You don't have to touch the ball to commit an offside offence. The only people that don't think that was offside are Utd fans.
He wasn’t interfering with play though according to the rules Some other part of rule 11 would have to apply
"preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision" and "making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball" He gained possession of it, albeit without touching it, feigned a shot and blocked defenders. The keeper could've come for it if he wasn't there, too.
If Spura and Man Utd do not front up this month, them lot could have the PL title close to in the bag.
Dubious decisions aside, I’m not sure how to feel about that result. Was praying for a draw. But United winning means they’re closer to us than I’d like and with us playing Spurs away tomorrow, and subsequently playing Utd next week, there’s a conceivable chance they make up considerable ground on us.
The rule is poorly drafted and requires subjective interpretation. There is always the argument that a player is affecting play by virtue of being there. If the offside rule was intended to penalise any player in an “offside” position, it would state that - and not be the convoluted mess that it is. Casemiro’s ball took the City defenders out of the game. They couldn’t affect the goal whether Rashford was there or not.They couldn’t get back quickly enough. Ederson doesn’t make any move to come off his line. He’s 15 feet from the ball when Fernandes strikes it. Had he done and had Rashford obstructed or impeded him (hypothetical), the goal should have been disallowed. Correct decision, good goal. No sympathy for City deserved (and I didn’t see them looking particularly aggrieved at the final whistle).
It's a terrible decision and Rashford affects all of the players around him. He stands over the ball for several seconds and feigns a shot, FFS. Ederson positions himself to save that non-shot, too. https://dubz.co/v/bd6g01 Casemiro should've been off for numerous fouls, including a push in the back in the box, too. He's one of those players that never gets penalised for anything, for no apparent reason. Exceptionally annoying. Bent. As. ****.
It’s a terrible rule, but it was correctly applied today. The reality is that none of the players on either side in the moment knew whether there was an offside or not, except possibly Fernandes, Had Rashford taken a shot, there would have been a different outcome. Nobody has done anything wrong. The officials applied the rule after the event - and did so correctly. No mistakes, no corruption. The issue is the efficacy of the rule.
Rashford knew he was offside or he'd have touched the ball. The defenders knew that he was offside or they'd have put a tackle in. The linesman knew that he was offside and correctly flagged him off. VAR overruled it, deciding that it was a clear and obvious error, apparently. Michael Oliver is a complete twat. Bent. As. ****. Dribbling with the ball isn't interfering. Ridiculous.
"Marcus Rashford is offside, Bruno Fernandes is not. Rashford distracted our keeper and centre defenders. It is what it is. We know where we play. It is difficult for the referees in these stadiums." Guardiola.
The "offside" goal will grab the headlines of course, but again (as PNP says) the discussion of Casemiro not getting carded will not happen. These lack of yellows can be as important as dodgy goals.
There is no evidence of corruption but the Laws are an absolute mess. As far as I can see no words in the current offside law mean that Rushford should have been penalised which is totally bonkers.
