The Football.....

[Alex321]

The linesman called it correctly, nothing to do with not keeping up with play. He was overrruled by the ref, who decided, incomprehensibly, that Rashford was not interfering with play.

Rashford was interfering, running with the ball at his feet. Both defenders and keeper had to change how they responded to Bruno because of the presence of Rashford.

If Rashford stopped, no problem.

He was offside. The rules don't need to change. The ref was just completely wrong.

That is your interpretation, my interpretation, and almost any rational person's interpretation of how "interfering with play" should work.

But according to current FA rules, it isn't how it does work.

"A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:

• interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or
• interfering with an opponent by:
  • preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
  • challenging an opponent for the ball or
  • clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
  • making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

or

• gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when it has:
  • rebounded or been deflected off the goalpost, crossbar or an opponent
  • been deliberately saved by any opponent"

 

[Grant Fondo]

Walker's not stopped tracking Bruno though, just caught for pace/position?

 

[roubaixtuesday]

Anyone who wishes to continue to justify this farcical decision is welcome to do so; you will, alas, need to do that without further pearls of wisdom from myself. There's only so much flogging the necrotic equine can take.

 

[jowwy]

Walker's not stopped tracking Bruno though, just caught for pace/position?
View attachment 674634

The ball is within rashfords stride pattern, how can that not be interfering with play. Hes running with the ball at his feet for god sake.

What if walker gets back and goes straight through him, braking rashfords leg and ending his career. Will the ref say “ hey thats ok, rashford wasnt stopping him challenging for the ball”……the flag should go up, the moment he starts running with the ball, whether he touches it or not

 

[Grant Fondo]

Hes running with the ball at his feet for god sake.

He's also running next to a sweet Casemiro through-ball before Bruno expertly tonks it in the back of the net. It was quick thinking, and I'm glad the ref appreciated that

 

[Slick]

And not a penalty given neither

Fear not, I've penned an extremely strongly worded email to my MP. I'm confident normal service will be resumed in time for the final.

 

[jowwy]

He's also running next to a sweet Casemiro through-ball before Bruno expertly tonks it in the back of the net. It was quick thinking, and I'm glad the ref appreciated that

No, in your first pic, it shows him running with it, not next to it….. i know your a united fan, but seriously, is that how low utd fans and the team have dropped to get a win.

 

[Grant Fondo]

 

[Alex321]

Anyone who wishes to continue to justify this farcical decision is welcome to do so; you will, alas, need to do that without further pearls of wisdom from myself. There's only so much flogging the necrotic equine can take.

Very few are trying to justify it.

Just pointing out that technically, according to the ridiculous definition the FA currently have for "interfering with play", it was not incorrect.

Morally, it was completely incorrect and unjustifiable, and I absolutely think that definition is badly flawed. Hopefully, they might re-think that definition in light of this type of decision.

 

[T4tomo]

interfering with an opponent by:

• preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
• challenging an opponent for the ball or
• clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
• making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

argument for both of these to apply, especially the latter

 

[Dave7]

Right @jowwy what is going to happen tonight.
Not sure if its Mr Klopp to blame but we have totally lost our way at the back. Teams are just slicing through us.
Big game this imo.

 

[Alex321]

argument for both of these to apply, especially the latter

Sorry, but there is no argument for the latter at all. He did not attempt to play the ball, never mind "clearly". He made it look like he was going to, which is not the same thing (probably should be IMO).

The former is more arguable, but I don't think he really obstructed any other player's view, nor blocked them from reaching the ball.

To any normal definition, he was definitely interfering with play, because what he did caused opponents to alter their actions. But unfortunately, that is not included in the crazy definition the FA have.

I don't agree wit the decision at all, but technically, I think it was probably just about correct, certainly not incorrect enough for VAR to overturn it.

And AIUI, the ref made the decision after asking the assistant who it was he was flagging offside, and gave the goal because he had seen that Rashford didn't touch it. VAR only then got involved (as they always do when a goal is scored) and couldn't see anything sufficiently incorrect to be overturned.

There were a few decisions in different games over the weekend where VAR got involved and didn't overturn decisions, where I think if the decision had gone the other way they still wouldn't have overturned it, and this may be one of those.

 

[Grant Fondo]

I don't agree wit the decision at all, but technically, I think it was probably just about correct, certainly not incorrect enough for VAR to overturn it.

That's a fair assessment.

 

[jowwy]

Right @jowwy what is going to happen tonight.
Not sure if its Mr Klopp to blame but we have totally lost our way at the back. Teams are just slicing through us.
Big game this imo.

Im not feeling that optimistic to be honest. But lets see what team he picks, i dont blame klopp one bit, he uses the players he has and those players this season, cant currently do what hes asking…for a few reasons age and injuries being the major issues.

But for me klopp stays and the players go, not the other way round. He has for me got a few seasons grace due to what he has done for the club in the past 5 seasons and i think FSG feel the same way.

 

[jowwy]

argument for both of these to apply, especially the latter

Totally agree….as far as im concerned, the moment he started running with the ball, he became active and offside, whether he touched it or not, his actions gained utd an advantage and that advantage should have been quashed by an immediate raising of the flag the moment he ran with the ball.

This is my opinion, i dont require or need anyone elses……..as according to the referees it was a subjective decision and not an absolute. But according to those same referees, offsides cant be subjective, its off or on, nothing inbetween….until this happens, then they have an excuse to be subjective.