Liverpool V Spurs

[A Freethinker]

Mark Halsey on twitter saying its offside as Kane is interfering with Lovren.

But surely, going by the LOG..

1) Kane is not blocking Lovrens attempt to play the ball

2) Kane is not making any gesture or movement towards Lovren, to deceive or distract

So therefore, he cannot be interfering with play?

My issue with this is the lino clearly states that Kane is in an offside position, but he couldn't see if Lovren played the ball and asks Moss did he see Lovren play the ball? Moss says no he didn't have sight off it and couldn't tell if Lovren got the ball...therefore the decision (albeit incorrect) must be offside? They can't guess Lovren played it so Kane must be offside?

Secondly Kane in his superman impersonation when contact made..sorry no pen for me!

Lamela pen VD clearly pulling his leg out of the way and Lamela goes into VD to make contact... players reactions are get on with it...ref says get on with it...how can an AR 35 yards away without a clear view of the contact make that call?

To me and IMHO made Moss look clueless and the AR was clearly calling the shots....although Moss lost the game early on and should never have been in charge of such a high profile game!

 

[A Freethinker]

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.

Using this thinking....Lovren might or might not have touched the ball...therefore the first possible offence is the offside there do you give a penalty? or the offside call? No one saw him touch the ball...until umpteen replays and neither Moss or grant saw him touch it.

Second one Moss sees contact and dismisses it and plays on so what right does the AR have to insist he should change his mind and bring back play?? FARCE!

 

[one]

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?

Being a deliberate attempt to play the ball doesn't necessarily negate the offside. The are many cases of deliberate attempt that are consider a rebound. The are many factor involved including skill level, distance, time to react... there was a good educational video around that explained it perfectly in terms of action and reaction with only the former negating offside.

 

[alexgr]

Being a deliberate attempt to play the ball doesn't necessarily negate the offside. The are many cases of deliberate attempt that are consider a rebound. The are many factor involved including skill level, distance, time to react... there was a good educational video around that explained it perfectly in terms of action and reaction with only the former negating offside.

Interesting, will try and find this video as it sounds useful! Just quoting from the law though: "A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save by any opponent) is not considered to have gained an advantage."

Am more than happy to accept that skill/distance/time etc. all play a factor and I think the law should be updated to reflect this - but as it stands this isn't backed up by law surely?

 

[one]

Using this thinking....Lovren might or might not have touched the ball...therefore the first possible offence is the offside there do you give a penalty? or the offside call? No one saw him touch the ball...until umpteen replays and neither Moss or grant saw him touch it.

Second one Moss sees contact and dismisses it and plays on so what right does the AR have to insist he should change his mind and bring back play?? FARCE!

I an seriously gobsmacked if in fact neither the AR or the referee saw the Lovren touch the ball and yet they gave a pen. I you don't see a defender touching the ball and the ball is passed to a player in an offside position it cant be anything else but an offside offence.

In an earlier post i said that if my AR overrules me on such a doubtful decision it will be the last game he does for me. I suspect on this occasion there was some communication on the comms and the AR got the OK before flagging it.

 

[Ciley Myrus]

I an seriously gobsmacked if in fact neither the AR or the referee saw the Lovren touch the ball and yet they gave a pen. I you don't see a defender touching the ball and the ball is passed to a player in an offside position it cant be anything else but an offside offence.

In an earlier post i said that if my AR overrules me on such a doubtful decision it will be the last game he does for me. I suspect on this occasion there was some communication on the comms and the AR got the OK before flagging it.

As ever each to own but myself, I would be praising the ground the AR walks on for correctly indicating in the last seconds of play ( if your take is that the pk is correct of course) that a pk has to be awarded.
I suppose it comes down to whether you want the correct call ( again assuming yoy deem the pk to be correct). Or you want to be high, mighty and untouchable

Its interesting how there is such a divide!

 

[PinnerPaul]

Hi As Lovren has " played" the ball albeit poorly it is a reset of offside in which case Kane was not offside. To quote Law 11
** A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save by any opponent) is not considered to have gained an advantage.**

It was comical/annoying watching messr Jenas and Lawrenson on MOTD2 when confronted with that evidence by the presenter.

