₦airaland Forum

Spy360:
One thing is sure, the situation is debatable either way the ref makes the call.

I think the guilty person here is Akanji. There was no interference because the ball was ahead of him. But as Rashford was clearly impeding his movement, he ought to have made an attempt for the ball. That would have given the ref a case to call an offside.

So Koka.neprodigy is right on this rare occasion.

This picture below have always been my point. If you watch the video when casemiro gave the pass to Rashford, Akanji shifted forward (away from him) to ensure he was offside (ie setting offside trap) before chasing him. Without Rashford there, even without shifting forward, he'll get that ball cos he's more closer to the ball than Bruno and Walker.

Whether he attempts to tackle Rashford or not is not the Koko, the thing is Rashford made a great distance towards the ball into a dangerous zone, was setting himself up to play (that's an attempt) only to decide not to at the last minute. Even the decision himself will confuse Ederson who was already setting himself up to stop Rashford shot only to find out at the last minute that it's Bruno.

If all these things isn't interference... I don't know what is

Ballzproblem2:
can't believe we offered. £40-60m for this crap ,what was boehly so-called analyst was thinking , Everton fumbled easiest bag ,thank God we have scouts now,last thing we need is another Deadwood

How Una escape this guy ehh... Na only God save Una

And the guy really played to the script then. He started scoring and assisting like say na generational talent him be. Mugu Everton couldn't read the script well and started getting more greedy

The kind data wey boly see for this guy must be rare.

Havertz10:
Poor defending.

Havertz 5 goals
Saka 6 goals
Odegard 7 goals

Puts a lot into perspective

Lastly, Havertz’s goal vs Newcastle was superior, so if you are trying to use that goal to indicate a difference in talent, you failed.

know that one is an Am and the other is a CF.

How an Am outscores a Cf and still assists more than him and you still term it "poor defending" na another wonder of the world from you

kokaneprodigy:
That Man-U game dey scare me.

We haven’t been productive in terms of goals in the second half of Our recent games. It’s like the attackers are tired after an hour of play and there’s no replacement to add some fuel to the attack.
If Man-U contains us in the first half hmmmn

It's Emirates so hopefully, I just pray it counts cos we massively need that 3points.

As for not scoring in second half, I think it's just us trying to see out the 2-0 which I feel it's great and we did it superbly too. I don't think there should be cause for concern (yet) about us not scoring in the 2nd half

This team just dey totori person body every week I swear.

My Partey, Xhaka and Odegaard. The best Midfield trio in the league

Game plan was spot on. Can't believe we have technical players from GK to attack

Nice win and big time valuable 3 points

Next week Vs Man u. — A very good inform team. I just hope we come out with maximum points.

Kudos to the coaching crew and the entire team and players.

COYG!!!

kokaneprodigy:
Jod.era and anyone interested go to this guy’s page on twitter to see the video he posted.

It was scored by Arsenal against Chelsea when Sanchez was still here. It was initially disallowed for offside but was reviewed and the goal stood.

It was similar to the Man-U issue yesterday.

Watch it and tell me what you make of it.

I'll watch it and give you my thoughts on it

Ndi "Arsenal is like an elephant ontop of the tree.
I don't know how it got there but one thing I'm certain is that it'll surely come down"


Tree don dey turn house

mostob:
I no just understand Arteta and arsenal again. Saka wey no train dey start. Elneny wey play on Monday without any qualms no dey matchday squad.

Lol... You believe Saka no train because you no see him pishure? You really believed that?


I laff!!

kokaneprodigy:
PGMOL never release a statement saying the decision against us was the right decision.

Toh... No wahala sha

kokaneprodigy:
I sincerely hope and pray we win

Omo... We need to win oo.
Hopefully we do

Bjteensdes24:
What you are telling me now is that defenders don’t know they keep an opponent player offside at all? Why then will they rush to the referee when they don’t know he is on or off? Akanji was the next man to Rashford when he made the run so how didn’t he know

That's why they complained to ref.

Like I said, it's their job to keep an attacker offside then play to the whistle. After the sequence they can complain.

Why are you making it as if it's normal for defender to slide an attacker deliberately because he's offside? Like who's doing it or where is it happening?.

