So who made the clear and obvious error? Mr Cann or Mr Atwell?
Manchester City vs. Manchester United - Offside or Not?
- Thread starter BAFRA #77
- Start date
- Status
It's still subjective whether it's a deliberate play or a deflection, even with guidance on how to decide which it was.
Libano Ref
New Member
one
RefChat Addict
I think IFAB thinks this scenario is covered in the last two points of interfering with an opponent. If this was to be offside it would have to be IWAO (new acronym from me
). That list is not open ended, by definition all actions are covered and only those from the list are offside. Saying it's not covered is like saying nut megging an opponent is not covered in law. Whether this is offside or not depends on your interpretation of the last two points. IMO the OP actions do not satisfy either of them.
While I'm here, two other points. Did anyone else notice the BF ran more than 25 yards to score while each of the defenders ran less than 15. For me they were too slow because they expected Rashford to play the ball and as he was so obviously in an offside position game would have been stopped if he did. By the time they realised BF is getting there too it was too late.
Also, I am not so sure if the AR thought is was actually an offence. As and AR, I would raise the flag even if I don't think it's an offence. Then call the ref over and say IMO this was not (or was) an offence but while he didn't play the ball, Rashford was in an offside position. There was a conversation but we don't know what it was.
I think where there is no other communication device this is the correct procedure.
However, raising the flag also raises the expectation that the goal will be disallowed.
With Comms this can be discussed more discreetly and on buzzers a buzz indicates to ref there needs to be a chat before a final decision is made and communicated
The stills don't show the speed at which the ball is moving - which by the way at the point in which it's taken is faster than Ajanki is (i.e. the ball is moving away from him). Something many people seem to be forgetting
Helps to read whole sentences rather than just stopping part way. For example: "You don't get to bold a word and then make up what you think the definition of it is." is a full sentence and needs to be read as such. Otherwise, you might end up with the ridiculous idea that I've taken issue with the use of bold...
I'd also suggest applying the same approach to the offside law. If you read the whole section on interference rather than just stopping at "by", you'll find out what the LOTG means by interference and why this isn't it.
Is it my imagination, or are people deliberately not addressing the IFAB additional guidance I posted?
https://thirdblindmouse.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/ifab-law-11-illustrations.pdf
1. Does that "additional guidance" still apply to interpretation of the two bullet points? (If not, why not?)
2. ‘clearly attempts’ –"this wording is designed to prevent a player in an offside position who runs towards the ball from quite a long distance being penalised (unless he gets close to the ball)" - Rashford did get close to the ball so could be penalised.
3. ‘impact’ applies to an opponent’s ability (or potential) to play the ball and will include situations where an opponent’s movement to play the ball is delayed, hindered or prevented by the offside player - "delayed" includes (see illustrations) where the "goalkeeper needs to delay his action to wait and see if the attacking player in an offside position touches/plays the ball"; Ederson delayed running out of the PA to clear the ball so was impacted by Rashford's actions (I'm ignoring whether Akanji might have got in a challenge - Ederson would easily have got to that ball if he'd not been delaying because of Rashford's actions).
https://thirdblindmouse.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/ifab-law-11-illustrations.pdf
1. Does that "additional guidance" still apply to interpretation of the two bullet points? (If not, why not?)
2. ‘clearly attempts’ –"this wording is designed to prevent a player in an offside position who runs towards the ball from quite a long distance being penalised (unless he gets close to the ball)" - Rashford did get close to the ball so could be penalised.
3. ‘impact’ applies to an opponent’s ability (or potential) to play the ball and will include situations where an opponent’s movement to play the ball is delayed, hindered or prevented by the offside player - "delayed" includes (see illustrations) where the "goalkeeper needs to delay his action to wait and see if the attacking player in an offside position touches/plays the ball"; Ederson delayed running out of the PA to clear the ball so was impacted by Rashford's actions (I'm ignoring whether Akanji might have got in a challenge - Ederson would easily have got to that ball if he'd not been delaying because of Rashford's actions).
one
RefChat Addict
This is a difficult situation with or without comms. While no flag makes sense when the goal is eventually allowed, it make thing more difficult if it is disallowed. Think of the reverse, if no flag is raised the expectation is for the goal to be allowed. If R eventually decides to disallow the goal, that makes for a difficult sell.
