What about the ‘keeper? If Ederson is expecting the shot from Rashford, then that is interfering with play, no? Rashford makes a play on the ball, imho, which impacts the GK. i’m on the offside team.
What pump fake? The GK didn't react to anything except the final shot from the other Manchester United player. If he'd reacted to something, moving in that direction and impacting his ability to attempt to play the ball from the player in an onside position, I'm fully on board with this being an offence. But there is no reaction from any defending player to any of the player in offside position's movements, other than to chase the ball.
Any action by Rashford which might have looked like an attempt to play the ball was way too mild for me to consider that interference in this particular case. If this was a cross 6 yards out with a player in an offside position sliding in to attempt to play the ball and missing, that’s offside. If anything, this was Rashford trying to avoid the ball while continuing his run. If you removed the player from the pitch, would the defense act differently? Yes. Is that the standard to judge interference? No.
19mins: Referee Sam Purkiss has now been stretchered off, and we're going to see a change of match official here...A really unfortunate incident. We hope it's nothing serious and wish him a quick recovery.The action is back underway.0-0#STFC 🔴⚪️— Swindon Town Football Club (@Official_STFC) January 14, 2023 Grimsby. V Swindon. Referee knocked out after being hit with ball.
That’s utterly ridiculous. If the ref directors decide that it was the correct interpretation of offside, then the offside interpretation needs to change. Man U got a clear advantage from Rashford being in an offside position.
If you watch the video from Barcur, at the :17 mark, he pump fakes. At the :27 mark you can see it makes the keeper move to the his right.
Yeah. I’ve had the opportunity now to watch it a few times and I’ve got onside now. And I started at offside. Rashford doesn’t dummy the ball. It’s always in front of him. He’s chasing it. Okay. So is Akanji. Akanji does absolutely nothing different if Raahford isn’t there. In fact, Akanji ends up closer to the ball only because Rashford pursues it. It we all remember and accept that simply running at the ball is not an “obvious action” (and it’s not) then this is onside. Remember this distinction in the laws was created so that if two attackers (one on and one off) were running at the ball simultaneously, the goal could be given if there wasn’t true interference by the player in the offside position. That’s what happened here. The nuance in the law here is meant to benefit the attack.
Affecting the goalkeeper is an interesting question. I’d have to go back and look at that. But I think the bar is very high here.
i. Not seeing what you’re seeing. Perhaps with VAR simultaneous views from different angles we could. I think this is close to the border, but I also think it is onside based on modern interpretation. (If I saw the a fake shot affecting the GK as you do, I would agree with you, but I don’t see that.)
I agree that the bar is high. However, I think this is one of those situation that (without breaking down the nuances of the law) most players, officials, and fans, are going to say "that shouldn't be a goal." But when we get down to nuances, it is much closer of a call. For me, Rashford in the end was over the ball so that the keeper wouldn't know where the shot was coming from. His actions were intentional and deceptive.
What I see is the complete reaction from Ederson. If you take Rashford out of the picture I am seeing Ederson challenging for the ball against Fernandes. But he stays back having to deal with the fact that he is thinking Rashford is going to strike it. Rashford is running right next to the ball for at least 5 yards. Keeper has to protect that. If he knew Rashford couldn’t touch it, then he breaks for it on my opinion. I may be City blue glasses, but I see Ederson completely playing Rashford and not Fernandes so he is effecting the play.
The Ederson angle is the interesting one. I will have to go back and watch again. With that said, if the relative positions of Fernandes and Rashford were reversed (meaning Fernandes was off and Rashford was on), I've heard the exact same argument about goalkeepers needing to account for the secondary player who is not on the ball. And, well, we know that's not supposed to fly. This is a very grey area. It's subjective. But the benefit is supposed to go the attack. I can totally understand neutral popular opinion saying this should be offside. But Law 11 hasn't exactly always strictly hewed to neutral popular opinion over the last few decades.
Right. Ederson has to decide who's gonna take the shot as Rashford keeps following the ball. There is no question Rashford interferes with the play.
But affecting play isn’t the standard. And it hasn’t been for a long time. Whether we like it or not, IFAB has made it clear that merely being there and chasing the ball isn’t enough—see diagram 3 at the back of the book. IFAB has deliberately narrowed the meaning of active play to certain categories. And this doesn’t fit any of those categories. If you’re going to argue for OS, you have to match it to the law. Aside: while we ge really discuss the 4 categories in the bullet points, there is actually a fifth in the paragraph below: • a player moving from, or standing in, an offside position is in the way of an opponent and interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the ball, this is an offside offence if it impacts on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball; if the player moves into the way of an opponent and impedes the opponent’s progress (e.g. blocks the opponent), the offence should be penalised under Law 12 but here, while he was between a defender and the ball, the defender wasn’t close enough, so he wasn’t interfering with the defenders movement or ability to challenge for the ball
Your’re using your own perception rather than Law 11. Under Law 11 that is simply not enough to be active involvement justifying an OS offense. See diagram 3 at the back of the book.
