turvontour Posted January 15, 2023 Share Posted January 15, 2023 On the Rashford incident. You can be in possession of the ball without touching it. The touch thing is irrelevant. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KentVillan Posted January 15, 2023 Share Posted January 15, 2023 1 minute ago, turvontour said: On the Rashford incident. You can be in possession of the ball without touching it. The touch thing is irrelevant. Also, having watched it back a few times, Rashford *clearly* affects Akanji’s run, even if he isn’t physically obstructing him. If Rashford wasn’t there, Akanji would have sprinted to the ball and collected it, no bother. It’s just a **** nonsense decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post OutByEaster? Posted January 15, 2023 Moderator Popular Post Share Posted January 15, 2023 37 minutes ago, The_Steve said: 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. The intent isn't important, he touched it twice. There's no intent in the rule. He's touched it twice, that's down to him, in the same way it'd be down to him if he'd slipped and spooned it over the bar. It's unfortunate when the player slips, but it's on him to make sure he doesn't. 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreveryoung Posted January 15, 2023 Share Posted January 15, 2023 1 hour ago, KentVillan said: Also, having watched it back a few times, Rashford *clearly* affects Akanji’s run, even if he isn’t physically obstructing him. If Rashford wasn’t there, Akanji would have sprinted to the ball and collected it, no bother. It’s just a **** nonsense decision. Yeah agree, Akanji backed off knowing he was offside. Also if the ball was rolling without Rashford being on it, Akani would have been on it. That's another reason it was Rashford interfering with play, if he didn't touch it, he was certainly covering the ball from anyone else taking it. An example is if your standing in a offside position covering the ball holding a opposition player off so your team mate can strike the ball, your offside whether you touched the ball or not. This was as good as what Rashford did. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted January 15, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted January 15, 2023 2 hours ago, The_Steve said: 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. Nothing wrong with this. You can’t kick the ball twice on a penalty. He did. Right decision Especially as the second touch has significantly helped him score here 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted January 15, 2023 Share Posted January 15, 2023 18 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 this might be required, but it's a tragic indictment of the officials we have that we basically just have to concede that they're almost certainly not worth of being trusted with some discretion to apply common sense 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted January 15, 2023 Share Posted January 15, 2023 I’d have so much more respect for the refs if their chief came out and said a mistake was made, apologises and promises to investigate what went wrong to ensure it doesn’t happen again. Instead I assume they put fingers in their ears and wait for it to blow over. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreveryoung Posted January 15, 2023 Share Posted January 15, 2023 2 minutes ago, Davkaus said: I think this might be required, but it's a tragic indictment of the officials we have that we basically just have to concede that they're almost certainly not worth of being trusted with some discretion to apply common sense It needs to change, as another example, is a player in a offside position in the box when a goal is scored. Even though he may not have touched the ball, or even be in the way of the keeper, other players have to mark him and/or watch him, he cannot be ignored, so the rule that a player can be in a offside position but not be seen as interfering with play cannot be deemed valid. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted January 15, 2023 Share Posted January 15, 2023 Just now, foreveryoung said: It needs to change, as another example, is a player in a offside position in the box when a goal is scored. Even though he may not have touched the ball, or even be in the way of the keeper, other players have to mark him and/or watch him, he cannot be ignored, so the rule that a player can be in a offside position but not be seen as interfering with play cannot be deemed valid. 9 times out of 10 you're right, I think the rule originally started being tinkered with because of the edge cases like a player being offside but way over on the other side of the pitch, absolutely nowhere near the ball and not distracting someone, occasionally even down injured and not even trying to get involved. There's a danger we just veer back and forth from one extreme to the other without learning from it 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fruitvilla Posted January 15, 2023 Share Posted January 15, 2023 6 minutes ago, foreveryoung said: is a player in a offside position in the box when a goal is scored A case in point would be Ings for Beundia's last goal against Leeds/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Zen Posted January 15, 2023 Share Posted January 15, 2023 2 hours ago, fruitvilla said: A case in point would be Ings for Beundia's last goal against Leeds/ Which I’m not sure should ever be offside. I don’t recall this being a problem before the incompetent refs started making a mess out of everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fruitvilla Posted January 15, 2023 Share Posted January 15, 2023 6 minutes ago, El Zen said: Which I’m not sure should ever be offside. I don’t recall this being a problem before the incompetent refs started making a mess out of everything. I don't think it is a problem either. (As the rules are currently interpreted). But if we move to being in an offside position under any circumstance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Zen Posted January 15, 2023 Share Posted January 15, 2023 8 minutes ago, fruitvilla said: I don't think it is a problem either. (As the rules are currently interpreted). But if we move to being in an offside position under any circumstance? Yeah, that’s why I don’t think changing it is a good idea, is what I meant. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted January 16, 2023 Share Posted January 16, 2023 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightoffyour Posted January 16, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted January 16, 2023 13 minutes ago, Genie said: Unbiased opinions: Quote Ferdinand said: "Rashford doesn't impact any of the defenders running strides, patterns or positions. It is intelligent from him and Fernandes. I don't feel any of the defenders can influence any of it." Scholes said: "He's interfering with nobody. It is good communication and a great finish." 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted January 16, 2023 Share Posted January 16, 2023 I had a strong view on it, but I'm going to reconsider after input from Rio. Truly one of the great minds of his generation. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted January 16, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted January 16, 2023 Ederson 100% clears that ball comfortably if Rashford isn't there 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted January 16, 2023 Share Posted January 16, 2023 11 minutes ago, fightoffyour said: Unbiased opinions: Obvious reply to Rio is “what did Rashford do what was intelligent?” 2 minutes ago, Stevo985 said: Ederson 100% clears that ball comfortably if Rashford isn't there Yep, or the defender hoofs it out to the right as we look at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted January 16, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted January 16, 2023 10 minutes ago, Genie said: Obvious reply to Rio is “what did Rashford do what was intelligent?” The only intelligent thing he did was leave the ball to Bruno to shoot because he was in a better position. As I said before, I don't think Rashford considered he was offside for one second. And if he did then it makes the "he's not interfering" argument even more farcical. If he knew he was offside then why would he bother chasing the ball anyway? There must be a reason, and if there is then it's interfering with play 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted January 16, 2023 Share Posted January 16, 2023 12 minutes ago, Stevo985 said: The only intelligent thing he did was leave the ball to Bruno to shoot because he was in a better position. As I said before, I don't think Rashford considered he was offside for one second. And if he did then it makes the "he's not interfering" argument even more farcical. If he knew he was offside then why would he bother chasing the ball anyway? There must be a reason, and if there is then it's interfering with play Yes. If Rio was asked has Rashford did which was intelligent it would have confirmed he did some positive to help the end result of a goal. Whether it was shielding the ball, causing confusion etc it’s interfering with the play. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts