Aw shucks, hate to see it.
Edit: yeah, probably a missed call. Seen that movie a couple times lately.
… OS based on my understanding of the law. It is not enough that a GK or defender might have been distracted by a player in OS position that does not otherwise participate in the play.
No OS, unless the putatively OS player made a deliberate play on the ball, physically precluded a defender from playing the ball, or obscured the vision of the GK.
If you're incredibly strict about law 11 clauses, you're not wrong. But let's be realistic - this play does not happen if Rashford doesn't make his run from an offside position. And if it's 90% of the way to 'active involvement', it's really active involvement. This picture says it all to me:
Thanks for that response.
If you mean that, absent Rashford, the pass would not have been made, I might agree with that, but don’t see its relevance.
If you mean the defense would have stopped the play absent Rashford’s presence, I think the very helpful photo disproves that. Indeed, I think his presence had no discernible impact on how the defense reacted. This is an easier case than the play, also not OS, where the GK noticeably shifts to cover a player in OS position, allowing another player a greater opportunity at goal.
...when the ball is played to them when they are in an offsides position?
The answer is because it's almost universally accepted that a player actively moving towards the ball is making a play on the ball. So it's irrelevant whether you have any interference with an opposing player if the call is made like it is always officiated.
But to answer your question, Rashford running himself in between Akanji and Bruno obstructs Ankanji from making any attempt on Bruno. And you can see Akanji letting up because he simply cannot run through Rashford to get to the ball. Akanji would literally have to foul Rashford (and get carded doing so) if he were to slide to try and kick the ball away. And again, Rashford intentionally ran to get himself into that position.
Interestingly enough, earlier in the game my son pointed out an instance where he saw Akanji outsprint Walker to a ball played behind them both.
Rashford's run and proximity to the ball had no clear impact on the involved defenders, including the keeper?
I realize this isn't a classic example of 'gaining an advantage from an offside position', but...it really is. Like I said above and in my original post - you can certainly make a case for goal here based on your interpretation. But I think it's contrary to the spirit of the game.
Notice the defender to the right in the picture. Did they lay off the player who took the shot because they thought Rashford was going to strike it and they wouldn't get there? What about the keeper's positioning?
edit: here's another scenario for you. Imagine the same play, but instead of the ball being played diagonally to the middle of the field, it was done perpendicular to the goal line so only Rashford could get there.
Ball is played
Rashford gives chase, 10y+ away
Left side defender gives chase, 10y+ away
Rashford within a yard, doesn't attempt to play the ball
Defender gets close
Before defender can play the ball, AR puts his flag up for an offside offense
Now it's easy for you to say 'well that isn't an offside offense', but ask yourself this: if Rashford immediately gives up on that ball because he knows he's in an offside position, does that defender have to make that sprint to get to it? Keep in mind, 'challenging' for the ball as defined by IFAB does not need to include physical contact.
… has not been to express my own perspective on what should be considered offside, but rather to describe the training I received. I was specifically taught that an affirmative repositioning by the GK, to cover the possibility of a pass to the player in OS position, was NOT alone sufficient to trigger a determination of active involvement in the play.
Were I in charge of writing the Laws, or of guiding their implementation, I would find that affirmative repositioning, or the GK’s maintenance of a suboptimal position for the same purpose, to be sufficient for an OS call, as I suspect you would. I’ve watched the play now about a dozen times, and I’m not sure that standard is met here.
Where you and I part company is with your point about the defender on the right who hypothetically slows because of a conviction that the player in OS position will play the ball before the player whom the defender is marking. I can’t imagine why we would want an OS rule that protects the defender from the consequences of that particular decision.
Thanks for explaining your view. I found it interesting and thought-provoking.
I think not but infer you may interpret differently (as VAR did on Saturday)?
On balls played to attacking players from an offside position, not for determining involvement by an offside player for the purposes of deciding if it was an offside offense.
A mere touch, rather than a deliberate play, is sufficient.
Here's the relevant bit:
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
Now, it really comes down to the last 2 bullet points. You can take a very conservative view of law 11 and say that since Rashford didn't contact an opponent, didn't attempt to play the ball and didn't directly interfere with the run of a defender, it isn't an offense. However, I think that's contrary to the spirit of the law.
He made a long run, defenders had to track him and he didn't pull out of the play until the last moment, while in traffic but not necessarily interfering with play. I would still call it, however, being actively involved. I know they don't use that term anymore, but it's a good way of framing it.
Frankly, I'd have given it and had the AR put his flag up when Rashford got close to the ball - and the referee immediately blown the whistle - nobody would have complained. But because they held off, as they are told to, VAR decided that they would over-analyze instead of using common sense. Which seems to happen often in England.
I've said this before, but it's worth repeating: considering they have the most influence on making the laws of the game, they often suck at enforcing and interpreting them in England.
No dog in the fight for me, was shocked that the ref overturned it instead of it going to VAR.
I simply can’t understand how one can argue Man U didn’t gain an advantage from Rashford’s position on that goal.
Player clearly moves towards the ball. The movement shields Akanji from the ball and forces the keeper to make the decision to defend.
I actually don’t recall an instance in which a player actively running to the ball from an offsides position wasn’t called off.
And I was rooting for the draw. Couldn’t believe they gave that.
the play by continuing to run. At the end of the play he seems to lift his foot in a way that could be interpreted as a play on the ball. It is offside.
Officiating in England is really bad.
The only consistency is their inconsistency. Essentially it’s like not calling holding in football all game and then calling it when it counts most. They can affect the outcome of the game and then argue the laws of the game.
They don’t call contact, grabbing, pulling and kickouts throughout the pitch and then are happy to point to the spot with the most marginal contact. Or they don’t call a foul and then VAR officials hold their hands up and say it’s not clear and obvious. I still can’t get over Cucurella getting thrown down in the box by his hair and nothing! It’s a farce.
As I noted before I cannot recall a single instance where I’ve seen players run towards a ball from an obvious offsides position (regardless of whether they actually play the ball) where they don’t flag it. In this crucial instance they somehow adjudged that it was clear and obvious that the referee incorrectly decided that Rashford impacted the play. Funny stuff really.
In addition, the Premier League tends to operate a bit like a blackbox. I can’t recall them ever coming out and saying a call was wrong. If they feel this call was wrong I think they should admit the error. The NFL came out this week and said some calls were wrong in the Seahawks Rams game last week, I think this is a good way to operate.