Popular Post Chindie Posted January 14, 2023 VT Supporter Popular Post Share Posted January 14, 2023 That non-offside decision is so appalling there should be investigations. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turvontour Posted January 14, 2023 Share Posted January 14, 2023 8 hours ago, fightoffyour said: Ederson didn’t even know who was going to shoot until the last maybe 0.5 seconds. I mean anybody that really truly understands football and the premise of offside, would have to say that it is offside because Rashford is interfering/involved in play. You cant have offside players running through with the ball but not touching it, and its play on. That doesnt make any sense. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post fightoffyour Posted January 15, 2023 VT Supporter Popular Post Share Posted January 15, 2023 I’ll say it again, let’s just go back to offside is offside, for anybody who’s on the pitch. Even lying on the floor at the touch line is still interfering in some way because the defenders are looking over their shoulder or thinking when is this guy gonna get up and suddenly be inside behind my back. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThunderPower_14 Posted January 15, 2023 Share Posted January 15, 2023 It's beyond comical now. They may as well just drop the offside rule if they're going to adjudicate it like this. Hard to feel sorry for Man City but it's absolutely shocking for the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blunther Posted January 15, 2023 Share Posted January 15, 2023 (edited) 8 hours ago, fightoffyour said: I’ll say it again, let’s just go back to offside is offside, for anybody who’s on the pitch. Even lying on the floor at the touch line is still interfering in some way because the defenders are looking over their shoulder or thinking when is this guy gonna get up and suddenly be inside behind my back. If you're on the pitch and not interfering with play then what the **** are you doing. Agree, go back to offside is offside and **** all this bollocks from the last 20 years off. Edited January 15, 2023 by blunther 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted January 15, 2023 Share Posted January 15, 2023 8 hours ago, fightoffyour said: I’ll say it again, let’s just go back to offside is offside, for anybody who’s on the pitch. Even lying on the floor at the touch line is still interfering in some way because the defenders are looking over their shoulder or thinking when is this guy gonna get up and suddenly be inside behind my back. I kind of agree but that will ultimately make the game worse for everyone. A bit like that “one or two ruining it got everyone”. Those involved need to be retrained. The main theory active/inactive is very sensible and SHOULD be applied correct (I.e. when a player is nowhere near the play he’s inactive). If you have to think and talk about it then he’s active. Has there been anything official from the referees, VAR or the FA about the farce yesterday? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted January 15, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted January 15, 2023 18 hours ago, Spoony said: Unfortunately I know for a fact that Mike Dean is a huge Tranmere fan. I’ve had the “pleasure” of meeting him a few times when I was on the circuit in Cheshire/Merseyside. He’s actually somewhere between a nice enough bloke but arrogant as ****. I genuinely believe that Mike Dean could be an actual psychopath. And I’m not joking. I’m 100% serious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted January 15, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted January 15, 2023 8 hours ago, fightoffyour said: I’ll say it again, let’s just go back to offside is offside, for anybody who’s on the pitch. Even lying on the floor at the touch line is still interfering in some way because the defenders are looking over their shoulder or thinking when is this guy gonna get up and suddenly be inside behind my back. I think you can keep the not interfering part but it should be for extreme situations. Like someone being injured or someone the other side of the pitch. Someone right next to the ball who barely misses it shouldn’t be in the conversation for that kind of decision 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightoffyour Posted January 15, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted January 15, 2023 16 minutes ago, Genie said: I kind of agree but that will ultimately make the game worse for everyone. A bit like that “one or two ruining it got everyone”. Those involved need to be retrained. The main theory active/inactive is very sensible and SHOULD be applied correct (I.e. when a player is nowhere near the play he’s inactive). If you have to think and talk about it then he’s active. Has there been anything official from the referees, VAR or the FA about the farce yesterday? I take your point but I’ve asked before how many situations has this prevented perfectly good goals? Sure they must’ve introduced it for a reason but I just can’t think of any. The other advantage of offside means offside is that it could be totally automated very easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted January 15, 2023 Share Posted January 15, 2023 12 minutes ago, fightoffyour said: I take your point but I’ve asked before how many situations has this prevented perfectly good goals? Sure they must’ve introduced it for a reason but I just can’t think of any. The other advantage of offside means offside is that it could be totally automated very easily. I think it would be to the detriment of the sport to take away a bit of common sense officiating because of one or 2 idiotic decisions. Retrain and demote those who do it. If there is any doubt at all that a player is active then assume they are. I think with automation like sensors in boots there would still be some ambiguity because often in VAR checks it’s a knee, head or shoulder which if offside (unless the rule was changed to be offside = feet only). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkyvilla Posted January 15, 2023 Share Posted January 15, 2023 5 minutes ago, Genie said: I think it would be to the detriment of the sport to take away a bit of common sense officiating because of one or 2 idiotic decisions. Retrain and demote those who do it. If there is any doubt at all that a player is active then assume they are. I think with automation like sensors in boots there would still be some ambiguity because often in VAR checks it’s a knee, head or shoulder which if offside (unless the rule was changed to be offside = feet only). The offside system at the world cup was perfect and I'm sure will be used in the PL next season. The only real potential to cock it up lies with the idiots using VAR and making decisions like that Utd goal and the Mings one when it comes to interfering. There's only so much 'talent' out there officiating who are willing to do it so there will always be poor decisions unfortunately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted January 15, 2023 Share Posted January 15, 2023 14 minutes ago, sharkyvilla said: The offside system at the world cup was perfect and I'm sure will be used in the PL next season. The only real potential to cock it up lies with the idiots using VAR and making decisions like that Utd goal and the Mings one when it comes to interfering. There's only so much 'talent' out there officiating who are willing to do it so there will always be poor decisions unfortunately. When a referee makes a big error that costs United or Liverpool they get publicly demoted. When they make a big error that goes the way it United or Liverpool it’s all quiet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a-k Posted January 15, 2023 Share Posted January 15, 2023 No surprise Scholes and Ferdinand don't see anything wrong with the legitimacy of the goal wonder what they would have said if it was the other way around Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theboyangel Posted January 15, 2023 Share Posted January 15, 2023 How Rashford can be deemed onside but a player judged to be offside by an arm or shoulder just shows how stupid the law has become. it shouldn’t matter he didn’t touch the ball - he did pretty everything but that and his movement certainly impacted on the gameplay. if it were any other team against Man City I’d be laughing more but it was typical ManUre getting the run of the green at home… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KentVillan Posted January 15, 2023 Share Posted January 15, 2023 1 hour ago, Stevo985 said: I think you can keep the not interfering part but it should be for extreme situations. Like someone being injured or someone the other side of the pitch. Someone right next to the ball who barely misses it shouldn’t be in the conversation for that kind of decision Yes, we should keep the "not interfering" rule, but it should be for players really not involved at all in the defenders' / goalkeeper's thinking. Players moving towards the ball, making decoy runs, etc should be considered active. Anyway, Keith Hackett wrote this piece in the Telegraph https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2023/01/14/bruno-fernandes-manchester-derby-offside-controversial-equaliser/ Quote Marcus Rashford was offside – the law is an ass for allowing Bruno Fernandes' goal Rashford's actions impacted the Manchester City defenders - it is as clear as that There is no doubt: Marcus Rashford is offside. He has impacted on play and he is interfering with an opponent. So to allow Bruno Fernandes’s goal to stand is a total nonsense. If we do not call that offside, then the offside law is an ass. There will be a huge debate now, but it is obvious to me. Rashford’s actions impacted on the Manchester City defenders. It is as clear as that. The authorities will put up a defence for referee Stuart Attwell and argue that Rashford did not interfere with play, but it is rubbish. This is a decision you cannot justify. They will argue that he has to touch the ball to be active. The law is awful and requires a complete rewrite. In the laws, a player is active if he is “clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent” – just like Rashford did. That is why he is offside. It is made even worse by the fact that Darren Cann, the assistant referee, initially got the decision right. Darren is one of the most experienced officials in world football. He does not get many decisions wrong – including this one. He is our best assistant, and I am going with him 100 per cent. The decision is totally subjective and the best person to make it is right there. Was it an Old Trafford decision? Perhaps. What annoys me, is I don't think the laws are the problem at all. The laws clearly give the referee enough ammo to disallow the goal. It's just a nonsense decision. So grim to see social media football losers calling it a "high IQ" play by Rashford. No it's just **** offside you thick melts. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted January 15, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted January 15, 2023 I don’t even think Rashford left it because he thought he was offside, he left it because Bruno was in a better position running onto the ball. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyM3000 Posted January 15, 2023 Share Posted January 15, 2023 (edited) Remember that McGinn goal at Arsenal where Barkley was judged to be blocking the keeper's view, he was getting absolutely nowhere near it anyway but that fact that is offside by law and Rashford is deemed fine is just comical. Get some ex football people involved in law making, and I don't mean the likes of Ferdinand with one brain cell. Edited January 15, 2023 by AndyM3000 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted January 15, 2023 Share Posted January 15, 2023 Rashford not interfering 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oaks Posted January 15, 2023 Share Posted January 15, 2023 If Rashford would have stayed still than fair enough but he ran with the ball without touhing that...why would he do that if he didn't think it would effect the play. Utter nonsence reading of the law and guidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Steve Posted January 15, 2023 Share Posted January 15, 2023 Farce of a rule. He clearly slipped and kicked himself, he's not intentionally trying to touch it twice. Nor do they consider Newcastle encrouching in the box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts