So, Bruno Fernandes scored against man city yesterday. Would the goal have been allowed in the EFL, my answer is NO!

  This proves to me, as if we didn't already know, the rules are different in the premiership than the EFL.

   Without VAR the goal would not have been given and quite correctly.

    

I saw a suggestion that Man United had planned this - for a player to go well offside to distract the defenders,  but then just follow the ball without touching it allowing a player following up to score.

Rashford was clearly interfering with play in any sensible view so most officials would have disallowed it.

Rashford was clearly interfering with play even though he didn’t touch the ball. Goal should not have stood.

They discussed this on MOTD last night, pouring over the unnecessarily complex and increasingly recondite rules. On the official basis of those, I’m still none the wiser.

My understanding has always been that if a player is “interfering”, then he’s offside. That could be by blocking the ‘keeper’s view or impeding a defender’s ability to to their job.

In this instance, Edison doesn’t know and certainly can’t assume can’t assume that Rashford’s offside, and yet he gets within a yard of striking the ball before Fernandes takes over, which surely impacts how the goalkeeper would have approached the finish. He’s got to consider two possible shots from two different players. In that sense, Rashford’s absolutely interfering.

For that goal to stand, Rashford has to make clear that he has given up going for the ball almost as soon as he makes his run. He’s offside. I have no idea why the authorities insist on making their own lives so difficult.

Quoted from Ruston AT

  So, Bruno Fernandes scored against man city yesterday. Would the goal have been allowed in the EFL, my answer is NO!

  This proves to me, as if we didn't already know, the rules are different in the premiership than the EFL.

   Without VAR the goal would not have been given and quite correctly.

    

I sometimes think VAR is there to cover referees @rses. The other thing about it is why do they need a committee of refs to look at the footage? This just takes high level refs out of the grounds and creates space for muppets to be promoted from non league when they’re not ready, as we see most weeks at BP.

He is definitely interfering with play if he’s guarding the ball from the defenders behind him so he is offside. Howard Webb back in the fold so Man Utd will start to get these decisions again, probably.

Should morally been disallowed, but not within the current rules.

However it’s nice to see Emirates City of Manchester knocked off their moneybags perch

Football at the top level is getting more and more like a computer game, with people sat miles away in front of a screen impacting what happens on the pitch.

Pause, press F5 to continue.

He looked to get the ball himself and be active therefore offside. Why over complicate it. If he'd have not ran towards the ball and went to the side etc I'd say onside.

The interpretation by the officials yesterday make the role of the defenders at the highest levels nigh on impossible. On the one hand they disallow a goal because someone’s big toe is in advance of a defender and then they allow someone who is blatantly offside and interfering with play to continue, bizarre.

As others have said definitely would have been disallowed at BP.

As was discussed on MOTD and also during match commentary on Talksport the word is "impeding" not interfering.

Interfering doesn't exist,  you have to impede an opponent now..so block them, prevent them getting the ball or block their vision...I don't think Rashford did any of that yesterday so the goal stood.

Offside

Quoted from moosey_club

As was discussed on MOTD and also during match commentary on Talksport the word is "impeding" not interfering.

Interfering doesn't exist,  you have to impede an opponent now..so block them, prevent them getting the ball or block their vision...I don't think Rashford did any of that yesterday so the goal stood.

I'm sure other clubs will try a variation on this theme now the precedents have been set.

Run clearly offside, distract the defenders, run with the ball without touching it and see a deeper lying team mate smash it home.

The rules seem to change every week as that goal would not have stood last week!

Quoted from Poojah

They discussed this on MOTD last night, pouring over the unnecessarily complex and increasingly recondite rules. On the official basis of those, I’m still none the wiser.

My understanding has always been that if a player is “interfering”, then he’s offside. That could be by blocking the ‘keeper’s view or impeding a defender’s ability to to their job.

In this instance, Edison doesn’t know and certainly can’t assume can’t assume that Rashford’s offside, and yet he gets within a yard of striking the ball before Fernandes takes over, which surely impacts how the goalkeeper would have approached the finish. He’s got to consider two possible shots from two different players. In that sense, Rashford’s absolutely interfering.

For that goal to stand, Rashford has to make clear that he has given up going for the ball almost as soon as he makes his run. He’s offside. I have no idea why the authorities insist on making their own lives so difficult.

This isn’t a new interpretation of offside though is it? It’s been like this for years and years. We scored a very similar goal to this away at Notts County in 2008/09 season. Ball slid through to someone clearly offside, linesman put his flag up and then Danny Boshell ran in from an onside position to score.

Here it is…

[tweet]1514136285568540674[/tweet]

Ran towards the ball then shielded it from a defender. How the goal was given is beyond me. They have ruined the rule.

Interfering with play is no longer a requirement?