I wasn't commenting on the ref decision. The ref decision may be right according to how the law is written. But the law is bad. Arguing that Rashford doesn't interfere with the play is not very logical.
making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball That is the bullet point I am going off of. While I do agree with your assessment and with your post. Rashford makes an obvious action by running towards the ball. Instead of peeling away or slowing down. That action IMO impacts Ederson’s ability to come up to challenge. Again I don’t fault the decision how they came to that conclusion, and your point that offside has changed from ‘effecting play’ I just don’t agree in this case. The defense may not have been affected by what Rashford did. But IMO Ederson was by obvious action.
I agree, "active involvement" is the sticking point here. But I'd argue that the difference in diagram 3 is that the player striking the ball is irrelevant to that diagram as far as keeper reacition. Here, the player sirking the ball is everything as Rashford's only real option is to go to the keeper's right and Fernandes can only go left. The keeper definitely moves right thinking Rashford is shooting. IMO, that definitely interferes with the keeper's ability to play the ball. The problem is "prevent" as in Diagram 8. Does it mean totally prevents opponent from playing the ball or does it mean it prevents him from playing the ball as he would without the presence of the PIOP? I think the latter is intended.
The (final) on-field decision was goal, by the way. Crazy the (deliberate) amount of tinkering FIFA did with Law11 after/since WC2010 to be in a place where discussion is even required in this situation!!
I think it is crystal clear that “running towards the ball” is not remotely within the scope of what IFAB means by an obvious action. (If it was, diagram 3 would be different.) As I recall, it came in specifically after an OSP player dummied the ball, which didn’t fit with attempt to play the ball. The reality is that, for better or worse, we have accepted that not everything an OSP play does that “affects” the defense is enough to be considered active involvement. There is a bit of an implicit fiction that defenders should know the player is off and ignore the player. as far as tweaking it to make more plays OS to be more fair to defenders, as a former GK, I’m sympathetic. But I think the powers that be are most interested in not taking away goals that should be allowed. And they are willing to sacrifice a few goals that feel wrong to achieve that end.
Having watched the play a few times, for me this is “making a play on the ball” and therefore offside under the last bullet point below. 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 I’m all in favor of benefit of the doubt going to the attackers, but on a play like this the defenders are being pulled into defend a player who is in an offside position and making a play on the ball. Obviously a judgment call, but I feel like this is one that has to be judged in the defenders’ favor.
Obstructing line of sight: No Challenging an opponent for the ball: No Clear attempt to play/close/impact on the opponent: see below Making an obvious action that impacts the ability of an opponent to play the ball: no. (In this case, no defender, including the goalkeeper's ability to play the ball was impacted in any tangible way, they all had free movement the entire time.) So, for me, this one comes down to clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent. This is distinct from impacting an opponent's ability to play the ball, so it doesn't require the same high threshold. To be merely impacted upon is far easier than to have your ability to play a ball affected. 1. Does Rashford's act impact the GK? Yes. He deliberately runs close to the ball in a way that could impact how the GK might defend and when he might stop his advance off of the line to set for the shot. 2. Is this clearly attempting to play the ball? No. I think it is actually quite deliberately not attempting to play the ball. A play is, "Action by a player which makes contact with the ball" and at no point does he appear to be trying to make contact with it. He does stall a few times which gives the impression he is about to attempt to play it, but he never actually does. The play is complicated by the fact that Rashford is within immediate playing distance of the ball for several yards and is a threat to play the ball at any point, and takes up that position and proximity to the ball on purpose. Still, as this isn't a clear attempt to play the ball, it isn't #3 and since none of the four bullet points are present, this is technically a good goal, as I understand this law. I also think this action violates the spirit of the law's intent and probably should be an offside offense, as I view running with the ball at your feet within playing distance of the ball should be an act which is considered to unfairly impact the opposing goalkeeper. My opinion isn't supportable in current law, however.
One defender actually slows his run, so he's not impacting his ability to get the ball. The other defender allows Fernandes to walk right in front of him. The best argument is one the one affecting the keeper. With the current wording, I'd have to side with no offside here. However, within the spirit of the game, this shouldn't be a goal and hope changes are made to minimize the subjectivity of these types of plays.