Jenas said 'I know what the law says but to me that's still offside' and Lawrenson just said 'Its a mess, where was VAR?' By 'Its a mess' - he means laws not the same as when I played 20 years ago and despite being a well paid pundit I can't be bothered to read the latest version. As for VAR - it surely would have confirmed pen, given decision was correct in law.

 

[PinnerPaul]

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!!!

Problem is you wouldn't enjoy a game of football because there would be literally scores of free kicks for offside. Given organisation and fitness levels of defenders today, returning to offside as it was as you suggest would initially result in lots of free kicks and then result in a lot less goals/goalscoring attempts.

 

[one]

Interesting, will try and find this video as it sounds useful! Just quoting from the law though: "A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save by any opponent) is not considered to have gained an advantage."

Am more than happy to accept that skill/distance/time etc. all play a factor and I think the law should be updated to reflect this - but as it stands this isn't backed up by law surely?

Subtle difference between "deliberate play" which the law uses for a defender, "a touch" which the law uses for an attacker and "attempting to play and touch" which I believe is the case here.
Some interpret deliberate play as touch with opportunity to control. The was a very long thread on that here a couple of years ago.

 

[GraemeS]

Interesting, will try and find this video as it sounds useful! Just quoting from the law though: "A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save by any opponent) is not considered to have gained an advantage."

Am more than happy to accept that skill/distance/time etc. all play a factor and I think the law should be updated to reflect this - but as it stands this isn't backed up by law surely?

Is the issue not to do with our interpretation of the word "deliberate"? If the action of playing the ball deliberately is what's in question then that leads to one conclusion, but if the intent of playing the ball is what matters, then surely we have to consider that the ball did not go where the defender was intending to send it.

I would suggest that this clause in the law is to stop offside being given when defenders try to nudge a ball backwards to their keeper, but underhit it? Which would lead me to suggest that the interpretation suggested by those above saying this isn't offside is at odds with the intent of this clause in the law. But I have to admit I'm guessing here.

 

[alexgr]

@GraemeS @one Yeah I can understand that interpretation, and I think it's one of the ones that we need more clarification on from IFAB because as far as I'm aware, there's no definition within the law of 'deliberate'. I always think trying to establish intent is difficult, if not dangerous - say the ball is hoofed up the pitch without any particular target, is that then not a deliberate play because the defender had no intention to send it there? For me, as long as the defender has moved to play the ball (which Lovren clearly has) and is not a deflection/save (which the law accounts for), it surely must be a deliberate play irrespective of how badly it comes off? Just my point of view, can completely see the opposite though too.

 

[one]

As ever each to own but myself, I would be praising the ground the AR walks on for correctly indicating in the last seconds of play ( if your take is that the pk is correct of course) that a pk has to be awarded.
I suppose it comes down to whether you want the correct call ( again assuming yoy deem the pk to be correct). Or you want to be high, mighty and untouchable

Its interesting how there is such a divide!

"I suppose it comes down to whether you want the correct call" I think I made that clear in another thread. EVERY referee want the correct call. That induces me. Implying that may not e the case is just inviting.... let's not go there.

Yes I deem this to be a correct pen, only just.

I suppose you missed my point. The are many cases of fouls that are ITOOTR, 50/50s or 60/40s etc. There is bound to be incident that the opinion of the AR is different to the one of the referee. If my AR over rules me every time his opinion is different to mine thinking "its the correct call", we are not going to be able to work together.

Yes there are times that he knows he has seen something that I didn't and that is all good. But on this occasion I can not possibly think of anything that the AR has seen or thinks the referee hasn't seen. Its a ITOOTR call, the referee said no foul, and unless he got the OK on the comms, he should have kept his flag down.

 

[Ciley Myrus]

Not arguing. But, here is the real time senario. AR does not flag. No pk given. Full time whistle goes. 20 mins after game, match observer walks in (in Scotland anyway).
"So ref, did you not think it was a pk?" No says ref
"So AR did you think it was a pk?" yes, says AR

At this point, I cannot think of any observer I have ever encountered saying anything other than....

"So why the hell did you not alert the referee to this"

Again, some folk might consider it ok to say you were leaving it to the referee.
But if we are leaning towards this being a pk.....the AR (for me). Must get involved


Disclaimer...this is my take on it from both my opinion and any actual similar experiences that I have been involved in factually....

