Premier League 2023-2024

[Milltown Row2]

In accordance with the rules the correct decision was (likely) made.

But then again you have to ask yourself why the offside laws have evolved to cater for interference, intent, etc.

And Rashford, knowingly or not, was a significant presence in the goals being scored. So it should have been disallowed imho.

—-

Isn't sport just brilliant though? It just keeps throwing up things you'd never think of.

MOTD2 showed the goal from the perspective of Allison who'd set himself up for a Rashford shot only for Fernandez to steal in from a different angle.

If that's not interfering with play, then what is!

Two neutral commentators in Danny and Alan gave their 'view' on it they said by the letter of the law its a goal but said common sense wasn't used ... The keeper keeps his eye on the ball, you've said that yourself in a post on goal keeping in hurling, I can find it for you if ya want

Yeah a goal by letter of the law but I'm a United fan and think it should be offside, rule wants fixed. Cute enough of Rashford not to touch it. Anyway we'll take it, far better team so deserved rub of the green there.

They changed it to improve it recently, so change it back?

[johnnycool]

In accordance with the rules the correct decision was (likely) made.

But then again you have to ask yourself why the offside laws have evolved to cater for interference, intent, etc.

And Rashford, knowingly or not, was a significant presence in the goals being scored. So it should have been disallowed imho.

—-

Isn't sport just brilliant though? It just keeps throwing up things you'd never think of.

MOTD2 showed the goal from the perspective of Allison Ederson who'd set himself up for a Rashford shot only for Fernandez to steal in from a different angle.

If that's not interfering with play, then what is!

Two neutral commentators in Danny and Alan gave their 'view' on it they said by the letter of the law its a goal but said common sense wasn't used ... The keeper keeps his eye on the ball, you've said that yourself in a post on goal keeping in hurling, I can find it for you if ya want

I've said in the past in relation to hurling a keeper will look at the body position of the attacking player to try and work out where they're going to hit it. You can only keep an eye on the ball once it's hit and what you are alluding to is that if a ball is dropping in a hurling goalkeeper needs to follow the flight of the ball and ignore lads swinging on it.

If it's still to be hit by a player then you need to track their movements as they're baring down on goal.

[Milltown Row2]

In accordance with the rules the correct decision was (likely) made.

But then again you have to ask yourself why the offside laws have evolved to cater for interference, intent, etc.

And Rashford, knowingly or not, was a significant presence in the goals being scored. So it should have been disallowed imho.

—-

Isn't sport just brilliant though? It just keeps throwing up things you'd never think of.

MOTD2 showed the goal from the perspective of Allison Ederson who'd set himself up for a Rashford shot only for Fernandez to steal in from a different angle.

If that's not interfering with play, then what is!

Two neutral commentators in Danny and Alan gave their 'view' on it they said by the letter of the law its a goal but said common sense wasn't used ... The keeper keeps his eye on the ball, you've said that yourself in a post on goal keeping in hurling, I can find it for you if ya want

I've said in the past in relation to hurling a keeper will look at the body position of the attacking player to try and work out where they're going to hit it. You can only keep an eye on the ball once it's hit and what you are alluding to is that if a ball is dropping in a hurling goalkeeper needs to follow the flight of the ball and ignore lads swinging on it.

If it's still to be hit by a player then you need to track their movements as they're baring down on goal.

He did neither by the looks of it, needs more training

[johnnycool]

In accordance with the rules the correct decision was (likely) made.

But then again you have to ask yourself why the offside laws have evolved to cater for interference, intent, etc.

And Rashford, knowingly or not, was a significant presence in the goals being scored. So it should have been disallowed imho.

—-

Isn't sport just brilliant though? It just keeps throwing up things you'd never think of.

MOTD2 showed the goal from the perspective of Allison Ederson who'd set himself up for a Rashford shot only for Fernandez to steal in from a different angle.

If that's not interfering with play, then what is!

Two neutral commentators in Danny and Alan gave their 'view' on it they said by the letter of the law its a goal but said common sense wasn't used ... The keeper keeps his eye on the ball, you've said that yourself in a post on goal keeping in hurling, I can find it for you if ya want

I've said in the past in relation to hurling a keeper will look at the body position of the attacking player to try and work out where they're going to hit it. You can only keep an eye on the ball once it's hit and what you are alluding to is that if a ball is dropping in a hurling goalkeeper needs to follow the flight of the ball and ignore lads swinging on it.

