’t know the law. We all see it every Saturday.

The problem is a lack of understanding, overuse and misuse of the term “interfering with play”. Pundits use it too widely, the old school “if he’s on he pitch he’s interfering” is rolled out and is archaic. As we know, the law makes it clear what interfering is and isn’t.

In my view, In law Rashford can run toward the ball if he wants, doesn’t matter if he “fools” the defender or keeper, it only matters if he plays the ball, attempts to play the ball, or stops the opponent playing the ball.

If you watch live action (not stills) the defender is always a couple of strides behind Rashford, Rashford doesn’t block him or run in to his lane and certainly doesn’t stop him playing the ball because the defender is never close enough to play the ball.

Personally, I don’t even think it’s a bad law as some have suggested. It rewards attacking play, Defenders need to be aware that’s the law and play to it. problem is the Defenders - amazing that they don’t already.

 

[MR1]

Dissecting it a bit ...

We know it can't be interfering with play and it can't be gaining an advantage, which leaves interfering with an opponent. There are four criteria to consider for that, so let's look at those.

Preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision
Looks to me like both chasing defenders can see the ball the whole time, so this cannot apply.

Challenging an opponent for the ball
Definitely hasn't done that

Clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent
He hasn't attempted to play the ball so this is out

Making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
This is the only one that I think could possibly apply, but I don't think Rashford actually impacts either of the defender's ability to play the ball. They weren't close enough at any time to play the ball, and even if you took Rashford out of the picture I am pretty sure Fernandes would have got there first anyway.

It's a law I would have absolutely hated when I was playing in defence, but I just don't think the current law supports giving offside here. I'm assuming that Darren Cann though Rashford had touched the ball, once Stuart Attwell tells him he didn't they give the goal. Pretty sure there has been no VAR involvement.

This is spot on analysis. Although I like the law!

 

[bloovee]

Biggest thing here for me is it once again underlines how players, managers, pundits and public (and maybe some refs on here!) just don’t know the law. We all see it every Saturday.

The problem is a lack of understanding, overuse and misuse of the term “interfering with play”. Pundits use it too widely, the old school “if he’s on he pitch he’s interfering” is rolled out and is archaic. As we know, the law makes it clear what interfering is and isn’t.

In my view, In law Rashford can run toward the ball if he wants, doesn’t matter if he “fools” the defender or keeper, it only matters if he plays the ball, attempts to play the ball, or stops the opponent playing the ball.

If you watch live action (not stills) the defender is always a couple of strides behind Rashford, Rashford doesn’t block him or run in to his lane and certainly doesn’t stop him playing the ball because the defender is never close enough to play the ball.

Personally, I don’t even think it’s a bad law as some have suggested. It rewards attacking play, Defenders need to be aware that’s the law and play to it. problem is the Defenders - amazing that they don’t already.

Was that what the lawmakers intended? That a player who knows he's offside can do what he likes to "fool" opponents?

And that includes the GK. I've not seen the full move with Ederson in shot, but I'm guessing he was near the edge of his PA when the pass was made and, but for Rashford chasing the ball, he'd easily have cleared it while Fernandes ran 30 yards to strike it.

 

[deusex]

Biggest thing here for me is it once again underlines how players, managers, pundits and public (and maybe some refs on here!) just don’t know the law. We all see it every Saturday.

The problem is a lack of understanding, overuse and misuse of the term “interfering with play”. Pundits use it too widely, the old school “if he’s on he pitch he’s interfering” is rolled out and is archaic. As we know, the law makes it clear what interfering is and isn’t.

In my view, In law Rashford can run toward the ball if he wants, doesn’t matter if he “fools” the defender or keeper, it only matters if he plays the ball, attempts to play the ball, or stops the opponent playing the ball.

If you watch live action (not stills) the defender is always a couple of strides behind Rashford, Rashford doesn’t block him or run in to his lane and certainly doesn’t stop him playing the ball because the defender is never close enough to play the ball.