 

[NorthLondonRef]

I know a lot of the interpretation has already been discussed but here's something I've been thinking about.

I have no problem with an attacking player not being offside if it's a pass back or misplaced pass. Some fans on social media are stating that as soon as the ball is played and not even reached Lovren yet, Kane should be called offside which is ridiculous because it would be free kick mayhem.

Now here's the part that I find interesting. If Lovren takes a touch or controls the ball, and Kane comes from his offside position to tackle Lovren, that's offside right? It's still the same phase? Don't we see it all the time when a player is offside, makes a movement towards the ball or attempts to play the ball when he's returning to an onside position to tackle the defender and that's offside. Yet, because Lovren mis-kicks the ball and it runs through to Kane, he's onside? Does anyone not see a slight contradiction here or a small loophole in the law?

 

[Ciley Myrus]

I know a lot of the interpretation has already been discussed but here's something I've been thinking about.

I have no problem with an attacking player not being offside if it's a pass back or misplaced pass. Some fans on social media are stating that as soon as the ball is played and not even reached Lovren yet, Kane should be called offside which is ridiculous because it would be free kick mayhem.

Now here's the part that I find interesting. If Lovren takes a touch or controls the ball, and Kane comes from his offside position to tackle Lovren, that's offside right? It's still the same phase? Don't we see it all the time when a player is offside, makes a movement towards the ball or attempts to play the ball when he's returning to an onside position to tackle the defender and that's offside. Yet, because Lovren mis-kicks the ball and it runs through to Kane, he's onside? Does anyone not see a slight contradiction here or a small loophole in the law?

Not really, because only Lovern is responsible for his kick, clearance or otherwise.
The moment Kane turns to get involved, he then influences or interferes with Loverns actions. Take Kane out the picture altogether, he has imo nothing to do with Loverns actions....

The only reason this is an incident is not because Kane was in an offside position (as we know its no offence to be so), but, because Lovern could not kick a moving ball as a centre half on 100k per week. He kicks that ball, and we have nothing to see here. He makes a mess of it, and then Kane is allowed to play on

 

[one]

Not arguing. But, here is the real time senario. AR does not flag. No pk given. Full time whistle goes. 20 mins after game, match observer walks in (in Scotland anyway).
"So ref, did you not think it was a pk?" No says ref
"So AR did you think it was a pk?" yes, says AR

At this point, I cannot think of any observer I have ever encountered saying anything other than....

"So why the hell did you not alert the referee to this"

Again, some folk might consider it ok to say you were leaving it to the referee.
But if we are leaning towards this being a pk.....the AR (for me). Must get involved


Disclaimer...this is my take on it from both my opinion and any actual similar experiences that I have been involved in factually....

2 out of 10 is your scenario: how would the observer go with the other 8 scenarios of AR over ruling the referee who has clearly seen the incident, waved it away and in fact it was not a penalty?

 

[Ciley Myrus]

2 out of 10 is your scenario: how would the observer go with the other 8 scenarios of AR over ruling the referee who has clearly seen the incident, waved it away and in fact it was not a penalty?

Well in my experience, or maybe just a different mentality here 10/10 would ask why the AR never flagged.
(and i was going on basis we are saying the PK was correct, as this is my take on the pk in question)

if you believe or think its not a pk, then the senario i described is irrelevant.

 

[one]

Well in my experience, or maybe just a different mentality here 10/10 would ask why the AR never flagged.
(and i was going on basis we are saying the PK was correct, as this is my take on the pk in question)

if you believe or think its not a pk, then the senario i described is irrelevant.

I have said or implied a few times, its not just about this incident. I suggest you re-read my previous posts. Sorry, I can't explain it any better.

 

[Ciley Myrus]

I have said or implied a few times, its not just about this incident. I suggest you re-read my previous posts. Sorry, I can't explain it any better.

No its ok, am quite ok focussing on this incident thanks very much.

 

[GraemeS]

Although it's a danger of sidetracking the discussion, I was under the impression that observers aren't supposed to actually assess "right or wrong" decisions at our level, given the lack of TV replays and the likely worse position of the observer compared to the officials?

Given that, the question asked to the ref would be "Given that you made a decision it was not a penalty and gave a clear signal suggesting that, why did you then let yourself be overruled by your assistant?"