The Rashford offside goal.

[sinkov]

Another tangled web our lawmakers have weaved, every time they tinker they invariably make things worse. Having looked at it and read the relevant laws I can see a clear case for the goal being chalked off. On the other hand I can see why it was allowed. The wording is ambivalent and open to different interpretations, we have the ludicrous situation where imo both Pep and the Ref are right.

On the whole I'm pleased it stood, I don't like offside, it ruins the game, it makes life easier for lazy coaches to use the laws and technicalities to prevent goals instead of good defending, and if you depend on the refs and liners interpretation of the law you're asking for trouble, and it serves you right when you get it.

[army88]

Another tangled web our lawmakers have weaved, every time they tinker they invariably make things worse. Having looked at it and read the relevant laws I can see a clear case for the goal being chalked off. On the other hand I can see why it was allowed. The wording is ambivalent and open to different interpretations, we have the ludicrous situation where imo both Pep and the Ref are right.

On the whole I'm pleased it stood, I don't like offside, it ruins the game, it makes life easier for lazy coaches to use the laws and technicalities to prevent goals instead of good defending, and if you depend on the refs and liners interpretation of the law you're asking for trouble, and it serves you right when you get it.

The thing about VAR for me was the offside is about the only thing that they can get right consistently, this goal is a sham really because his movement to the ball does influence the defenders decision / positions and the keeper ( most importantly).

I realise he didn’t touch it but I still think his movement influences Man City players and goalie

[Untinted Glasses]

My view is, the players should know the law/rule. Therefore should keep playing. It's their fault they stopped. They didnt intemperate the rule correctly. Because of there ****ness they blame the ruling but the rule is there. They just chose to forget it.

The rule is absolutely ****e IMO and should just be as it was. Offside is offside but its not, so the defenders were not smart enough. They were playing a game from 15 years ago.

Again I am crap at explaining my views but I know what I mean.

[The Bedlington Terrier]

My view is, the players should know the law/rule. Therefore should keep playing. It's their fault they stopped. They didnt intemperate the rule correctly. Because of there ****ness they blame the ruling but the rule is there. They just chose to forget it.

The rule is absolutely ****e IMO and should just be as it was. Offside is offside but its not, so the defenders were not smart enough. They were playing a game from 15 years ago.

Again I am crap at explaining my views but I know what I mean.

Just as long as you know what you mean my mate.

[The Bedlington Terrier]

Another tangled web our lawmakers have weaved, every time they tinker they invariably make things worse. Having looked at it and read the relevant laws I can see a clear case for the goal being chalked off. On the other hand I can see why it was allowed. The wording is ambivalent and open to different interpretations, we have the ludicrous situation where imo both Pep and the Ref are right.

On the whole I'm pleased it stood, I don't like offside, it ruins the game, it makes life easier for lazy coaches to use the laws and technicalities to prevent goals instead of good defending, and if you depend on the refs and liners interpretation of the law you're asking for trouble, and it serves you right when you get it.

If Rashford was not interfering with play in that position he bloody well should have been. It was a bonkers decision, it should never have stood.

Next up a goal will be disallowed because a toe nail is not in line. Who is making this $hit up?

[sinkov]

If Rashford was not interfering with play in that position he bloody well should have been. It was a bonkers decision, it should never have stood.

Next up a goal will be disallowed because a toe nail is not in line. Who is making this $hit up?

The problem is that there are now precise definitions of what interfering with play consists of, and Rashford did not do any of those things. Thus the ref was perfectly correct, according to the current laws, to allow the goal. That the law is an ass is irrefutable, but that's not the refs fault.

[The Bedlington Terrier]

The problem is that there are now precise definitions of what interfering with play consists of, and Rashford did not do any of those things. Thus the ref was perfectly correct, according to the current laws, to allow the goal. That the law is an ass is irrefutable, but that's not the refs fault.

So how does the VAR setup justify these ridiculous white line drawings, five minutes of deliberation to judge a goal offside for a fag paper difference?

It makes no sense whatsoever. I really don't want to go back to that nonsense next season.

[Swissclaret]

I don’t remember who said it, but what one manager said - “if he is not interfering with play, what is he doing on the pitch”?

Honestly - players are by the touch line and are deemed offside by 1 cm. Rashford was right in front of goal, occupied two defenders and effectively made space for the goal scorer. He was blatantly offside when he made his run.

As sinkov has written - the law is an ass and the referees have no choice but to follow it, despite the unfair and crazy result.

As BT has said, a downside of getting back into the PL is tolerating the rubbish decisions based on VAR.

[sinkov]

I don’t remember who said it, but what one manager said - “if he is not interfering with play, what is he doing on the pitch”?

I remember that Swiss, I think it might have been Fergie, or possibly Brian Clough ?

[warminsterclaret]

Clough I believe sinkov.