Here we are, a professional referee explaining why this season Marcus Rashford was 'factually' onside as per the rules of football this season. This is coming from a professional referee, whose job it is to know the current rules of our game. Not the opinion of generic user of world famous ja606 online forums who has a great tool at their disposal (degrading eyesight). This is a person who is employed professionally by the FA and other governing bodies, with advanced tracking and measuring equipment at their disposal!
I've read some posters both LFC and United supporting claim that his goal was offside.
MIKE DEAN: Why Marcus Rashford's goal against Liverpool was given https://mol.im/a/11143161 via https://dailym.ai/android
You can use yester years rules, you can make up your own rules, but these are the current rules. Most certainly, Marcus Rashfords goal Vs LFC the other night, was onside!
Come at me (I'm going to bed byeeee)
Why Rashfords goal was onside
posted on 29/8/22
comment by #4zA accide cchiu a lengua ca a spata - 🇮🇹🇺🇦 (U22472)
posted 2 days, 8 hours ago
comment by Sir Bob..... "Glory to Ukraine!" - "Glory to the heroes!" (U3823)
posted 8 minutes ago
Can anyone smell donkey poo
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Know
Jussed u
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No there's definitely a smell of donkey poo when you're around.
posted on 29/8/22
comment by Sir Bob..... "Glory to Ukraine!" - "Glory to the heroes!" (U3823)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by #4zA accide cchiu a lengua ca a spata - 🇮🇹🇺🇦 (U22472)
posted 2 days, 8 hours ago
comment by Sir Bob..... "Glory to Ukraine!" - "Glory to the heroes!" (U3823)
posted 8 minutes ago
Can anyone smell donkey poo
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Know
Jussed u
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No there's definitely a smell of donkey poo when you're around.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bite
posted on 29/8/22
Slurp
posted on 29/8/22
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 2 days, 14 hours ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 51 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 49 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 1 hour, 34 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 3 hours, 14 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 32 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 23 hours, 7 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 12 hours, 39 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 5 seconds ago
I really hate that we’ve got so binary about it all and seemingly forgotten what the offside rule was there for in the first place.
Had Rashford been a foot offside or a foot onside, it would have made no difference to the outcome.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well it would have as he would have been offside and therefore he wouldn't have scored.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which is exactly what I mean about forgetting the reason the rule exists in the first place.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OK I understand what you're saying but the defenders position themselves higher in order to play attackers offside, if the rule wasn't there they'd be further back. It's a pointless statement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes but with Rashfords goal, even if he’d been a yard onside he’d still have scored it. It was poor defending and had he been offside, that would have been more luck on liverpools part than by design.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You could say that about most offside goals but it's still a pointless statement as if those goals were allowed to stand, teams wouldn't play such a high line and therefore the whole dynamics of the situation would change.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you actually think Rashford was offside?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes I think it was clear he was offside. The lines showed this. I was in shock when it came up green after they showed the lines.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you miss the green dotted line from Gomez's head to the green line on the floor? It clearly showed his head was nearer the goal line than Rashford's foot. I'm perplexed as to why everyone keeps saying it is offside. I feel like I was watching a different replay to everyone else.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes I must have missed that. I saw Rashford's foot over the lines drew and then made it green as that means onside, as per the new guidance Dean spoke about.
You honestly thought it was onside?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not at the time. I thought he was going to be off. When I saw the replay I saw the green line on the floor and thought oh he's off. Then I looked across the line and Gomez was leaning towards the goal and there was a green dotted line off his head down to the floor and it was nearest the goal than Rashfords's foot. I didn't see it initially though.
Genuinely think he was on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The green dotted line was down to the green line. Rashford's toe was over that line. My guess is they set the line where the middle of the two over lapping lines would have been and therefore according to the new guidance he was given offside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Could be right. It's all a bit confusing. As I recall the green line on the floor was pretty wide and I was wondering to myself why it was so fecking wide when I spotted the dotted line off Gomez's head (shoulder). I think the dotted line (which was thinner than the line on the floor) was closer to the goal line was Gomez's head (shoulder) and the fat green line on the floor was Rashford's line plus the 5cm variance to give the striker the benefit of the doubt? But feck knows. I think when you look at the still that his shoulder is at least in line with Rashford's foot but the angle makes it difficult to be sure
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah I thought the new guidance was that the lines were thicker which gave an advantage to the attacker and now I hear there is a further advantage as if the lines overlap it's onside.
Many people wanted this. Let's see how it pans out.
posted on 29/8/22
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 days, 12 hours ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 4 hours, 40 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 hour, 29 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 4 hours, 34 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 23 hours, 7 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 12 hours, 39 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 5 seconds ago
I really hate that we’ve got so binary about it all and seemingly forgotten what the offside rule was there for in the first place.
Had Rashford been a foot offside or a foot onside, it would have made no difference to the outcome.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well it would have as he would have been offside and therefore he wouldn't have scored.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which is exactly what I mean about forgetting the reason the rule exists in the first place.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OK I understand what you're saying but the defenders position themselves higher in order to play attackers offside, if the rule wasn't there they'd be further back. It's a pointless statement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes but with Rashfords goal, even if he’d been a yard onside he’d still have scored it. It was poor defending and had he been offside, that would have been more luck on liverpools part than by design.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You could say that about most offside goals but it's still a pointless statement as if those goals were allowed to stand, teams wouldn't play such a high line and therefore the whole dynamics of the situation would change.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You couldn’t though, there’s a difference between a high line being used successfully and the case of Rashfords where (ignoring the line had been broken anyway) it’s that close the defensive line has knowingly done it.