Personally, I don’t even think it’s a bad law as some have suggested. It rewards attacking play, Defenders need to be aware that’s the law and play to it. problem is the Defenders - amazing that they don’t already.

To pretend this is a clear onisde is foolish

Biggest thing here for me is it once again underlines how players, managers, pundits and public (and maybe some refs on here!) just don’t know the law. We all see it every Saturday.

The problem is a lack of understanding, overuse and misuse of the term “interfering with play”. Pundits use it too widely, the old school “if he’s on he pitch he’s interfering” is rolled out and is archaic. As we know, the law makes it clear what interfering is and isn’t.

In my view, In law Rashford can run toward the ball if he wants, doesn’t matter if he “fools” the defender or keeper, it only matters if he plays the ball, attempts to play the ball, or stops the opponent playing the ball.

If you watch live action (not stills) the defender is always a couple of strides behind Rashford, Rashford doesn’t block him or run in to his lane and certainly doesn’t stop him playing the ball because the defender is never close enough to play the ball.

Personally, I don’t even think it’s a bad law as some have suggested. It rewards attacking play, Defenders need to be aware that’s the law and play to it. problem is the Defenders - amazing that they don’t already.

Biggest thing for me is refs thinking all other refs are wrong because they don't agree with them.
If you don't think Rashford is blocking the defender that's fine, don't pretend there isn't even a conversation to be had.

 

[Will_A]

Absolute abomination of a law. They don't score if he's not offside. Simple. Fa are a joke

What have the FA got to do with LOTG?
In law the goal is absolutely fine. Whilst the law might not be perfect it’s not really something the FA can change.

 

[MR1]

Was that what the lawmakers intended? That a player who knows he's offside can do what he likes to "fool" opponents?

And that includes the GK. I've not seen the full move with Ederson in shot, but I'm guessing he was near the edge of his PA when the pass was made and, but for Rashford chasing the ball, he'd easily have cleared it while Fernandes ran 30 yards to strike it.

I’m not sure it’s our job to determine or apply what the law makers intent was, we just apply the law. If we worried about intent, do you think the law makers originally intended to catch attackers offside by an inch? I doubt it, so we are past that.

As for the keeper, same applies, learn the laws.

 

[RefIADad]

Dissecting it a bit ...


Making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
This is the only one that I think could possibly apply, but I don't think Rashford actually impacts either of the defender's ability to play the ball. They weren't close enough at any time to play the ball, and even if you took Rashford out of the picture I am pretty sure Fernandes would have got there first anyway.

It's a law I would have absolutely hated when I was playing in defence, but I just don't think the current law supports giving offside here. I'm assuming that Darren Cann though Rashford had touched the ball, once Stuart Attwell tells him he didn't they give the goal. Pretty sure there has been no VAR involvement.

Overall, this was a very reasonable and nuanced analysis. Certainly a judgment call, but I don't see how we can interpret this last point as onside given what Ederson has to deal with here.

Rashford's actions have to be accounted for. It's a 2 v. the keeper situation, so Ederson has to account for Rashford. If Rashford gives himself up, then Ederson has a much better chance to get to the ball. But Rashford is in playing distance of the ball and (at least) starting actions that the keeper has to account for.

I can see the side of calling this onside, but I just can't bring myself to interpret what Rashford is doing as anything other than impacting the ability of Ederson to play the ball because Ederson has to take Rashford's actions into account. I'm all in favor of benefit of the doubt going to the attackers in a lot of situations, but this to me meets the criteria for offside in the point I quoted.

 

[MR1]

To pretend this is a clear onisde is foolish


Biggest thing for me is refs thinking all other refs are wrong because they don't agree with them.
If you don't think Rashford is blocking the defender that's fine, don't pretend there isn't even a conversation to be had.

Biggest thing for me is when one referee thinks because he disagrees with anothers opinion they call them “foolish”. Bless lol.

 

[socal lurker]

Was that what the lawmakers intended? That a player who knows he's offside can do what he likes to "fool" opponents?