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
If, as you describe, the GK moved into a position where it was harder to stop a shot from Fernandez, then yes, it was poor from the GK. TBH the position was fantastic for Fernandez - central, on his right foot to curl one from outside the post into the corner - so I think any GK would struggle here.
Similarly, the defenders could have acted differently. Walker was beaten over 30 (?) yards by Fernandez. Akanji didn’t get close to Rashford who wasn’t flat out.
The goal has been scored, the match lost, and yes, the title race is going to be interesting.
By all means, petition IFAB for a change in the laws. But I think you should move on. And you could consider that the officials may not have actually made a mistake here, but the players in blue may have.
The elements of an offside offence relevant to this case are simple and can be summarised below.
1a. Was the ball close to Rashford?
1b. Did Rashford clearly attempt to play the ball?
1c. If so, did this act impact on an opponent?
If the answer is yes to all of the above questions, an offside offence is committed.
Alternatively:
2a. Did Rashford make an obvious action?
2b. Did this act impact on an opponent's ability to play the ball?
If the answer is yes to questions 2a and 2b, an offside offence is committed.
1a. Was the ball close to Rashford?
This is an easy one to answer: yes, the ball was close to Rashford.
1b. Did Rashford clearly attempt to play the ball?
This question is a little more tricky. In my view, Rashford is running alongside the ball with the intention of playing the ball but makes no actual attempt to play the ball. That is to say, he does not swing his leg towards the ball in order to play the ball; throughout, Rashford is content to let the ball travel by itself as he runs with it. The ball is already going where Rashford wants it to go and he has no desire to alter it's direction or speed. At one point, Rashford pulls his leg back as if to shoot but he decides to leave it for his teammate Bruno Fernandes. In my view, this is not an attempt to play the ball.
The following text from Law 11 is sort of relevant:
"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"
This highlights a difference in law between an intention and an attempt to play the ball. A player can intend to play the ball without attempting to. In my view, this is what Rashford does. Accordingly, I do not believe this element of an offside offence is satisfied.
1c. If so, did this act impact on an opponent?
Without the previous element being satisfied, this element is immaterial but yes - if Rashford is considered to have clearly attempted to play the ball, the act did impact an opponent - in fact several opponents alter their speed and position.
I will now move on to the alternative.
2a. Did Rashford make an obvious action?
Rashford runs alongside the ball for several seconds almost touching the ball; he is in effect dribbling the ball without touching it. He then pulls his leg back as if to shoot but leaves the ball for his teammate. If this isn't an obvious action, then what is? My view is that Rashford's actions are obvious.
2b. Did this act impact on an opponent's ability to play the ball?
This is a different test to question 1c. Instead of being a mere impact on an opponent, the impact must be on an opponent's ability to play the ball.
So, what can impact on a player's ability to play the ball? I have come up with the following "impact factors":
1. Speed, spin and direction of the ball.
2. Physical characteristics of the player e.g. height, strength, speed etc.
3. Skill level of the player.
4. Intelligence of the player.
5. Position of the player in relation to the ball.
All of the above impact on a player's ability to play the ball.
I will focus on the Manchester City goalkeeper Ederson because I think he was the most likely defender to be able to play the ball.
In relation to impact factor 1, Rashford did not affect the speed, spin or direction of the ball; therefore, there was no impact on Ederson's ability to play the ball in this regard.
In relation to impact factors 2, 3 and 4, Rashford did not and could not affect these impact factors. For example, there is no way that Rashford's obvious action altered Ederson's height or intelligence. Ederson's ability to play the ball was not impacted in this regard.
Impact factor 5 is where things get contentious. If Rashford's obvious action altered Ederson's position on the field of play, this would constitute an impact on Ederson's ability to play the ball. And, in my view, Ederson does change his position in reaction to Rashford's obvious actions. Ederson is almost solely focused on Rashford with the ball at his feet; he waits in the penalty area in anticipation of Rashford shooting at goal. If it were not for Rashford's actions, Ederson would have taken a different position on the field of play. He would either have gone to the ball or taken up a different position (even if slightly different) to prepare for Bruno Fernandes's shot.
Accordingly, I believe that Rashford did impact on the ability of an opponent to play the ball. Since elements 2a and 2b are satisfied, an offside is committed.
As i said, it's contentious. If anyone believes that Ederson would have remained in the same position if Rashford did not act as he did, the appropriate decision would be onside - it's a subjective call and we'll never know the correct answer.
