| Non QPR 11:12 - Jan 15 with 3941 views | loftboy |
How was Rashford not interfering with play for their first goal yesterday? |  |
| |  |
| Non QPR on 11:18 - Jan 15 with 2837 views | stevec |
Well he’s done an awful lot of good work in the community. |  | | |
| Non QPR on 11:22 - Jan 15 with 2829 views | Superhoop83 |
Insane decision.
The ball was played to Rashford and he escorted the ball to the edge of the area until Fernandes arrived to shoot. Until that moment he was "clearly attempting to play a ball which is close" and his action impacted on the defenders, in my opinion anyway. |  |
| |
| Non QPR on 11:24 - Jan 15 with 2810 views | OldPedro |
Because he plays for Man Utd at Old Trafford and the new head of ref's is Howard Webb......... |  |
| Extra mature cheddar......a simple cheese for a simple man |
| |
| Non QPR on 11:33 - Jan 15 with 2789 views | Rangersw12 |
Law needs to be changed imo |  | | |
| Non QPR on 11:56 - Jan 15 with 2752 views | WokingR |
| Non QPR on 11:33 - Jan 15 by Rangersw12 |
Law needs to be changed imo |
Except in this case he didn’t just “run towards the ball”
He pretty much shielded it under close control all the way until Fernandes took it off his toe.
Ludicrous decision |  | | |
| Non QPR on 12:03 - Jan 15 with 2729 views | PinnerPaul |
| Non QPR on 11:24 - Jan 15 by OldPedro |
Because he plays for Man Utd at Old Trafford and the new head of ref's is Howard Webb......... |
...who comes from Yorkshire and is a life long Rotherham fan. | | | |
| Non QPR on 12:13 - Jan 15 with 2698 views | PinnerPaul |
Everyone (non refs) expects this to be called offside, but as per letter of the law its not.
The 'possible' reasons for disallowing it are
a) Clearly attempting to play the ball which is close to him and impacts a defender
b) Makes an obvious action that affects the ability of an opponent to play the ball
I think a) doesn't fit because he didn't attempt to play the ball.
I think you could disallow it based on b) though - its arguable.
As I've said before the confusion arises from quoting random parts of the law without quoting the relevant definition.
Here "interfering with play" has specific meanings in the LOTG which are quite different to the English language - its not easy! | | | |
| Non QPR on 12:33 - Jan 15 with 2666 views | loftboy |
| Non QPR on 12:13 - Jan 15 by PinnerPaul |
Everyone (non refs) expects this to be called offside, but as per letter of the law its not.
The 'possible' reasons for disallowing it are
a) Clearly attempting to play the ball which is close to him and impacts a defender
b) Makes an obvious action that affects the ability of an opponent to play the ball
I think a) doesn't fit because he didn't attempt to play the ball.
I think you could disallow it based on b) though - its arguable.
As I've said before the confusion arises from quoting random parts of the law without quoting the relevant definition.
Here "interfering with play" has specific meanings in the LOTG which are quite different to the English language - its not easy! |
But as said on MOTd the central defender stepped up to play him offside, he had a direct influence on the goal whilst being in an offside position. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Non QPR on 12:43 - Jan 15 with 2634 views | PinnerPaul |
| Non QPR on 12:33 - Jan 15 by loftboy |
But as said on MOTd the central defender stepped up to play him offside, he had a direct influence on the goal whilst being in an offside position. |
But again, just because a defender has 'allowed' a forward to go into an offside position, doesn't automatically mean he is offside. | | | |
| Non QPR on 12:51 - Jan 15 with 2620 views | stanistheman |
| Non QPR on 11:56 - Jan 15 by WokingR |
Except in this case he didn’t just “run towards the ball”
He pretty much shielded it under close control all the way until Fernandes took it off his toe.
Ludicrous decision |
Absolutely interfered with play and a ludicrous decision. The ref should have been directed to view it on the screen by the VAR.