Na wa ooo

Bjteensdes24:
@the bolded bro, if he can catch up with the ball why he was on motion he is a professional defender knowing Rashford is offside, [b]he would have slided and caused a foul which when later revealed will be given as offside cos there was caontact between him [/b]and Rashford but only Akanji knows why he didn’t which means he was far to the ball even if Rashford wasn’t following it

Lol....Imagine?
It's not his job to prove to referee that it's offside. It's his job to complain that it's offside after the deed have been done(he must play by the whistle). That's why there's Var

Rashford is last man, so what if after Var check it's rightly seen he (Rashford) is not offside, so that's how he would get red card for nothing?

Na wa ooo. This your explanation no gel lai lai

kokaneprodigy:
PGMOL has realeased a statement on it saying it was the right decision par the rules yet you are calling it dubious reffing with no evidence.

If you say there’s a loophole in the rule which of course should call for a revision which is not a new thing I will agree with you. But with the rule we have today it’s the right call by the ref. Period.

PGMOL?

Same PGMOL that I read here earlier this year that they said they apologized for canceling our goal against Man u when the same week that thing happened they vehemently agreed that it was the right decision.

Same PGMOL that overruled legit wolves goal against Liverpool?

English PGMOL the immaculate, I hail thee Sir!!

kokaneprodigy:
Rashford is faster than Akanji and was ahead of him, the ball was faster than both of them.

Walker is arguably among the top fastest players in the league yet couldn’t get to the ball but you think Akanji who is miles behind Walker and Rashford in pace and also in this picture will get to it.

Okay.

it's not about who's faster but who's closer.

Akanji without Rashford in the picture is closer to the ball than both Walker and Bruno. Worst part is that Rashford was already feets ahead of Akanji in race. That itself is an interference cos he won't be thinking of just the ball only but also how to outmanoeuvred Rashford I tackling him.

It's surprising how Walker who's faster than Bruno left Bruno to go and be guarding post. In fact, Rashford is even Jumping sef

So much for, Rashford not interfering

Ellexy:
Well for me since the goal was for us, I'll say fair play but if that was against us, it's obvious day light robbery and blatant corruption.

Heaven knows I want you guys to win cos it'll give us breathing space from Man city(hopefully we win our match today). I don't expect you not to be happy with the decision since it favours you.

What I just want is for you to be objective and see that you guys benefited dubious refereeing for the first goal instead of defending the obvious

It won't take anything away from you bro and it's good you see that it's daylight robbery

kokaneprodigy:
as at the time the ball was kicked by Bruno, Akanji was still no where to be found. So much for impacting Akanji’s ability.

How is it not impacting on the ability.

So Akanji will leave the ball that is closer to him(assuming Rashford is not there) to go and be blocking post? .

It's simple, he anticipated Rashford shot and so he went to have the shot blocked.

Remove Rashford from the picture and see how Walker and Akanji will easily deal with Bruno.

So tell me, how is the bolded not called interference?

kokaneprodigy:
I’ve cleared this one with Iamoyindamola don’t . have strength to go back to it. reason he came and started supporting your own point. Now you want to take me back .

Meanwhile Akanji was way behind Rashford and the ball.

Good. Now tell me, if Rashford isn't in the picture, you'll believe that Akanji who's closer to the ball than Bruno will allow Bruno to get it from the distance Bruno is?

kokaneprodigy:
Which of the opponents did he impact his ability to play the ball?
Jodera you’ve left Rashford “attempted to play the ball” to “impacts on the ability?

Who is really turning amala now.?

The defenders obviously na

Since Rashford is In close distance with the ball, the defender (I think akanji) can't play that ball without thinking of tackling Rashford

That his impacted his ability at that instance.

Lol... How is it turning Amala when I just showed you the rule

kokaneprodigy:
The difference here is There was another United player who is on-side with the ball going towards his direction and you can clearly see he’s running towards the ball.

I'm not talking about Bruno. Bruno isn't the issue. The issue is Rashford, that's what we should be focusing on

Leave Bruno out of this cos he's innocent

kokaneprodigy:
If you can show me somewhere in the rules where it is written in black and white that running towards a ball counts as a clear attempt to play it, I will drop this debate.

I just showed you na

Scroll up or scroll through your mentions, you'll see where I italicized the rule.

Ellexy:
But according to the law[rules] it wasn't an attempt so who should I believe, the law or you?

How wasn't it an attempt?
They made rule, laid it out to educated folks then turn around to say it's not the rule?
How na?

It's not about you believing me. You're an educated folk(I'm 100% sure). Read the rules and see the action then judge for yourself that it fell within the rules

It's simple

kokaneprodigy:
Running towards the ball comes before attempting to play.