1a. Was the ball close to Rashford?
1b. Did Rashford clearly attempt to play the ball?
1c. If so, did this act impact on an opponent?
If the answer is yes to all of the above questions, an offside offence is committed.
Alternatively:
2a. Did Rashford make an obvious action?
2b. Did this act impact on an opponent's ability to play the ball?
If the answer is yes to questions 2a and 2b, an offside offence is committed.
1a. Was the ball close to Rashford?
This is an easy one to answer: yes, the ball was close to Rashford.
1b. Did Rashford clearly attempt to play the ball?
This question is a little more tricky. In my view, Rashford is running alongside the ball with the intention of playing the ball but makes no actual attempt to play the ball. That is to say, he does not swing his leg towards the ball in order to play the ball; throughout, Rashford is content to let the ball travel by itself as he runs with it. The ball is already going where Rashford wants it to go and he has no desire to alter it's direction or speed. At one point, Rashford pulls his leg back as if to shoot but he decides to leave it for his teammate Bruno Fernandes. In my view, this is not an attempt to play the ball.
The following text from Law 11 is sort of relevant:
"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"
This highlights a difference in law between an intention and an attempt to play the ball. A player can intend to play the ball without attempting to. In my view, this is what Rashford does. Accordingly, I do not believe this element of an offside offence is satisfied.
1c. If so, did this act impact on an opponent?
Without the previous element being satisfied, this element is immaterial but yes - if Rashford is considered to have clearly attempted to play the ball, the act did impact an opponent - in fact several opponents alter their speed and position.
I will now move on to the alternative.
2a. Did Rashford make an obvious action?
Rashford runs alongside the ball for several seconds almost touching the ball; he is in effect dribbling the ball without touching it. He then pulls his leg back as if to shoot but leaves the ball for his teammate. If this isn't an obvious action, then what is? My view is that Rashford's actions are obvious.
2b. Did this act impact on an opponent's ability to play the ball?
This is a different test to question 1c. Instead of being a mere impact on an opponent, the impact must be on an opponent's ability to play the ball.
So, what can impact on a player's ability to play the ball? I have come up with the following "impact factors":
1. Speed, spin and direction of the ball.
2. Physical characteristics of the player e.g. height, strength, speed etc.
3. Skill level of the player.
4. Intelligence of the player.
5. Position of the player in relation to the ball.
All of the above impact on a player's ability to play the ball.
I will focus on the Manchester City goalkeeper Ederson because I think he was the most likely defender to be able to play the ball.
In relation to impact factor 1, Rashford did not affect the speed, spin or direction of the ball; therefore, there was no impact on Ederson's ability to play the ball in this regard.
In relation to impact factors 2, 3 and 4, Rashford did not and could not affect these impact factors. For example, there is no way that Rashford's obvious action altered Ederson's height or intelligence. Ederson's ability to play the ball was not impacted in this regard.
Impact factor 5 is where things get contentious. If Rashford's obvious action altered Ederson's position on the field of play, this would constitute an impact on Ederson's ability to play the ball. And, in my view, Ederson does change his position in reaction to Rashford's obvious actions. Ederson is almost solely focused on Rashford with the ball at his feet; he waits in the penalty area in anticipation of Rashford shooting at goal. If it were not for Rashford's actions, Ederson would have taken a different position on the field of play. He would either have gone to the ball or taken up a different position (even if slightly different) to prepare for Bruno Fernandes's shot.
Accordingly, I believe that Rashford did impact on the ability of an opponent to play the ball. Since elements 2a and 2b are satisfied, an offside is committed.
As i said, it's contentious. If anyone believes that Ederson would have remained in the same position if Rashford did not act as he did, the appropriate decision would be onside - it's a subjective call and we'll never know the correct answer.
You are not judging impact on a player's ability to play the ball - you are judging impact on their decision making. Those are different things and both the written law and extensive precedent show us that the former is an offside offence and the latter is not.
this still that's doing the rounds is very misleading. The ball is running away from Akanji, there's no way he's getting there 1st. Walker may have got closer to Bruno if he knew Bruno was the only option to score, but imo that's on Walker for switching off. Ederson however, i believe would have changed his position and potentially closed down more if Rashford isn't there. On that basis i believe it should be offside and the law needs a re-think
See the guidance I quoted - "ability (or potential) to play the ball".