I have seen goals scored but disallowed because an attacker was ruled to interfere with the keeper’s line of vision yet Rashford was clearly doing similar as Ederson came out to narrow his angle only for Fernandes to shoot instead. How was that not intefering with play? | | | |
| Non QPR on 12:52 - Jan 15 with 2618 views | loftboy |
| Non QPR on 12:43 - Jan 15 by PinnerPaul |
But again, just because a defender has 'allowed' a forward to go into an offside position, doesn't automatically mean he is offside. |
My gut feeling is that without VAR he would have been flagged offside. This is clearly gamesmanship and goes against the ethos of sportsmanship. IMHO of course. | |
| |
| Non QPR on 13:31 - Jan 15 with 2544 views | DavieQPR |
It's when the VAR decision flashes up ' Whatever Man Utd want' that worries me. |  | | |
| Non QPR on 13:37 - Jan 15 with 2508 views | gazza1 |
| Non QPR on 12:13 - Jan 15 by PinnerPaul |
Everyone (non refs) expects this to be called offside, but as per letter of the law its not.
The 'possible' reasons for disallowing it are
a) Clearly attempting to play the ball which is close to him and impacts a defender
b) Makes an obvious action that affects the ability of an opponent to play the ball
I think a) doesn't fit because he didn't attempt to play the ball.
I think you could disallow it based on b) though - its arguable.
As I've said before the confusion arises from quoting random parts of the law without quoting the relevant definition.
Here "interfering with play" has specific meanings in the LOTG which are quite different to the English language - its not easy! |
Shocking decision by the Officials - end of!!!! | | | |
| Non QPR on 13:39 - Jan 15 with 2508 views | Northernr |
| Non QPR on 12:13 - Jan 15 by PinnerPaul |
Everyone (non refs) expects this to be called offside, but as per letter of the law its not.
The 'possible' reasons for disallowing it are
a) Clearly attempting to play the ball which is close to him and impacts a defender
b) Makes an obvious action that affects the ability of an opponent to play the ball
I think a) doesn't fit because he didn't attempt to play the ball.
I think you could disallow it based on b) though - its arguable.
As I've said before the confusion arises from quoting random parts of the law without quoting the relevant definition.
Here "interfering with play" has specific meanings in the LOTG which are quite different to the English language - its not easy! |
It's easier than they're making it atm. That is obviously, obviously offside. |  | | |
| Non QPR on 13:58 - Jan 15 with 2459 views | stevec |
How does the law stand on this..
Player in clear offside position goes on to play the ball or influence the game, is going to eventually be flagged offside but not yet. A defender realising this decides to go straight through the attacker, breaks the forwards leg.
At this point the move has ended, the attacker is now flagged offside.
Does this mean the free kick is awarded to the defending team, the attacker is stretchered off, and the defender goes unpunished?
I’m amazed this hasn’t already happened. | | | |
| Non QPR on 14:10 - Jan 15 with 2429 views | PlanetHonneywood |
| Non QPR on 12:13 - Jan 15 by PinnerPaul |
Everyone (non refs) expects this to be called offside, but as per letter of the law its not.
The 'possible' reasons for disallowing it are
a) Clearly attempting to play the ball which is close to him and impacts a defender
b) Makes an obvious action that affects the ability of an opponent to play the ball
I think a) doesn't fit because he didn't attempt to play the ball.
I think you could disallow it based on b) though - its arguable.
As I've said before the confusion arises from quoting random parts of the law without quoting the relevant definition.
Here "interfering with play" has specific meanings in the LOTG which are quite different to the English language - its not easy! |
Thought it was a goal myself. Didn't think a City defender was close enough to either United player but more specifically, the Lord Rashford of Wythenshawe, to have blocked their ability to either put a challenge in on BF and/or get to the ball first.
Simple fact: City's defending for both goals was poor and having gone one-up, they threw it away pouncing around as opposed to getting a second goal and killing it off. Which they should and could have done. |  |
| |
| Non QPR on 14:14 - Jan 15 with 2411 views | Northernr |
| Non QPR on 13:58 - Jan 15 by stevec |
How does the law stand on this..
Player in clear offside position goes on to play the ball or influence the game, is going to eventually be flagged offside but not yet. A defender realising this decides to go straight through the attacker, breaks the forwards leg.
At this point the move has ended, the attacker is now flagged offside.
Does this mean the free kick is awarded to the defending team, the attacker is stretchered off, and the defender goes unpunished?
I’m amazed this hasn’t already happened. |
I think, Paul will correct me, that's a free kick for offside but still a card of whatever appropriate colour for the challenge.