Offside without a doubt. Several reasons, firstly Akanji changes his movement to play Rashford offside, Rashford then makes his move towards the ball, despite not touching the ball he is in possession of it as it is only a couple of feet away from him for a couple of seconds, Rashford then gets himself in between Akanji and the ball preventing the defender from making a full and unchallenged run towards the ball, Rashford then pulls his foot back as if to strike the ball making the defenders and goalkeeper believe he is about to shoot. All that and yet somehow, with the benefit of replays, he is not interfering with play. A terrible decision, possibly the worst since the introduction of VAR.

I think it could well be the right decision but the law is inadequate.

Offside offence
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

A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent. 

It was a farce of a decision, and I still don’t understand the Salah decision last weekend 🤷🏼‍♂️

Clearly on-side if you're a red and most certainly offside if you're a blue.
However remember what Cloughie used to say, if the ref's given a goal, well it's a goal laddie!

:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

Think Cloughie also said "if he's not interfering with play what is he doing on the pitch"

Quoted from GrimRob

I think it could well be the right decision but the law is inadequate.

Offside offence
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

A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent. 

I don’t think Rashford can be classified as offside for any of those when you consider the wording of the rules properly and look at the footage.

The rule doesn’t say attempting to play the ball is enough on its own to make the player offside. It’s the impact it has on the opponents that matters.

For what it’s worth I don’t like the rule as it is now or has been for the past 20 years or so, but there’s no issue with the goal based on the rules how they are worded.

I’ve looked at it again and Rashford doesn’t impact either City defender getting the ball. Neither could have played the ball before Bruno Fernandes if Rashford wasn’t there. Perfectly good goal based on rules.

     Quoted from GollyGTFC   "making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball"

AS the ball is entering the penalty area Rashford is in between the ball and a City player who slows down, because he cannot reach the ball as Rashford is "shielding/in the way" and could go down (penalty) in the area if the city player tries to kick the ball. Rashford "impacts the ability for the opponent to kick the ball"
If I was a City fan I would be livid.

Quoted from GollyGTFC

I don’t think Rashford can be classified as offside for any of those when you consider the wording of the rules properly and look at the footage.

The rule doesn’t say attempting to play the ball is enough on its own to make the player offside. It’s the impact it has on the opponents that matters.

For what it’s worth I don’t like the rule as it is now or has been for the past 20 years or so, but there’s no issue with the goal based on the rules how they are worded.

Yeah exactly. Most people criticise the decision because they don't a) remember an old version of the rule which no longer applies, b) disagree with the rule, c) have never read the rules and intuitively think they know what the offside rule is from watching a lot of games.

The VAR officials have to comply with the letter of the law. Saying they should rule it out for not interfering with play is like a judge imposing hanging because that's what the law used to be.

I think everyone probably thinks that it is offside though in the spirit of the law, but the fact is it's missing from the rules of the game. I think it's an edge case which will probably be reflected in a future update of the rules.

In other news Fulham awarded a penaly at Newcastle after VAR asks the ref to look at it, Mitrovic slightly slips but still puts the ball in the net, goal ruled out as Mitrovic ruled to have touched the ball with both feet, bizarre.

Quoted from GrimPol

     Quoted from GollyGTFC   "making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball"

AS the ball is entering the penalty area Rashford is in between the ball and a City player who slows down, because he cannot reach the ball as Rashford is "shielding/in the way" and could go down (penalty) in the area if the city player tries to kick the ball. Rashford "impacts the ability for the opponent to kick the ball"
If I was a City fan I would be livid.

Look at the video again and tell us which City player could have got to that ball before Bruno Fernandes.

offside & nothing i'v read can convince me otherwise rashford effects the keeper & also akanji did brilliantly to play him offside so in effect dont step up to play offside again but look it depends who in var room & micheal oliver is our best ref by far but he a man u fan 👍

Quoted from GollyGTFC

I’ve looked at it again and Rashford doesn’t impact either City defender getting the ball. Neither could have played the ball before Bruno Fernandes if Rashford wasn’t there. Perfectly good goal based on rules.

My opinion is your wrong on all aspects there, but hey ho.

Looks like the rules should make it offside but the way they are currently worded means it isn't and the decision was correct.

It's the rules that are wrong rather than the officials.

Naw, it’s always the officials, how many times would we have got a result if it wasn’t for either useless or bent officials ( always when playing Salford)

Quoted from jimgtfc

My opinion is your wrong on all aspects there, but hey ho.

So which Man City defender could have got to the ball before Bruno Fernandes? Name him.

Quoted from GollyGTFC

Here it is…

[tweet]1514136285568540674[/tweet]

The one thing this footage does prove, in case any of us had erased it from our memories, is what a fat b*st*rd Barry Conlon was.

Quoted from Sigone

Think Cloughie also said "if he's not interfering with play what is he doing on the pitch"

As someone who has taken the referee's exam (many moons ago and passed) I did ask the instructor if the ball is played forward and a player is stood in an offside position on the opposite side of the pitch to where the ball is played is he technically interfering with play and he said the exact words highlighted above to me. :)

Quoted from GollyGTFC

Look at the video again and tell us which City player could have got to that ball before Bruno Fernandes.