Have you got a precedent anything at all like this, not given offside?
Simply, Ederson would have been able to play the ball if Rashford wasn't making obvious actions in an offside position. Just Rashford's being there meant Ederson couldn't do what he would have been able to do and clear the ball before it got anywhere near Fernandes.
I can't prove something doesn't exist.
The offside law and various circulars that have already been provided to you are designed to result in an exhaustive list of what is considered influencing an opponent. Causing them to make a different decision isn't on the list. Therefore, causing an opponent to make a different decision isn't an offside offence unless you can find a different section of law or circular that explicitly states it should be considered offside. The onus of proof is on your position, not mine.
This is getting tedious. You keep telling me that Ederson made a different decision because of Rashford's presence. You keep being told that isn't part of the law. Then we go round in circles for a bit before you again point out that Ederson made a different decision, as if that's brand new information.
We all know Ederson made a different decision because of Rashford's presence and to some extent, we all accept that might have resulted in a different outcome. So what? That doesn't make it part of law. You're getting distracted by "might have happened" and "law should be", none of which change the fact that the correct decision was reached based on current law.
I'll take "I can't prove something doesn't exist" to mean you don't have any precedents to prove that actions like Rashford's haven't been given offside.
I thought the guidance I quoted did support that it should be offside. Quite clearly, the law is not "explicit" if IFAB thought it needed "useful definitions", one of which is on "impact" - "situations where an opponent’s movement to play the ball is delayed, hindered or prevented by the offside player".
It's not tedious (for me, and you don't have to respond). I started (looking at the replay on someone's phone while City fans were locked in for half an hour after the game) by understanding why it had been allowed (if Rashford didn't touch it). We've since had debate about "letter of the law" versus "spirit of the law". But, unless someone can say why these comments about what the law means are to be ignored, it seems that this is the most explicit guidance there is and it's easier to see why it should have been given offside.
General Principles, to impact the ability of an opponent to play the ball:
the attacking player in an offside position must make an obvious action (the action must be obvious but
does not need to be deliberate) (TICK)
the opponent would usually have a clear view of the attacking player in an offside position (TICK)
the opponent would need to delay his action to wait and see if the attacking player in an offside position
touches/plays the ball (TICK)
the opponent’s movement or ball playing options are clearly restricted by the physical movement and/or
actions of the attacking player in an offside position (TICK - GK's movements are not restricted, but his ball-playing options certainly are)
So far as I know, this guidance is the only official expansion on the extra bullet points in the law. Even under the "clear attempt" bit, the illustrations show players taking action to avoid "attempting to play" - avoid the ball - and that's certainly not what Rashford did.
Anyway, it's small consolation, but the "offside under the laws as they stand vote" is now closer than it was when the poll started, and if any attacker tries what Rashford did during my next game on the line. the flag's going up.
Your final tick is nonsense. As you've now been told multiple times.
Also, bold move to publicly post that you're going to knowingly misapply the law in a future game. I wouldn't have said that if I were you...
Plenty of better refs than you or I have said it, including Dermot Gallagher. I'd hope Mr Cann would too - assuming Mr Gallagher was right that Cann thought it was offside and Mr Attwell overruled his more experienced (World Cup Final) assistant ["He rarely made a bad call" - Howard Webb].
ChasObserverRefDeveloper
Regular Contributor
Hopefully this subject has run its course now, with some for a goal, some for offside, some realising that either can be supported.
The slant and comments you have made are as usual tinged with light blue, so my only comments in these two threads are:
1. Calling the decision a clear and obvious error is inaccurate, based on the comments in this and the original thread
2. Asking which official "made the clear and obvious error" is a silly statement but worth a look at the video. Darren Cann flagged because he was unsure whether Rashford was actively involved and when the United players rushed at him he calmly told them to wait.
Each official had 50% of the information needed to arrive at a decision (rather like offside issues with a player in front of the goalkeeper) and did so.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
In the US, the teaching is that the flag should only be raised if the AR concludes there was an offense. If the AR has information the R needs before deciding if the goal is good, the AR is supposed to stand still and make eye contact. So if the R doesn’t see the AR running up the line after the goal is scored, the R knows he needs to talk to the AR. I had always assumed that was a global protocol, it doesn’t look like that is actually in the magic book. It does save the flag up and then the goal being awarded scenario.
- Status