Here's the link to the original Rashford video: kzread.info/dash/bejne/op-c27JphL3KdbQ.html

My issue with rashfords goal is that the referee didn’t even consult var for such a big decision. It was an incredibly controversial call and i think looking at the video again would really clarify the subjectivity of the referee decision or if it was made in the heat of the moment

@PaulSpacey

Жыл бұрын

He would have been in discussion with VAR while also talking to the AR; they check goal decisions but will only recommend a review if they feel the ref has made a clear error.

@crazymilan2104

Жыл бұрын

Yeah I understand that. I wonder if refs can var on calls they feel unsure of. Maybe he didn’t in this case.

@PaulSpacey

Жыл бұрын

VAR protocols only allow them to be involved in certain situations but the ref will communicate with them and with the ARs for help with situations they are unsure of. Even with all of that, there is still a lot of subjectivity involved in many situations, that’s why we all argue and debate so much 😄

But when rashford was behind the ball,The keeper charged up expecting a shot,which didnt come and fernandes took the shot.Thats interferong with play

@PaulSpacey

Жыл бұрын

It’s interfering with play in your opinion based on that situation. The decision is subjective and the ref saw it differently. Again, most people now accept that offside *should* have been given but the referee didn’t make a clear and obvious error in his assessment, that’s why the goal was allowed to stand.

Excellent analysis

@PaulSpacey

Жыл бұрын

Cheers Ray!

Problem is Rashford is impacting keeper Ederson and right back Kyle Walker, not Akanji

@PaulSpacey

Жыл бұрын

Your opinion is valid but it is subjective, just like the referees’ decision was subjective. Whether or not Ederson or Walker are being impacted in accordance with the laws of the game is not clear; that’s why technically the referee did not make a mistake based on the LOTG in allowing the goal.

hi, howard webb recently came out and said the rashford situation "prolly wont be called the same way". if so, under which limb of the offisde rule do u think he would catergorize the rashford case under?

@PaulSpacey

Жыл бұрын

Making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball.

@eddyededwin

Жыл бұрын

@@PaulSpacey if thats the case, it must follow that by implication they are accepting "impact" must include not only physical impact, but also mental (ie. their decision making)? (the right interpretation imo)

@PaulSpacey

Жыл бұрын

Because that is not explicitly written, it is a subjective interpretation but yes, that is the angle I suspect they would take on this.

IMO, both are offside. Though Rashford's case was hard to decide. I thought at first that the ref was right with giving the goal. But re-watching the goal again and again helped me notice Rashford's uncompleted attempt to shoot the ball just moments before he sees Bruno, and this had an impact on the keeper's decision to move towards which player. Ederson clearly got confused.

@PaulSpacey

Жыл бұрын

Most people would now agree that Rashford should probably have been called offside. It was the most sensible decision, even if technically it wasn’t going against the LOTG by allowing the goal.

@eddyededwin

Жыл бұрын

@@PaulSpacey its confusing how someone can literally pumpfake a ball without touching it and its fine, but when the keeper or opponents is blocked of sight Even the slightest its offside. the standard for the2 rules isnt consistent at all

@PaulSpacey

Жыл бұрын

It doesn’t seem consistent but each situation is judged on its own merits by the officials.

Both off side 👍👍👍

@PaulSpacey

Жыл бұрын

Discussions ongoing but most people agree offside for Rashford would have been the best decision. Saka also based on the fact he is impacting Ake’s ability to get to the ball.

@sukznongz7486

Жыл бұрын

@@PaulSpacey 👍👍👍