It wouldn't have been Garnacho's goal, it would have been Zirkzee's goal. It's unlucky but rules are rules. It would have been far more shocking had it been allowed.
He couldn't have been more offside, he was on the goal line.
If it had been a Brighton player, it would have been an OG.
I agree, common sense should have prevailed, from Zirkzee. Wtf was he doing?
Can't really blame Zirkzee to be fair, he was sliding in for the ball that went to Garnacho and couldn't really stop himself ending up where he did by the time Garnacho took the shot.
You touch the ball, you are interfering with play, it's not that difficult. I agree there are circumstances where common sense doesn't seem to prevail, but not sure many believe that the goal should have been allowed.
Would the OP have felt the same if the situation was in our box?
I don't understand the criticism Zirkzee is getting. The only thing he done wrong was miss the initial cross. He had no chance of getting out of the way of Garnacho's shot.
Rashford on the other hand could and should have stayed onside for his goal.
No it shouldn't. It was offside.
No it was offside. Maybe the FA can look to implement some kind of rule change for next season but right now it is offside, as annoying as it is.
"Letter of the law bulls***" only applies to clubs other than the one I support shocker.
Change the laws of the game for United. Maybe in the days of Fergie, but not now
Agree op. Also, Rashford didn't gain an advantage cos the keeper saved his first shot and then it accidently hit his heel and went in, so shouldn't be offside.
Also, when Joao Pedro scored there wasn't a United defender anywhere near him, so that should be offside as well.
Refs need to stop applying the law and use common sense.
Utd are so poor you can't even have bants anymore😥
If that was a City player then the goal would’ve stood. Seen their latest laughable penalty yet? It’s actually becoming too obvious the refs want City to win.
Whenever they’re in trouble, just like yesterday, the referees bail them out with scandalous decisions.
Ten Hag out.
comment by House - (U17162)
posted 2 minutes ago
No it was offside. Maybe the FA can look to implement some kind of rule change for next season but right now it is offside, as annoying as it is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You mean implement a law whereby referees and/or their assistants subjectively decide that a goal is given if an offside player scores a goal if they believe a goal would have been scored anyhow had the offside player not scored?
That would be fun to watch at least.
comment by Black Shuck of Manchester (U9489)
posted 6 minutes ago
If that was a City player then the goal would’ve stood.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. Maybe United should make more effort to becoming a big club.
comment by mancW🏆🏆h🏆🏆- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Black Shuck of Manchester (U9489)
posted 6 minutes ago
If that was a City player then the goal would’ve stood.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. Maybe United should make more effort to becoming a big club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That would make sense if we weren’t the biggest club in world football.
Easily.
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by House - (U17162)
posted 2 minutes ago
No it was offside. Maybe the FA can look to implement some kind of rule change for next season but right now it is offside, as annoying as it is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You mean implement a law whereby referees and/or their assistants subjectively decide that a goal is given if an offside player scores a goal if they believe a goal would have been scored anyhow had the offside player not scored?
That would be fun to watch at least.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've not actually seen a goal like yesterday's happen before so it is a weird one.
Of course I've seen deliberate ones. One springs to mind when Ronaldo chipped a keeper for Portugal and Nani deliberately put it over the line while offside.
Scenarios like the above should be offside, as it was deliberate.
Scenarios like yesterday, no, a player having no control over him sliding 5 metres because of the weather and accidentally touching a ball that was going in the goal anyway, I think there is a shout for some sort of rule change for those. I would think the same had it been Brighton denied a goal for that too.
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 1 hour, 36 minutes ago
He couldn't have been more offside, he was on the goal line.
If it had been a Brighton player, it would have been an OG.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well the 2nd part isn’t true is it?
comment by Ali - 🇪🇦 🏴 (U1192)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by House - (U17162)
posted 2 minutes ago
No it was offside. Maybe the FA can look to implement some kind of rule change for next season but right now it is offside, as annoying as it is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You mean implement a law whereby referees and/or their assistants subjectively decide that a goal is given if an offside player scores a goal if they believe a goal would have been scored anyhow had the offside player not scored?
That would be fun to watch at least.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've not actually seen a goal like yesterday's happen before so it is a weird one.
