Manchester City vs. Manchester United - Offside or Not?
- Thread starter BAFRA #77
- Start date
- Status
I see the main thread has been locked.
Pity - this might be relevant! Especially where the "goalkeeper needs to delay his action to wait and see if the attacking player in an offside position touches/plays the ball"...
The iIlustrations are all within the PA but that phrase obviously applies to Ederson on Saturday, and the illustrations for not attempting to play the ball all show players deliberately trying to avoid the ball...
Pity - this might be relevant! Especially where the "goalkeeper needs to delay his action to wait and see if the attacking player in an offside position touches/plays the ball"...
The iIlustrations are all within the PA but that phrase obviously applies to Ederson on Saturday, and the illustrations for not attempting to play the ball all show players deliberately trying to avoid the ball...
ChasObserverRefDeveloper
Regular Contributor
IFAB advice from 2015(?)
ladbroke8745
RefChat Addict
Saw an image on social media where they've removed Rashford from the stills and shows how close the defender actually was compared to Fernandes.
Thing is, the defender closest to Rashford slows down. Stupid yes, play to whistle etc, but if Rashford wasn't there I imagine he would've got there first and/or shielded it for Ederson who we know is a sweeper keeper and likely to come out and clear himself. But because Rashford was closer to the ball, Ederson stayed around the penalty spot anticipating Rashford to do something.
Maybe the defender also had it in his head that if he does challenge Rashford (whether known he was off or not) and it goes wrong it is a sending off and doesn't get tangled up.
No one knows what's going through players minds and why they do things or not, but personally, despite me saying good goal as per law, I do think Rashfords positioning and role in the goal does affect how both the defender and Ederson play this out.
Thing is, the defender closest to Rashford slows down. Stupid yes, play to whistle etc, but if Rashford wasn't there I imagine he would've got there first and/or shielded it for Ederson who we know is a sweeper keeper and likely to come out and clear himself. But because Rashford was closer to the ball, Ederson stayed around the penalty spot anticipating Rashford to do something.
Maybe the defender also had it in his head that if he does challenge Rashford (whether known he was off or not) and it goes wrong it is a sending off and doesn't get tangled up.
No one knows what's going through players minds and why they do things or not, but personally, despite me saying good goal as per law, I do think Rashfords positioning and role in the goal does affect how both the defender and Ederson play this out.
Last edited:
Circular 3. It was then moved into law in the following iteration 2016-17.
Think it is stretching it to say that it applies to this scenario myself.
And if it is supposed to mean what 29% of people believe then I am sure our friends from Switzerland will clarify for us soon enough
ladbroke8745
RefChat Addict
one
RefChat Addict
There was a bit of sarcasm in my post
ladbroke8745
RefChat Addict
And has anything changed in how a GK might be impacted, or in the way a player can show they are not interfering?
I missed it but apparently Akanji has said they'd had a refs' briefing at the start of the season so it would be interesting to see or hear what was said.
Well, PGMOL doing its own thing would be nothing new.
At least I've found that old circular to go round in circles about!
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
Not quite sure what you're referring to there. There's nothing in IFAB Circular 3 about a goalkeeper needing to delay his action ... etc.
Nor was there anything to that effect in the laws in 2016/17.
Last edited:
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?
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"
This is so misleading though because the ball is moving at speed towards the goalscorer and away from the defender so whilst the defender looks the closest on the still image, there is no gurantee the defender would of still made it to the ball first if Rashford was not there.
Reading some of the pundit views, they are clearly leaning more towards the spirit of the game rather than the letter of the law which suggests this is a legitimate goal.
We also don't know the conversation between Attwell and Cann, it could of been as simple as Cann thought Rashford touched the ball and even though the ref was further away saw and was sure he did not touch the ball.
- Status