A&H

Liverpool V Spurs

Dermot Gallagher explained both penalties (and the communication) very well I thought. Clearly, calmly, and easy to understand for the layman.

Which means that 90% of the people on that reddit thread won't understand it. :)

https://streamable.com/n03nd
 
The Referee Store
one said:
This is the moment of contact
View attachment 1686
I don't see how he is simulating before that. Yes he goes down like a sack of potatoes after but there was contact made beforehand.
Click to expand...
This is the exact reason why they are not stopping the video with VAR because this looks like a clear kick from this angle and yet when you watch the video VVD pulls out and makes minimal contact - certainly not enough for Lamela to go down.

Let’s say this was a shove - if the defender makes contact with the striker and there is not enough contact for him to go down - no pen, not a dive it’s just not a pen
 
Ben Day said:
... when you watch the video VVD pulls out and makes minimal contact - certainly not enough for Lamela to go down.
Click to expand...
When you look at the point of contact, it's with the back of the knee. The back of the knee, as we all know, is soft, lots of nerve endings, and quite painful when that kind of contact is made with it... even if the player pulls out of the kick and makes minimal contact.
 
Fair play to Gallagher. The criticism of Moss seems to me unwarranted. I recall that he has overseen some very tight, controversial matches in recent seasons (Leicester vs. West Ham--2-2--where he received awful abuse from the eventual champions; Arsenal vs. Burnley--2-1; now yesterday's encounter). I would be surprised if he doesn't top the charts for penalties awarded in the last 10 minutes. I cannot remember an unmistakably bad call, and yet his reputation has suffered all the same. One might say the record points to a need to take centre stage, but on the other hand it could be an unflinching willingness to make late game-changing decisions when others might lose their heads.
 
Ben Day said:
This is the exact reason why they are not stopping the video with VAR because this looks like a clear kick from this angle and yet when you watch the video VVD pulls out and makes minimal contact - certainly not enough for Lamela to go down.

Let’s say this was a shove - if the defender makes contact with the striker and there is not enough contact for him to go down - no pen, not a dive it’s just not a pen
Click to expand...
And I agree with you. If you read my post #39 I put the still image to prove the attacker did not go down before contact was made in response to SF who stated otherwise. Nothing else. Certainly not to prove it was careless.
If you read my post #37 before that its pretty much what you are saying with the slight difference of, I thought there was enough contact, only just, for it to be considered careless but nothing more. The attacker going down had nothing to do with the decision.
 
one said:
And I agree with you. If you read my post #39 I put the still image to prove the attacker did not go down before contact was made in response to SF who stated otherwise. Nothing else. Certainly not to prove it was careless.
If you read my post #37 before that its pretty much what you are saying with the slight difference of, I thought there was enough contact, only just, for it to be considered careless but nothing more. The attacker going down had nothing to do with the decision.
Click to expand...
I’m a completely bias Liverpool fan! As I said before both decisions could be argued for and against. I think both are no pens but I am more than aware that I look through red tinted glasses
 
AlexF said:
When you look at the point of contact, it's with the back of the knee. The back of the knee, as we all know, is soft, lots of nerve endings, and quite painful when that kind of contact is made with it... even if the player pulls out of the kick and makes minimal contact.
Click to expand...

Still think it takes a fair whack to go down when both players are stationary (or close enough)
https://t.co/378BjCvvU4?ssr=true I just can’t see enough contact there to award a pen
 
Am I the only person that thinks the only reason the first offside/penalty decision is being talked about so much is because the offside rule is still quite overtly complicated. IMO it should be taken back to the good old days when offside was simply a player in an offside position...end of!

Do away with the phase, the interference, the benefit of the doubt, the this, the that (I know none of this is in the law but its the garbage people spout)!!! I know I probably am and that a lot of you on here will tell me why I'm wrong and its current state is brilliant but I cant help but just want to watch a game of football and enjoy it for what it is and not have to endure people moaning about it for hours on end!!!
 
AaronAvery said:
IMO it should be taken back to the good old days when offside was simply a player in an offside position...end of!
Click to expand...
That has never, ever been the case. There is no time in the entire history of the Laws that it has been an offence simply for a player to be in an offside position.

I've published this before but here's my "offside screed" again.

"Even from the very beginning, the original Laws issued in 1863 did not call for a player who was in an offside position to be penalised, unless he were to ''touch the ball [...]or in anyway whatsoever prevent any other player from doing so.'' (Although they didn't use the term ''offside'' back then, instead it was called being ''out of play'').

From then on, down the years there have been several occasions when the law-making authorities have issued specific instructions to referees or included wording in the Laws, to emphasise the point that a player needs to do more than just be in an offside position, to be guilty of an offence.