Of course I've seen deliberate ones. One springs to mind when Ronaldo chipped a keeper for Portugal and Nani deliberately put it over the line while offside.
Scenarios like the above should be offside, as it was deliberate.
Scenarios like yesterday, no, a player having no control over him sliding 5 metres because of the weather and accidentally touching a ball that was going in the goal anyway, I think there is a shout for some sort of rule change for those. I would think the same had it been Brighton denied a goal for that too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It has happened loads of times and it would be absolutely ridiculous for a goal to be given when a player scores when offside.
Even implementing it would be ridiculous with several subjective decisions needed to be taken into account. The main two being was the shot on target before the offside player scored? Did the defending team have no chance of stopping it going in if the offside player didn't score? Then you have subjective decisions around what the defending team would have been doing had the player not been offside, ie interfering/being active in the play. For example would the keeper and defence have left the middle and went after the player who effectively assisted, rather than worry about the middle where the offside player scored from?
It would be ridiculous to allow players to score when offside but the circus around checking the goal and all the subjective decisions that need taken would be equally so.
The idea is to take out subjectivity not increase it.
No it should not have stood OP. Stop embarrassing yourself.
As unlucky as it was it was offside.
Perhaps it's not used in the way it was initially intended, as Brighton weren't disadvantaged, but it would have been ridiculous to award the goal. Hopefully we get a bit of luck back next weekend.
Why exactly should the rules of the game not apply to utd?
If he was level, but instead of knocking it in with a legal body part, he punched it in, would that be handball? If it was going in anyway? As in deliberate handball but wouldn't have affected whether it goes in or not so shouldn't be given as handball.
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 1 hour, 2 minutes ago
comment by Ali - 🇪🇦 🏴 (U1192)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by House - (U17162)
posted 2 minutes ago
No it was offside. Maybe the FA can look to implement some kind of rule change for next season but right now it is offside, as annoying as it is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You mean implement a law whereby referees and/or their assistants subjectively decide that a goal is given if an offside player scores a goal if they believe a goal would have been scored anyhow had the offside player not scored?
That would be fun to watch at least.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've not actually seen a goal like yesterday's happen before so it is a weird one.
Of course I've seen deliberate ones. One springs to mind when Ronaldo chipped a keeper for Portugal and Nani deliberately put it over the line while offside.
Scenarios like the above should be offside, as it was deliberate.
Scenarios like yesterday, no, a player having no control over him sliding 5 metres because of the weather and accidentally touching a ball that was going in the goal anyway, I think there is a shout for some sort of rule change for those. I would think the same had it been Brighton denied a goal for that too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It has happened loads of times and it would be absolutely ridiculous for a goal to be given when a player scores when offside.
Even implementing it would be ridiculous with several subjective decisions needed to be taken into account. The main two being was the shot on target before the offside player scored? Did the defending team have no chance of stopping it going in if the offside player didn't score? Then you have subjective decisions around what the defending team would have been doing had the player not been offside, ie interfering/being active in the play. For example would the keeper and defence have left the middle and went after the player who effectively assisted, rather than worry about the middle where the offside player scored from?
It would be ridiculous to allow players to score when offside but the circus around checking the goal and all the subjective decisions that need taken would be equally so.
The idea is to take out subjectivity not increase it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's obvious that the current ruling is bollox because so many non united fans are agreeing it was extremely unlucky to not have gotten the goal.
The current rules for offside are ridiculous and it has been over complicated, simplified, over complicated, simplified and so on over the years that it's just so pathetic these days that everyone has forgotten what offside was actually created for, to stop people goal hanging.
Even if my most disliked club, Liverpool, were denied that goal I'd still be disagreeing with the current rulings.
Agree with me or not, but that's how I feel.
Sign in if you want to comment
Garnacho's goal should've stood
Page 1 of 3
posted on 25/8/24
It wouldn't have been Garnacho's goal, it would have been Zirkzee's goal. It's unlucky but rules are rules. It would have been far more shocking had it been allowed.
posted on 25/8/24
He couldn't have been more offside, he was on the goal line.
