Very much this. But what I find equally bonkers is that most ppl who are saying Rashford was impeding play are only saying so because the City defenders were busy martialling a player who they knew to be offside (why?) instead of paying attention to the player who was onside. If anything, that can only mean it was their own fault.
The judgement call on wether you are on or off is down to the officials however in the heat of the game, when your balls deep into it then you will not leave a player free, you will mark him…especially if he is involved in the area of play where the danger is at. You don’t have time to draw imaginary lines in your head in that second of intense play in order to make that judgement. Not as though rashford was near the corner flag tying his shoe laces.
What I haven't seen mentioned is the fact that the pass was clearly intended for Rashford which means he was involved/interfering with play. Often , when a player knows they are offside, and there is a chance another player can get the ball, they stop and thus don't interfere. Rashford continued to run and effected play. How can it not be described like that. Do the officials know what the City players are thinking, affecting their positions ?
As in previous years , officials favour particular results so that their agenda can be achieved. It seems this year , They have decided City are not winning the league. Either United or Woolwich. @PowerSpurs , No evidence of corruption? Of course there is no clear evidence. Most smart criminals will not leave evidence.
But as rule 11 stands, this is all irrelevant. Had the City defenders been goal side of him and attempted a tackle or had Ederson come rushing out to close him down, then a situation would have arisen where Rashford would be deemed to have obstructed them. But it didn’t happen. By the time either the defenders or ‘keeper were in a position to affect the outcome, Fernandes had already whipped the ball into the net. Rashford didn’t interfere with play (touch the ball) or obstruct or hinder an opponent. The rule is the problem, not its application yesterday- which was 100% correct. The offside rule needs to be clear, not ambiguous. There needs to be a clearer definition of when a player who does not receive/touch the ball will be deemed offside, especially when there is potential for him to affect the play. And the City players didn’t need to do mental gymnastics about was he was or wasn’t he offside. As with all these situations where VAR might intervene to overturn an on field decision, players need to play on and not anticipate the outcome.
For it to be corruption you need a secret paid agreement involving dozens of officials. These guys can't even get simple onfield decisions right. It's impossible for them to be secretly implementing a complex plan.
There is a list of actions in the Laws that define what is meant by interfering with play. Being the intended recipient of a pass isn't one of them.
Its a shame Akanji knowing that he was offside didn't just go through him as the offside offence would have occurred before the foul and whose not interfering with play then
Mudryk confirmed by Chelsea, that’s almost half a £bn spent by Boehly since he took over and somehow they so far look worse off. Proof that as good as Football Manager is as a game, you shouldn’t try doing it in real life.
So you're saying we shouldn't spend £6-10m of our summer transfer budget on an entire backline's worth of 17 year old Greeks...?
From Marco Silva's post match comments you might get the idea that the officials were already "understanding" Newcastle's new place in the pecking order. I haven't seen the incidents he's talking about so will wait to make a full judgement. But it wouldn't be surprising would it?
Trippier was stepped on before the pen tackle, which could have been awarded as a foul, Trippier then fouled the Fulham man and I do think that merited a pen. But the decision in the first place was a weird one and it did need to go to VAR. Then, Mitrovic scewered the penalty and that resulted in the ball hitting his other foot and going in the net. I read a quote saying that the rules on penalties are quite simple, that doing something like that results in a spot free kick to the opposing team. It just almost never, ever happens, so of course people are up in arms. It's another case in football of the ones being punished doubting and wanting to change the rules. If Mitrovic moved to early, it would have to be retaken, and that is were the "confusion", better known as bitching, is coming from.
In retrospect, we should've watched Atalanta's match with Salernitana Although it was disappointing how there were only four goals in the second half... Similar can be said for Monaco slacking off in the second half and only scoring two...
