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.