If Rashford stopped running Akanji wins the ball.  Was the rule change brought in where a player coming back from an offside position not touching the ball *facing away from goal"?  I can recall many scenarios with the same incident like this, maybe players coming back from an offside position but the player that's onside is flagged off.

Its offside as he is interfering with play simple as, yes he hasn't touched the ball but he forcing City defence into making decisions that would affect the game.  This needs clarifying before we see another thing slip into the game, like when a defender is shielding the ball to go out of play, and is obstructing the attacker (the defender hasn't even touched the ball) its just something that has been accepted but that should be classed as obstruction.

[tweet]1614624757428719617[/tweet]

Quoted from GollyGTFC

So which Man City defender could have got to the ball before Bruno Fernandes? Name him.

Akanji wins the ball every time

The decision was correct in the laws of the game as they stand, but the guidance on the laws of the game in this instance are clearly balderdash.

Also depends on how the officials class interfering with play is, to them it might be when touching the ball (in this scenario) but to me it is interfering with play.  I guess another tweak to the rule is likely.

They have made the offside rule a bit of a joke.

Apart from what happened in this match how many times do we see a player offside receiving the ball but the flag stays down unless a goal is scored.  Really annoying when play continues when you know if a goal results from that move it will be disallowed.

A few years ago the rule changed to , there must be clear daylight between the players to be offside. I thought that was fair and worked well.

BUT

They quickly changed it back for some reason .

If someone is stepping up to make you offside, you are immediately interfering. He wouldn’t step up if you wasn’t there

They’ve interpreted the law in an extremely literary sense but in truth, even with the law, you can argue all you like but Rashford is offside, in an offside position and is interfering.

If they’re arguing Rashford being only a few inches from the ball isn’t offside then you may as well stick someone on the six yard line to mirror the movement of the keeper…under the interpretation used in this instance they couldn’t be offside…

I’m also cynical to think had that goal been against Man Utd or indeed at most other games it would’ve been disallowed…

They’ll argue they’re right and had behind interpretation but there’s not a real football fan anywhere, really, that thinks the goal should’ve stood…

By the rules it’s onside, but anyone that’s played or watched football will say it should be offside.  The powers that be think have really messed up the offside rule and the handball rule.
FIFA/UEFA/FA have also taken away the ability of referees to apply their judgement in decisions trying to make everything black and white (and not in the good way!). I think it comes down to the money at the top of the game and the thought that a bad decision can cost x amount of millions so they feel the need to have as absolute rules as possible.  There aren’t thoughts of how much it’s effecting the quality of the game itself though.
The Man United conspiracies are boring, it’s happening everywhere at the top of the game.  

It was offside.

I get why a couple of people think it might be onside, but they're scraping the barrel a bit. Not sure if it's to play devil's advocate or what, but the simple truth is that the rules are not clear and cannot be universally understood or applied consistently.

I've read the rules, heard the arguments and I'm still of the opinion that Rashford was interfering with play.

There's no way Fernandez would've got the ball had Rashford put his hands up in the way that players sometimes do when they know they're offside and clearly affecting play.

I reckon Rashford could've shoulder barged the defender into the post a la Jack Lester and Steve Walsh and Peter Walton would be saying that it's fine because he didn't touch the ball.

Looks to me as if the keeper is moving into position to deal with a shot from Rashford, and so Rashford was definitely interfering with play.

I'm on the fence with this one. It's not as simple as what some people are stating.... People are trying to simplify it when in reality, it's not.

Either way, it's not Rashfords, nor is it the team's fault. You are taught to play to the whistle. The offside and interviewing with play laws are very loose in matters like this. It really comes down to two things. Did Rashford touch the ball? Did he make efforts to move out of the way? and did he obstruct the Goalkeeper's view?

- Well he never touched the ball
- He didn't move away from he ball, but the momentum of the play could be argued.
- He was nowhere near the goalkeeper.

In fact, it was simply bad defending from City. As i said, you play to the whistle where you're scoring a goal or defending. City defenders switched off completely and they only have themselves to blame.

absolute farce VAR incompetence at the highest level  making one of footballs simplest rules  mind boggling this rule changes every week  what a mess

I find it hilarious that the interpretation of the law and various others have become more complex and controversial since the introduction of something that was introduced to eradicate that…

Without VAR that goal is flagged offside, is given offside and nobody moans and we all crack on…simples.

I was all in favour of VAR at first because I thought it was just plain wrong that blatantly wrong decisions, such as the Lampard ‘goal’ again Germany were allowed to stand.

However, the implementation has been dreadful. Now you never know if a goal will stand or not until several minutes of checking every reason for it not to be allowed are searched for. We have persistent delays in play.

I think it would be better if the game adopted the same approach as Cricket and tennis. I.e. permit a limited number of challenges to a decision in each game. So a team might say have two challenges per match to question a dubious decision.