If the ball went off for a throw in and you punched the guy who was about to take it it would still be a throw in, but also a red card. | | | |
| Non QPR on 14:22 - Jan 15 with 2387 views | Boston |
| Non QPR on 12:03 - Jan 15 by PinnerPaul |
...who comes from Yorkshire and is a life long Rotherham fan. |
We all have our crosses to bear. | |
| |
| Non QPR on 14:26 - Jan 15 with 2377 views | Boston |
| Non QPR on 12:13 - Jan 15 by PinnerPaul |
Everyone (non refs) expects this to be called offside, but as per letter of the law its not.
The 'possible' reasons for disallowing it are
a) Clearly attempting to play the ball which is close to him and impacts a defender
b) Makes an obvious action that affects the ability of an opponent to play the ball
I think a) doesn't fit because he didn't attempt to play the ball.
I think you could disallow it based on b) though - its arguable.
As I've said before the confusion arises from quoting random parts of the law without quoting the relevant definition.
Here "interfering with play" has specific meanings in the LOTG which are quite different to the English language - its not easy! |
Well Ref's should learn how to speak English then. | |
| |
| Non QPR on 15:06 - Jan 15 with 2304 views | terryb |
I suspect that by the written laws of the game the referee was correct to award the goal, BUT it certainly felt wrong & not what was intended when the law was written.
At least Shaw had the honesty to say that they would have felt & reacted as the City players if it had been scored against them. | | | |
| Non QPR on 15:17 - Jan 15 with 2283 views | Antti_Heinola |
| Non QPR on 12:13 - Jan 15 by PinnerPaul |
Everyone (non refs) expects this to be called offside, but as per letter of the law its not.
The 'possible' reasons for disallowing it are
a) Clearly attempting to play the ball which is close to him and impacts a defender
b) Makes an obvious action that affects the ability of an opponent to play the ball
I think a) doesn't fit because he didn't attempt to play the ball.
I think you could disallow it based on b) though - its arguable.
As I've said before the confusion arises from quoting random parts of the law without quoting the relevant definition.
Here "interfering with play" has specific meanings in the LOTG which are quite different to the English language - its not easy! |
Hasn't been said much, but in regards to (b) I think the person most affected was Ederson. He would have been out much quicker to that had Rashford not been there, and in replays, if you watch, his eyes are on the ball and on Rashford, and only at Fernandes as Fernandes actually hits it. He's very obviously been affected in a similar way an offside player standing in front of a keeper afftects them.
Usually, I'm pro any decision that benefits the attacker. The offside rule is there to stop the game becoming a farce, without it, football wouldn't work. It should never really about a toenail being offside or someone genuinely not interfering being penalised. With marginal calls against us, I'm never too bothered. Would rather that than what we have now, which is goals being disallowed because an armpit is offside. |  |
| |
| Non QPR on 16:31 - Jan 15 with 2181 views | PinnerPaul |
| Non QPR on 14:14 - Jan 15 by Northernr |
I think, Paul will correct me, that's a free kick for offside but still a card of whatever appropriate colour for the challenge.
If the ball went off for a throw in and you punched the guy who was about to take it it would still be a throw in, but also a red card. |
VC - Spot on.
Foul play, not so sure. There was penalty given yesterday after a foul challenge, but offside occurred so obviously foul challenge nullified.
If a genuine attempt for the ball type challenge don't think a card would be issued.
As for the Man Utd goal, its clearly not a black and white decision - pages and pages on Ref Chat with many thinking its offside, so, for once!, I'm not being dogmatic on this one! | | | |
| Non QPR on 16:32 - Jan 15 with 2177 views | PinnerPaul |
| Non QPR on 14:26 - Jan 15 by Boston |
Well Ref's should learn how to speak English then. |
IFAB should, if we're being pedantic.
Bit like saying policemen should write the law!  | | | |
| Non QPR on 16:54 - Jan 15 with 2143 views | Juzzie |
If I’ve got this right, a player can behind the last defending outfield player and the ball played towards/beside him and he can shield it/run with it as long as he doesn’t touch it and another player can then come in and strike it on goal. That’s then onside.
I’d like to see this done intentionally then see how the officials deal with it. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