If it's still to be hit by a player then you need to track their movements as they're baring down on goal.

He did neither by the looks of it, needs more training

He set his angles based on Rashfords run rather than Fernandez's so yes, evidently a lot of premier league players need more training and education on how this change to the rules is being implemented.

[David McKeown]

In accordance with the rules the correct decision was (likely) made.

But then again you have to ask yourself why the offside laws have evolved to cater for interference, intent, etc.

And Rashford, knowingly or not, was a significant presence in the goals being scored. So it should have been disallowed imho.

—-

Isn't sport just brilliant though? It just keeps throwing up things you'd never think of.

MOTD2 showed the goal from the perspective of Allison Ederson who'd set himself up for a Rashford shot only for Fernandez to steal in from a different angle.

If that's not interfering with play, then what is!

Two neutral commentators in Danny and Alan gave their 'view' on it they said by the letter of the law its a goal but said common sense wasn't used ... The keeper keeps his eye on the ball, you've said that yourself in a post on goal keeping in hurling, I can find it for you if ya want

I've said in the past in relation to hurling a keeper will look at the body position of the attacking player to try and work out where they're going to hit it. You can only keep an eye on the ball once it's hit and what you are alluding to is that if a ball is dropping in a hurling goalkeeper needs to follow the flight of the ball and ignore lads swinging on it.

If it's still to be hit by a player then you need to track their movements as they're baring down on goal.

He did neither by the looks of it, needs more training

He set his angles based on Rashfords run rather than Fernandez's so yes, evidently a lot of premier league players need more training and education on how this change to the rules is being implemented.

I think the problem is that the offside rule seems to be very reactionary. In 2012/2013 season Johnny Evans scored an own goal against Newcastle whilst being challenged by an offside Demba Ba. The linesman flagged for offside and Mike Dean awarded the goal. The FA then came out and said Ba couldn't be interfering because he didn't touch the ball. Then a load of goals started being allowed when players were blocking goal keepers views.  The IFAB didn't like that so introduced criteria for what constitutes interference when the ball is not touched. Now those criteria have become too prescriptive and will no doubt looked at again. I think the city defender is at fault if he goes towards the ball Rashford will either touch it or stop him from touching it and we aren't having this debate. The fact he doesn't do that needs questioned.

[CK_Redhand]

In accordance with the rules the correct decision was (likely) made.

But then again you have to ask yourself why the offside laws have evolved to cater for interference, intent, etc.

And Rashford, knowingly or not, was a significant presence in the goals being scored. So it should have been disallowed imho.

—-

Isn't sport just brilliant though? It just keeps throwing up things you'd never think of.

MOTD2 showed the goal from the perspective of Allison Ederson who'd set himself up for a Rashford shot only for Fernandez to steal in from a different angle.

If that's not interfering with play, then what is!

Two neutral commentators in Danny and Alan gave their 'view' on it they said by the letter of the law its a goal but said common sense wasn't used ... The keeper keeps his eye on the ball, you've said that yourself in a post on goal keeping in hurling, I can find it for you if ya want

I've said in the past in relation to hurling a keeper will look at the body position of the attacking player to try and work out where they're going to hit it. You can only keep an eye on the ball once it's hit and what you are alluding to is that if a ball is dropping in a hurling goalkeeper needs to follow the flight of the ball and ignore lads swinging on it.

If it's still to be hit by a player then you need to track their movements as they're baring down on goal.

He did neither by the looks of it, needs more training

He set his angles based on Rashfords run rather than Fernandez's so yes, evidently a lot of premier league players need more training and education on how this change to the rules is being implemented.

I think the problem is that the offside rule seems to be very reactionary. In 2012/2013 season Johnny Evans scored an own goal against Newcastle whilst being challenged by an offside Demba Ba. The linesman flagged for offside and Mike Dean awarded the goal. The FA then came out and said Ba couldn't be interfering because he didn't touch the ball. Then a load of goals started being allowed when players were blocking goal keepers views.  The IFAB didn't like that so introduced criteria for what constitutes interference when the ball is not touched. Now those criteria have become too prescriptive and will no doubt looked at again. I think the city defender is at fault if he goes towards the ball Rashford will either touch it or stop him from touching it and we aren't having this debate. The fact he doesn't do that needs questioned.