Piercing your skin will come before taking blood.

It’s you who should correct your analogy. I’ve already don’t that for you anyway.

You can make an attempt to play the ball then decides not to play the ball again.

That you decide NOT TO play the ball again doesn't negate the fact that you initially made an attempt to do so

That is exactly what Rashford did

kokaneprodigy:
You’ve left the rule book. Refs won’t blow whistle based on what you think bro.

How’s distance covered a rule?

That’s just a performance metric.

Making an obvious action on the ball which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball


This is the rule. That obvious action is the distance covered!!

kokaneprodigy:
I can pierce your skin without taking your blood.
I can pierce and inject
I can pierce and decide to take out the needle empty.

Haven’t you seen players run after ball only to escort it out of the corner flag.?

how can you take my blood without piercing my skin. I didn't say how can you pierce my skin without taking my blood. No turn amala confuse me na

That itself is an attempt if the said player is from an offside position. But it won't be called for an offside because the last person the ball touched was his opponent which was why it's a corner

kokaneprodigy:
Where’s this in the rule book?

Speculative again.

is that not the interference ni?

His run and distance covered is that interference na.(that's the action)

Abi isn't action a "doing word" again?

kokaneprodigy:
1.if his body touches any City player while going for that ball

2.If he touched the ball.

3.If Akanji caught up with him and he clearly obstructed him.

4.If he ran towards the goalie to disturb him.

What y’all don’t get is he was outside the box hence disturbing goalie wouldn’t count
2. That pass could have been said to be intended for Bruno who wasn’t offside looking at the path.

Reason the ref had to give benefit of the doubt.

So distance covered doesn't suddenly count in football rules?

I see

Ellexy:
But was your skin pierced?

Attempt doesn't mean the action must be done. It's basic knowledge everywhere na.

kokaneprodigy:
The question is speculative as I don’t know neither can you tell.
Even though I don’t see how Rashford’s pace affects Bruno’s.

Bruno capitalised on Man city's focus on Rashford.

That focus the the defenders had on Rashford is surely the interference. Without Rashford making that huge sprint, they would never have been focused on him.

His run and distance covered clearly interfered with play there. It's that simple

kokaneprodigy:
I’m not saying, on the contrary I’m reading the rules. It’s you who saying and assuming. In law assumption does not fly, a rule is a law. Reason they say in law ignorance is not an excuse.
Reason if you are signing a legal agreement the terms will be defined in simple words avoiding ambiguity as much as possible.

That “clearly” you saw there is to remove any ambiguity. Reason anything that counts as interference were stated.

Rashford did not “clearly attempt to play the ball”.

Lol .. so you watched that ball Ystdy and you claim it wasn't clear

So give me an example of what Rashford would do in that situation that will be regarded as a clear attempt after covering that long distance.

I'll be patiently waiting

kokaneprodigy:
First you run towards a ball, attempt comes after which you can decide to do or not do.

The point is running towards a ball is not sufficient to tag it a clear attempt to play a ball.

To cook my meal I first need to enter the kitchen but entering the kitchen does not automatically mean I want to cook. Hope you get. To drive my car I will have to go towards it and enter inside it, I could also go towards my car enter my car and not drive it.

In football, distance covered is very very essential in analysing things.

Did his actions (the run and distance covered) affected the way Man city defenders handled that situation? Yes or no!
The answer is obviously yes except if you just wan turn amala


I ask and I want you to answer me honestly.

If he didn't make that run, would Bruno have gotten that Ball to even shoot it?

You're just using "clearly" to make a case.

How is that not a clear attempt that he intended to play a ball when he ran over 5meters chasing said ball.

Like na toddlers we be wey dey watch ball ni?

kokaneprodigy:
The rule never said you shouldn’t run towards the ball, if they didn’t want you to run towards it FA would have clearly stated it, as what counts as interference. na why I said y’all should read the rules and as much as you can avoid (though tempting) adding your own words.

Your second paragraph is speculative at best. you ain’t in his mind. You can never be sure he was running at it to “clearly attempt to play the ball”. Or are you saying every player than runs towards a ball plays it? Sometimes Players run towards a ball only for it cross the line and lead to a throwing.

Meanwhile the key phrase is “clearly attempt” not “attempt”

I repeat he didn’t “clearly attempt”.

How would you make an attempt without running towards ball bikonu??
That's logic na

It's like you saying you want my blood without piercing my skin. How does that happen??