I’d argue you guys use the high defensive line much more as a pressing technique rather than an offside trap though, it’s why you keep getting done by it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd disagree with that completely. In fact when VAR came in, that's when our line became so high, that exact season it was introduced. Why? You had more trust that it would be the right decision and therefore the risk was less. However with this new guidance Dean has spoken about, we perhaps need to rethink it. I'd actually argue we need to rethink it anyhow as whilst we normally control possession, we aren't doing it close to City levels and leave too many opportunities due to it. The risk and reward levels are becoming too close.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You started playing the high line the year before it so it wasn’t to do with VAR. The main reason you use it is to compact space. I agree I think you need to rethink it a bit though, although not when you’ve got more of your first team available than you do now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No. We played a high line but from the first game of the season when VAR came in the line became extremely high.
posted on 29/8/22
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 days, 11 hours ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 5 hours, 48 minutes ago
There was only one line across, this is due to the new guidance. When there is only one line it means there would have been two overlapping lines, its drew green to signal onside. He was clearly offside and I'm astounded that you could think otherwise, however according to the new guidance, many people got their wish and therefore there is a 5cm advantage given to the attacker. Which I don't agree with but as I said before I'm fine with as all teams will play to the same margin.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Valued input as always Winston!
posted on 29/8/22
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 days, 12 hours ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 4 hours, 40 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 hour, 29 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 4 hours, 34 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 23 hours, 7 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 12 hours, 39 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 5 seconds ago
I really hate that we’ve got so binary about it all and seemingly forgotten what the offside rule was there for in the first place.
Had Rashford been a foot offside or a foot onside, it would have made no difference to the outcome.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well it would have as he would have been offside and therefore he wouldn't have scored.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which is exactly what I mean about forgetting the reason the rule exists in the first place.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OK I understand what you're saying but the defenders position themselves higher in order to play attackers offside, if the rule wasn't there they'd be further back. It's a pointless statement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes but with Rashfords goal, even if he’d been a yard onside he’d still have scored it. It was poor defending and had he been offside, that would have been more luck on liverpools part than by design.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You could say that about most offside goals but it's still a pointless statement as if those goals were allowed to stand, teams wouldn't play such a high line and therefore the whole dynamics of the situation would change.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You couldn’t though, there’s a difference between a high line being used successfully and the case of Rashfords where (ignoring the line had been broken anyway) it’s that close the defensive line has knowingly done it.
I’d argue you guys use the high defensive line much more as a pressing technique rather than an offside trap though, it’s why you keep getting done by it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd disagree with that completely. In fact when VAR came in, that's when our line became so high, that exact season it was introduced. Why? You had more trust that it would be the right decision and therefore the risk was less. However with this new guidance Dean has spoken about, we perhaps need to rethink it. I'd actually argue we need to rethink it anyhow as whilst we normally control possession, we aren't doing it close to City levels and leave too many opportunities due to it. The risk and reward levels are becoming too close.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You started playing the high line the year before it so it wasn’t to do with VAR. The main reason you use it is to compact space. I agree I think you need to rethink it a bit though, although not when you’ve got more of your first team available than you do now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No. We played a high line but from the first game of the season when VAR came in the line became extremely high.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Across the three seasons prior to VAR’s introduction in the Premier League, Liverpool caught their opponents offside an average of 2.9 times per game. In none of those seasons was their offside trap the most effective in the division.
But the 2019-20 season – the campaign in which VAR arrived and Liverpool won the league for the first time in 30 years – the number of offsides per game for Liverpool’s opponents jumped to 3.7, an increase of around 30%.
In 2020-21, that number dropped off again, which is instructive. The high line only works with the right personnel and Virgil van Dijk spent most of that campaign out injured.
But in 2021-22, with Van Dijk back in the side and Alisson back to his sweeper-‘keeper best, Liverpool have been back at it. In fact, they’ve gone even further. In the 27 games so far this season, they’ve caught their opponents in an offside position 4.1 times per match.
For context, the next most prolific offside trap is Manchester City’s. Pep Guardiola’s men catch their opponents offside just 2.5 times per 90.
posted on 29/8/22
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 29 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 days, 11 hours ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 5 hours, 48 minutes ago
There was only one line across, this is due to the new guidance. When there is only one line it means there would have been two overlapping lines, its drew green to signal onside. He was clearly offside and I'm astounded that you could think otherwise, however according to the new guidance, many people got their wish and therefore there is a 5cm advantage given to the attacker. Which I don't agree with but as I said before I'm fine with as all teams will play to the same margin.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Valued input as always Winston!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
About as valuable as your ramblings.
posted on 29/8/22
Still can't believe there wasn't a better angle available to show the offside than the one provided for the stills and the replays I've seen.
posted on 29/8/22
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 1 hour, 48 minutes ago
Still can't believe there wasn't a better angle available to show the offside than the one provided for the stills and the replays I've seen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They didn't really need a better angle considering what is now clear. If there's an overlapping lime, it's onside.