• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

The Official 2022/23 Premier League Thread

Love this 'changing of the guard' with Fulham,Brighton and Brentford battling with us for the Europa/Conference spots while Liverpool and Chelsea are stood outside in the cold
 
Kandi1977 said:
Should be clear now as well, shouldn't it? If you interfere with play you're off. But it's not clear, is it?
Click to expand...
The VAR mouth piece Phil Walton said because he didn’t touch the ball or a player than it’s not interferring. Which is complete BS, but Is that even written in the rules, about touching player or the ball?
 
Well you can be offside if you are in an offside position and are on some way obstructing the keeper’s view - no need to touch the ball then. But if are in an offside position and you act in a way that the keeper has to assume you are going to shoot but you don’t actually touch the ball, then you’re not offside.
ridiculous.
 
Bedfordspurs said:
Well I think it is
He was offside even reading the rules
If his run wasn’t obstructing the city players then I don’t know what is
Click to expand...
Rashford doesn't touch it, but there's a player behind him that could've slid in and got the ball. If that player now tries to slide in he hits Rashford and it's a foul and a red card.
Again the law is bollox.
 
Glenda's Legs said:
Well you can be offside if you are in an offside position and are on some way obstructing the keeper’s view - no need to touch the ball then. But if are in an offside position and you act in a way that the keeper has to assume you are going to shoot but you don’t actually touch the ball, then you’re not offside.
ridiculous.
Click to expand...
This decision reminds me of the Dier 'handball' against Poocastle a couple of years ago. That rule changed shortly afterwards...
 
DubSpur said:
Great picture, it shows how the defender would get there before Fernandes if Rashford was not there. Poor officiating.
Click to expand...

Spot on. The fact of where he is in relation to the ball means he simply has to be interfering with play. In this still he evens look like he is shaping to hit the ball, the fact he does not touch the ball is irrelvant in my view, the goalkeeper has to assume he is going to shoot and take appropriate positioning, thus once again meaning Rashford is affecting play.

One thing we all know, if that exact scenario happened tomorrow (and not yesterday) and Kane leaves the ball for Son to equalise, absolutely nailed on it is disallowed
 
paxtonwolf said:
Spot on. The fact of where he is in relation to the ball means he simply has to be interfering with play. In this still he evens look like he is shaping to hit the ball, the fact he does not touch the ball is irrelvant in my view, the goalkeeper has to assume he is going to shoot and take appropriate positioning, thus once again meaning Rashford is affecting play.

One thing we all know, if that exact scenario happened tomorrow (and not yesterday) and Kane leaves the ball for Son to equalise, absolutely nailed on it is disallowed
Click to expand...

Even more than that, Rashford has influenced play the moment the ball was passed - the defender actively stepped up to play him off, successfully, and can rightly expect the game to halt at that stage.

It’s a mind-numbing, absolute train-wreck of a call.

I’d love to see teams exploit this - leave a man up at all times, dink a ball over the top for a deep runner and away you go.
 
Bedfordspurs said:
View attachment 14930 Not offside
Click to expand...
If they are to continue this rule, the interpretation should be 'would anything change if the player in an offside position wasn't there at all'. If yes, then offside. This would clearly be offside then, as the entire defence reacts to Rashfords run. They even purposely put him offside. If he wasn't there at all, it's no danger for the defence.
 
Kandi1977 said:
If they are to continue this rule, the interpretation should be 'would anything change if the player in an offside position wasn't there at all'. If yes, then offside. This would clearly be offside then, as the entire defence reacts to Rashfords run. They even purposely put him offside. If he wasn't there at all, it's no danger for the defence.
Click to expand...
and the fact that he was about to kick it of course
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back