I was initially outraged butâŚ
That might not sound unusual. But there was a problem: Zinchenko was not playing in the game. He was not even a substitute. The Ukrainian was injured, and was therefore watching the match from behind the bench. His instinctive decision to join the celebrations meant that he was, in effect, a pitch invader.
Weâre waiting 
I wouldnât hold your breath.
In theory both City and Uts get charged.
Neither team are going to get a FA charge.
Horrendous decision. As clear cut an offside as you can get.
spuds are one of the worst teams around for jumping on the refs head
Oh my days that pic 
Theyâre basically saying that Rashfordâs movement didnât affect the decision making of the keeper and defenders. Just canât see how that is.
Akanji 100% gets to the ball if Rashford isnât there
Even my wife was like âhow tf is that not interfering with play?!â lol
The idea that you canât interfere with play unless you touch the ball can often look really silly.
Its mad that you can now protect the ball for 10 yards and still not interfere with play.
Thatâs how we should use Mudryk 
The referees have been very literal with their interpretation here. Idiots
they know this all too well, its their way of controlling games and results the corrupt scum.
Brian Clough said it best - If a player is not interfering with play then he shouldnât be on the pitch
We should have abused that rule when we had Ozil on away days.
I have no words anymore for the officiating in this league.