For instance, in 1903 the FA Council issued the following statement: ''It is not a breach of Law for a player simply to be in an off-side position, but only when in that position, he causes the play to be affected.''

Also, in the LotG issued in that same year, the phrase ''interfere with [...] play'' was used for the first time, in relation to offside.

In 1910 the FA council stated: ''Some Referees award a free kick when a player is simply in an off-side position. This must not be done.''

The following wording was included in the Laws document in 1920: ''Play should not be stopped and a player given off-side [...] because the player is in an off-side position. A breach of the Law is only committed when a player who is in an offside position interferes with an opponent or with the play.''

In 1956, Law XI International Board Decision (IBD) 1 was issued, stating that a player who was in an offside position should not be penalised if it was clear to the referee ''that he is not interfering with play.''

In 1978 the laws stated: ''A player shall not be declared off-side by the Referee [...] merely because of his being in an off-side position.''

And ever since 1997, the very first sentence of the Offside Law has been: ''It is not an offence in itself to be in an offside position."

I hope this makes it clear that there has never been a time when it was an offence simply to be in an offside position.
 
Last edited:
Sheffields Finest said:
From the other side he clearly misses him, look at the video!!!!! That picture hasn't any depth!!!
Click to expand...
Cop: We are charging you with theft. We have someone who witnessed you stealing the jewellery.
Thief: You can't charge me theft. I have hundreds of people who didn't see me steal any jewellery.

The point: just because one angle doesn't show the contact it doesn't mean there was no contact. Have a look at the same angle that you refer to. The attacker immediately grabs onto his calf/behind the knee area. With his back turned, how would he know that is where the contact is meant to be? I can see contact in the angle from behind anyway. use this link with better quality vid. https://ok.ru/video/712436025958
You can even see the VVD's ankle twisting a little after contact.

EDIT: Even a video on a screen doesn't have any depth, it just gives the illusion it does. You can get the same illusion from an image.
 
Last edited:
one said:
Cop: We are charging you with theft. We have someone who witnessed you stealing the jewellery.
Thief: You can't charge me theft. I have hundreds of people who didn't see me steal any jewellery.

The point: just because one angle doesn't show the contact it doesn't mean there was no contact. Have a look at the same angle that you refer to. The attacker immediately grabs onto his calf/behind the knee area. With his back turned, how would he know that is where the contact is meant to be? I can see contact in the angle from behind anyway. use this link with better quality vid. https://ok.ru/video/712436025958
You can even see the VVD's ankle twisting a little after contact.

EDIT: Even a video on a screen doesn't have any depth, it just gives the illusion it does. You can get the same illusion from an image.
Click to expand...
Me thinks One is making it up to fit what you think you saw not what actually happened!!! Its a dive!!
 
On a public park officiating alone, am pretty sure am giving offside for the first one.

The second one, pen all day long and if the AR see's a clear pen then he is duty bound to inform the referee of such. To see a pen and not alert the referee to it is a neglection of responsibilites.
 
RobOda said:
Personally, what I find more disturbing is that there's a deeply ingrained view that referees are attention seekers and drama-queens. That bothers me far more than their ignorance about the Laws to be honest.
Click to expand...

Exactly
 
Ciley Myrus said:
On a public park officiating alone, am pretty sure am giving offside for the first one.
Click to expand...

I often agree with you but have to take a different view here - deliberate attempt to play the ball by Lovren albeit he's completely scuffed it. Not sure how there's a case otherwise?
 
I agree and at top level with cameras etc am not flagging or penalising it as a referee
At grass roots there is no way personally I feel I can sell that decision
To give the offside on public park, would upset a few attackers for a few mins...for me, to allow play to go on and goal to be scored is near impossible to sell

Just my take on it, and reasons why.
 
@Ciley Myrus Fair enough! Think it's easier than you think though - have had it once in a normal league game and again in a cup final; nothing resulted from the former, a goal came from the latter. Had a CAR for the first, easy shout of "deliberate play from the defender, thanks lino" shuts up anyone moaning. They know you've seen it, made a decision and just get on with playing. But like I say, fair enough!
 
Sky Sports released this - surely Martin Atkinson (4th Official) can’t be consulting with any video
 

Attachments

  • 9ADBDB87-E9A9-4FF4-A814-22DA9CF42331.jpeg
    9ADBDB87-E9A9-4FF4-A814-22DA9CF42331.jpeg
    93 KB · Views: 37
If the above quotes are accurate, that is disgusting from the referee, he absolutely should, and needs to know, if the defender touched the ball. The AR is perfectly correct to ask that question, and, a referee at that level, imo, must be able to provide the answer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top