Things sure can turn quick. How many years have Arsenal and Man U been seen as laughing stock spent forces and Liverpool and Chelsea high flyers?
EPL 2022-2023
- Thread starter Davo15
- Start date
When I first became a City fan United were always at or near the top of the league and City were second fiddle and happy to finish 11th or 12th so they would' t have to worry about being in the bottom three. So it was weird to not have to worry about United for a good few years, and now they're maybe back, which is *also* weird. So yes, you're totally correct.
That first United goal was bullshit. Rashford completely interfered with play while offside.
You could see coming into this campaign the Reds were a shot bolt. Just worn out. And Chelsea simply came apart at the seams. Personally, I had the two of them falling somewhere between sixth and eighth coming in, but they're in even worse shape than I thought. They still might land about where I thought they would, but they're going to need some luck to do it.
Meanwhile, I had my Gunners making Champions League, but I honestly didn't expect what we're seeing now until next season at the earliest. All credit to Arteta. Trust the process indeed.
EDIT: I should say, my top four were City, Arsenal, Tottenham and West Ham United, with Man U knocking on the door. But the Hammers turned into Hamsters somewhere along the way, just terrible. Didn't think Newcastle would be this competitive until next year, either.
Last edited:
Being a God-fearing and self-respecting NYCFC fan I hate Man City, so when I saw the complaints about that offside play I figured they were unfounded whining and based on a misunderstanding the rules about interfering with play. Then I saw the footage. Rashford completely and intentionally shielded the defender from the ball. I guess the claim is that the defender could not have reached the ball anyway, but that's debatable at best. It looked to me like the defender slowed down because Rashford was so well positioned it would have been impossible to get around him and play the ball without severe risk of fouling inside the box. So the verdict from someone completely and unashamedly biased against Man City is they wuz robbed.
Last edited:
Rashford possessed that ball without actually touching it. I've been watching soccer for probably 10 years now, and while I'm not savvy on tactics, I can tell when a player possesses the ball at his feet. Insane for that not to be offsides.
Actually that's they type of improper argument I anticipated. The bottom line is you're 100% allowed to be offside and have no obligation to retreat or avoid confusing the defense. The only thing that's illegal are certain actions taken while being offside. The main one is of course playing the ball. The others are screening a defender's line of sight or physically interfering with them. But if an offside player lures a keeper or defender into wasting their energy that's completely legal as long as they don't physically interfere with them or shield their vision. They are allowed to keep running and defenders just have to deal with it, as long as the offside players stays out of their way. But if the defender tracks or follows them unnecessarily, that's just good soccer by the offside player. Josef Martinez is really good at this, and occasionally gets called for screening the keeper but otherwise it's good, smart soccer.
So if rashford wasn't there and ederson decided to run out and sweep the ball, vs stay back bc he thought rashford was going to shoot, that doesn't make it offside?
Your usage of imprecise terminology makes it harder to explain. Rashford was offside the moment he went offside and that was completely legal. Nothing extra was needed to make anything offside. The question is not whether Rashford was offside or whether something made him offside. He was offside. The question is whether he committed a violation after having put himself in an offside position. But again, being offside is completely legal. The defender's confusion is not an offense by Rashford.
He has to either
- play the ball (he didn't)
- attempt to play the ball - As
ZYanksRule noted, Rashford effectively possessed the ball without touching it. It's like the kid who puts his fingers a quarter inch from his sibling's face and says I'm not touching you. - physically interfere with an opponent - I think he clearly did
- screen a defender's (almost always the keeper) line of vision - here I think he didn't because though the written rule is not clear, as applied (and maybe in commentary) it only means that of a defender looking away from goal. Rashford visually screened the defender behind him, but that's not the kind of screen they mean. They mean standing on front of a keeper or another defender on the line so they can't see the ball coming at them
- "making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball" - again the impact needs to be physical, not necessarily with contact but more than mere confusion. and Rashford did this
- "gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when [the ball] has rebounded or been deflected off the goalpost, crossbar, match official or an opponent [or] been deliberately saved by any opponent" - Lots of people stop reading after "gaining an advantage." and then say that confusing a defender is an advantage, but it is limited as stated. I've even read supposed knowledgable commentary that claims you can gain an advantage by confusing the opponent. The the rule says what it says.
To really blow your mind, consider that if a defender fouls an offside player who is not committing a violation, the foul is given and if in the box it's a penalty. Law 11 says:
"In situations where: . . . .
- a player in an offside position is moving towards the ball with the intention of playing the ball and is fouled before playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the foul is penalised as it has occurred before the offside offence."
Last edited:
This is great stuff, thanks. I see my confusion. Thanks! I still do think it's offside based on that and his clear attempts to play the ball
Your usage of imprecise terminology makes it harder to explain. Rashford was offside the moment he went offside and that was completely legal. Nothing extra was needed to make anything offside. The question is not whether Rashford was offside or whether something made him offside. He was offside. The question is whether he committed a violation after having put himself in an offside position. But again, being offside is completely legal. The defender's confusion is not an offense by Rashford.
He has to either
At the end of the day, running and shadowing to the ball or shadowing the ball as Rashford did is a violation because once you move that close to the ball you can't say PSYCHE I did not mean to attempt to play it. The difference between what he did and attempting to play the ball either does not exist or it is metaphysical and subjective. He made moves that can be reasonably understood as an attempt to play the ball and he clearly got in the way.
- play the ball (he didn't)
- attempt to play the ball - As
- physically interfere with an opponent - I think he clearly did
- screen a defender's (almost always the keeper) line of vision - here I think he didn't because though the written rule is not clear, as applied (and maybe in commentary) it only means that of a defender looking away from goal. Rashford visually screened the defender behind him, but that's not the kind of screen they mean. They mean standing on front of a keeper or another defender on the line so they can't see the ball coming at them
- "making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball" - again the impact needs to be physical, not necessarily with contact but more than mere confusion. and Rashford did this
- "gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when [the ball] has rebounded or been deflected off the goalpost, crossbar, match official or an opponent [or] been deliberately saved by any opponent" - Lots of people stop reading after "gaining an advantage." and then say that confusing a defender is an advantage, but it is limited as stated. I've even read supposed knowledgable commentary that claims you can gain an advantage by confusing the opponent. The the rule says what it says.
To really blow your mind, consider that if a defender fouls an offside player who is not committing a violation, the foul is given and if in the box it's a penalty. Law 11 says:
"In situations where: . . . .
If being offside and confusing the defense were a violation, that last section quoted would make no sense.
- a player in an offside position is moving towards the ball with the intention of playing the ball and is fouled before playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the foul is penalised as it has occurred before the offside offence."
An outrageous and untenable statement. You should be ashamed!
A fine and sensible statement. You should be proud!
LOL
Haaland with another hat trick . 25 goals in 19 games . Would have been enough to win golden boot in half previous epl seasons and he has half a season to go .
Everton get the new manager bounce and beat the league leaders possibly opening a door for Citeh.
Liverpool continue to suck but probably the only "Big " club that won't fire their manager during a season like this.
Liverpool continue to suck but probably the only "Big " club that won't fire their manager during a season like this.
Sorry should have noted the lead up - after the game Klopp was interviewed and made some ridiculous whiny comment about how he is not counting the third goal because it was the first time they got it past midfield in the half. So they posted that in response.
Similar threads
- Poll