Nail on head. People crying that the rules are too vague are the same ones crying when the rules are too complicated. The majority of criticism I've seen on this incident blame the ref when he actually implemented the rules as written.

[johnnycool]

In accordance with the rules the correct decision was (likely) made.

But then again you have to ask yourself why the offside laws have evolved to cater for interference, intent, etc.

And Rashford, knowingly or not, was a significant presence in the goals being scored. So it should have been disallowed imho.

—-

Isn't sport just brilliant though? It just keeps throwing up things you'd never think of.

MOTD2 showed the goal from the perspective of Allison Ederson who'd set himself up for a Rashford shot only for Fernandez to steal in from a different angle.

If that's not interfering with play, then what is!

Two neutral commentators in Danny and Alan gave their 'view' on it they said by the letter of the law its a goal but said common sense wasn't used ... The keeper keeps his eye on the ball, you've said that yourself in a post on goal keeping in hurling, I can find it for you if ya want

I've said in the past in relation to hurling a keeper will look at the body position of the attacking player to try and work out where they're going to hit it. You can only keep an eye on the ball once it's hit and what you are alluding to is that if a ball is dropping in a hurling goalkeeper needs to follow the flight of the ball and ignore lads swinging on it.

If it's still to be hit by a player then you need to track their movements as they're baring down on goal.

He did neither by the looks of it, needs more training

He set his angles based on Rashfords run rather than Fernandez's so yes, evidently a lot of premier league players need more training and education on how this change to the rules is being implemented.

I think the problem is that the offside rule seems to be very reactionary. In 2012/2013 season Johnny Evans scored an own goal against Newcastle whilst being challenged by an offside Demba Ba. The linesman flagged for offside and Mike Dean awarded the goal. The FA then came out and said Ba couldn't be interfering because he didn't touch the ball. Then a load of goals started being allowed when players were blocking goal keepers views.  The IFAB didn't like that so introduced criteria for what constitutes interference when the ball is not touched. Now those criteria have become too prescriptive and will no doubt looked at again. I think the city defender is at fault if he goes towards the ball Rashford will either touch it or stop him from touching it and we aren't having this debate. The fact he doesn't do that needs questioned.

The City defender probably didn't do any of those things as he knew Rashford was a mile offside and was sprinting onto the through ball and in his mind interfering with play.

A lot of defenders are going to need to be re-educated on these new guidelines.

[Gael85]

Wolves are awful. Jimenez hasn't been same player since head injury and Traore is awful. Good to see Kelliher in goal tonight. Should have a handy clean sheet tonight.

[Captain Scarlet]

I know it's long beyond it, BUT Kane would have made much more sense for City and their style of play. There are articles popping up to point how Haaland does not suit them, despite banging in goals.
On MOTD they highlighted all his runs and the City boys never went for him!

Haaland would have ideal for United in fairness. Even now if Conte sticks around Son would be an amazing signing for the top sides.

[seafoid]

https://www.bbc.com/sport/live/football/63881985

GOAL - MAN CITY 0-1 SPURS
GOAL - MAN CITY 0-2 SPURS

[Milltown Row2]

Haaland hasn't exactly made them better

[mrdeeds]

Haaland hasn't exactly made them better

He's done what Ronaldo did to United last year. Unsettled them and took away from system and players around him.

[Captain Obvious]

https://www.bbc.com/sport/live/football/63881985

GOAL - MAN CITY 0-1 SPURS
GOAL - MAN CITY 0-2 SPURS

Opening goal was poor by Ederson. Second goal poor defending. Pep would be pulling his hair out had he hair.

[thewobbler]

I don't think Haaland was bought to make City "better" per se, so much as more varied, and more productive in tight games.

But like United with Ronaldo, I don't get impression that the rest of the squad overly happy with any tactics that see them reduced to feeding ammunition for a sniper.

[Milltown Row2]

Spurs are worse than Everton at the minute