Well, no, he can’t “do what he likes“ to fool opponents. He cannot attempt to play the ball or make an obvious action that clearly impacts the ability of an opponent to play the ball. If he didn’t quite do either of those, and he didn’t quite get in the way of the opponent. This is a quirky play where he almost interferes in multiple ways.

I can live with this being on or off. I do think it is clear under current law it is on--just barely. I do fear that trying to find a tweak that makes this off is likely to do more harm than good.

 

[bloovee]

I’m not sure it’s our job to determine or apply what the law makers intent was, we just apply the law. If we worried about intent, do you think the law makers originally intended to catch attackers offside by an inch? I doubt it, so we are past that.

As for the keeper, same applies, learn the laws.

"I'm the keeper. I know the law. If I was sure Rashford was offside I'd have taken him out with the ball."

 

[socal lurker]

Overall, this was a very reasonable and nuanced analysis. Certainly a judgment call, but I don't see how we can interpret this last point as onside given what Ederson has to deal with here.

Rashford's actions have to be accounted for. It's a 2 v. the keeper situation, so Ederson has to account for Rashford. If Rashford gives himself up, then Ederson has a much better chance to get to the ball. But Rashford is in playing distance of the ball and (at least) starting actions that the keeper has to account for.

I can see the side of calling this onside, but I just can't bring myself to interpret what Rashford is doing as anything other than impacting the ability of Ederson to play the ball because Ederson has to take Rashford's actions into account. I'm all in favor of benefit of the doubt going to the attackers in a lot of situations, but this to me meets the criteria for offside in the point I quoted.

from this perspective, it isn’t much different from a 3 on 2 where the attacker on one side is off and the attacker on the other side is on. The defense is disadvantaged by worrying about the OS attacker, but when the ball goes to the onside attacker, we don’t care about that impact the OSP player had. It’s imperfect. But it’s better than the days when any OSP attacker was called off unless they stopped playing.

 

[MR1]

Well, no, he can’t “do what he likes“ to fool opponents. He cannot attempt to play the ball or make an obvious action that clearly impacts the ability of an opponent to play the ball. If he didn’t quite do either of those, and he didn’t quite get in the way of the opponent. This is a quirky play where he almost interferes in multiple ways.

I can live with this being on or off. I do think it is clear under current law it is on--just barely. I do fear that trying to find a tweak that makes this off is likely to do more harm than good.

Good point, you’re correct he can’t do what he likes, that was poorly articulated. I suppose I meant, he could do what he wants, as long as it doesn’t infringe the laws in this area.

 

[RefIADad]

from this perspective, it isn’t much different from a 3 on 2 where the attacker on one side is off and the attacker on the other side is on. The defense is disadvantaged by worrying about the OS attacker, but when the ball goes to the onside attacker, we don’t care about that impact the OSP player had. It’s imperfect. But it’s better than the days when any OSP attacker was called off unless they stopped playing.

And this is a good point. I can't really argue this one. But for me, there's a pretty big difference between the 3 on 2 that you mention and a player right over the ball starting to draw his leg back like he's going to shoot. I'm honestly trying to tell myself that this should be onside. I showed the clip to my son (a certified referee and a central attacking midfield - so I was expecting him to say onside), and with one look he said offside. I just can't find a way that this doesn't meet that point @RustyRef made.

The amount of debate on both sides of this shows how there's a lot of gray area here. I can't clearly say that those arguing for onside are incorrect. For me, I just don't think a play like this is what was in mind when saying an attacker wasn't actively involved in a play.

 

[MR1]

from this perspective, it isn’t much different from a 3 on 2 where the attacker on one side is off and the attacker on the other side is on. The defense is disadvantaged by worrying about the OS attacker, but when the ball goes to the onside attacker, we don’t care about that impact the OSP player had. It’s imperfect. But it’s better than the days when any OSP attacker was called off unless they stopped playing.

Totally agree. Seen a couple of comments here about gaining an advantage, but the current law doesn’t really care bout that.