If it had been a Brighton player, it would have been an OG.
posted on 25/8/24
I agree, common sense should have prevailed, from Zirkzee. Wtf was he doing?
posted on 25/8/24
😩
posted on 25/8/24
Can't really blame Zirkzee to be fair, he was sliding in for the ball that went to Garnacho and couldn't really stop himself ending up where he did by the time Garnacho took the shot.
posted on 25/8/24
You touch the ball, you are interfering with play, it's not that difficult. I agree there are circumstances where common sense doesn't seem to prevail, but not sure many believe that the goal should have been allowed.
Would the OP have felt the same if the situation was in our box?
posted on 25/8/24
I don't understand the criticism Zirkzee is getting. The only thing he done wrong was miss the initial cross. He had no chance of getting out of the way of Garnacho's shot.
Rashford on the other hand could and should have stayed onside for his goal.
posted on 25/8/24
No it shouldn't. It was offside.
posted on 25/8/24
No it was offside. Maybe the FA can look to implement some kind of rule change for next season but right now it is offside, as annoying as it is.
posted on 25/8/24
"Letter of the law bulls***" only applies to clubs other than the one I support shocker.
posted on 25/8/24
Change the laws of the game for United. Maybe in the days of Fergie, but not now
posted on 25/8/24
Agree op. Also, Rashford didn't gain an advantage cos the keeper saved his first shot and then it accidently hit his heel and went in, so shouldn't be offside.
Also, when Joao Pedro scored there wasn't a United defender anywhere near him, so that should be offside as well.
Refs need to stop applying the law and use common sense.
posted on 25/8/24
Utd are so poor you can't even have bants anymore😥
posted on 25/8/24
If that was a City player then the goal would’ve stood. Seen their latest laughable penalty yet? It’s actually becoming too obvious the refs want City to win.
Whenever they’re in trouble, just like yesterday, the referees bail them out with scandalous decisions.
Ten Hag out.
posted on 25/8/24
comment by House - (U17162)
posted 2 minutes ago
No it was offside. Maybe the FA can look to implement some kind of rule change for next season but right now it is offside, as annoying as it is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You mean implement a law whereby referees and/or their assistants subjectively decide that a goal is given if an offside player scores a goal if they believe a goal would have been scored anyhow had the offside player not scored?
That would be fun to watch at least.
posted on 25/8/24
comment by Black Shuck of Manchester (U9489)
posted 6 minutes ago
If that was a City player then the goal would’ve stood.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. Maybe United should make more effort to becoming a big club.
posted on 25/8/24
comment by mancW🏆🏆h🏆🏆- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Black Shuck of Manchester (U9489)
posted 6 minutes ago
If that was a City player then the goal would’ve stood.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. Maybe United should make more effort to becoming a big club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That would make sense if we weren’t the biggest club in world football.
Easily.
posted on 25/8/24
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by House - (U17162)
posted 2 minutes ago
No it was offside. Maybe the FA can look to implement some kind of rule change for next season but right now it is offside, as annoying as it is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You mean implement a law whereby referees and/or their assistants subjectively decide that a goal is given if an offside player scores a goal if they believe a goal would have been scored anyhow had the offside player not scored?
That would be fun to watch at least.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've not actually seen a goal like yesterday's happen before so it is a weird one.
Of course I've seen deliberate ones. One springs to mind when Ronaldo chipped a keeper for Portugal and Nani deliberately put it over the line while offside.
Scenarios like the above should be offside, as it was deliberate.
Scenarios like yesterday, no, a player having no control over him sliding 5 metres because of the weather and accidentally touching a ball that was going in the goal anyway, I think there is a shout for some sort of rule change for those. I would think the same had it been Brighton denied a goal for that too.
posted on 25/8/24
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 1 hour, 36 minutes ago
He couldn't have been more offside, he was on the goal line.
If it had been a Brighton player, it would have been an OG.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well the 2nd part isn’t true is it?
posted on 25/8/24
comment by Ali - 🇪🇦 🏴 (U1192)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by House - (U17162)
posted 2 minutes ago
No it was offside. Maybe the FA can look to implement some kind of rule change for next season but right now it is offside, as annoying as it is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You mean implement a law whereby referees and/or their assistants subjectively decide that a goal is given if an offside player scores a goal if they believe a goal would have been scored anyhow had the offside player not scored?
That would be fun to watch at least.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've not actually seen a goal like yesterday's happen before so it is a weird one.
Of course I've seen deliberate ones. One springs to mind when Ronaldo chipped a keeper for Portugal and Nani deliberately put it over the line while offside.
Scenarios like the above should be offside, as it was deliberate.
Scenarios like yesterday, no, a player having no control over him sliding 5 metres because of the weather and accidentally touching a ball that was going in the goal anyway, I think there is a shout for some sort of rule change for those. I would think the same had it been Brighton denied a goal for that too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It has happened loads of times and it would be absolutely ridiculous for a goal to be given when a player scores when offside.
Even implementing it would be ridiculous with several subjective decisions needed to be taken into account. The main two being was the shot on target before the offside player scored? Did the defending team have no chance of stopping it going in if the offside player didn't score? Then you have subjective decisions around what the defending team would have been doing had the player not been offside, ie interfering/being active in the play. For example would the keeper and defence have left the middle and went after the player who effectively assisted, rather than worry about the middle where the offside player scored from?
It would be ridiculous to allow players to score when offside but the circus around checking the goal and all the subjective decisions that need taken would be equally so.
The idea is to take out subjectivity not increase it.
posted on 25/8/24
No it should not have stood OP. Stop embarrassing yourself.
posted on 25/8/24
As unlucky as it was it was offside.
Perhaps it's not used in the way it was initially intended, as Brighton weren't disadvantaged, but it would have been ridiculous to award the goal. Hopefully we get a bit of luck back next weekend.
posted on 25/8/24
Why exactly should the rules of the game not apply to utd?
posted on 25/8/24
If he was level, but instead of knocking it in with a legal body part, he punched it in, would that be handball? If it was going in anyway? As in deliberate handball but wouldn't have affected whether it goes in or not so shouldn't be given as handball.
posted on 25/8/24
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 1 hour, 2 minutes ago
comment by Ali - 🇪🇦 🏴 (U1192)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by TheresOnlyOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by House - (U17162)
posted 2 minutes ago
No it was offside. Maybe the FA can look to implement some kind of rule change for next season but right now it is offside, as annoying as it is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You mean implement a law whereby referees and/or their assistants subjectively decide that a goal is given if an offside player scores a goal if they believe a goal would have been scored anyhow had the offside player not scored?
That would be fun to watch at least.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've not actually seen a goal like yesterday's happen before so it is a weird one.
Of course I've seen deliberate ones. One springs to mind when Ronaldo chipped a keeper for Portugal and Nani deliberately put it over the line while offside.
Scenarios like the above should be offside, as it was deliberate.
Scenarios like yesterday, no, a player having no control over him sliding 5 metres because of the weather and accidentally touching a ball that was going in the goal anyway, I think there is a shout for some sort of rule change for those. I would think the same had it been Brighton denied a goal for that too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It has happened loads of times and it would be absolutely ridiculous for a goal to be given when a player scores when offside.
Even implementing it would be ridiculous with several subjective decisions needed to be taken into account. The main two being was the shot on target before the offside player scored? Did the defending team have no chance of stopping it going in if the offside player didn't score? Then you have subjective decisions around what the defending team would have been doing had the player not been offside, ie interfering/being active in the play. For example would the keeper and defence have left the middle and went after the player who effectively assisted, rather than worry about the middle where the offside player scored from?
It would be ridiculous to allow players to score when offside but the circus around checking the goal and all the subjective decisions that need taken would be equally so.
The idea is to take out subjectivity not increase it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's obvious that the current ruling is bollox because so many non united fans are agreeing it was extremely unlucky to not have gotten the goal.
The current rules for offside are ridiculous and it has been over complicated, simplified, over complicated, simplified and so on over the years that it's just so pathetic these days that everyone has forgotten what offside was actually created for, to stop people goal hanging.
Even if my most disliked club, Liverpool, were denied that goal I'd still be disagreeing with the current rulings.
Agree with me or not, but that's how I feel.
Page 1 of 3