Liverpool V Spurs
- Thread starter Sheffields Finest
- Start date
one
RefChat Addict
Its the same camera angle as a few other replay clips previously posted. In your one someones has been creative on their video editing by slowing it down and speeding it up at just the right moments to make it look worse than what it actually was. There was contact, but nowhere near as bad as this video shows.
Just to stress how speed of video can impact decisions, VAR are not allowed to change speed of video to assess severity, only to clarify the point of contact.
halter42
Member
Wow, this brings a whole new dimension to the video "proof". I mean, this is so hard to spot in real time and even with several camera angles it is uncertain. The argument, that Lamela walks into the challenge and it therefore isn't a foul is not valid for me. Good players often draw fouls by shielding off the ball and getting a foot between the challenging player and the ball.
So to sum up on the offside, neither official knew if Lovren had a touch. So the best they could say was he'd made a deliberate attempt to play the ball, but they couldn't say he'd deliberately played the ball. So their decision at the time should have been offside.
Whether it was the right decision depends on the interpretation of the distinction between deflection or deliberately played. I have no idea where the idea came from that a defender trying to intercept or clear a ball and only getting a touch is judged "deliberate play" but I'm fairly sure that when the law first changed so that a defender's touch did not automatically play the attacker onside, this would have counted as a deflection. I await the historians' research.
Whether it was the right decision depends on the interpretation of the distinction between deflection or deliberately played. I have no idea where the idea came from that a defender trying to intercept or clear a ball and only getting a touch is judged "deliberate play" but I'm fairly sure that when the law first changed so that a defender's touch did not automatically play the attacker onside, this would have counted as a deflection. I await the historians' research.
A Freethinker
RefChat Addict
Well of course. I think it is important to point out that it isn't an offence to be in an offside position. I've made this abundantly clear at the start of my games when I get defenders screaming as I've not given any offside calls, and I've warned players that any more of that and I'll book them for dissent. Quite a lot of people seem to think, okay, he's offside, blow the whistle, but they forget it is an offence that requires more than just the positioning to be called off.
I think so, at least that's how I read it, as an interfering offence. (Challenging an opponent for the ball)
Loophole for what? Kane challenging from an offside position becomes active. Kane standing in an offside position, receiving the ball from his teammates is an easy and clear offside. Kane standing in an offside positioning and the ball riochets off Lovren, offside.
In most circumstances, short of being fouled himself, he's offside.
Kane standing there and Lovren miscuing his clearance = fine, since Lovren has deliberately played the ball. I'd say most situations, Lovren would successfully clear the ball, or he'd miss and it would be offside. I can't see quite how a team would exploit this potential 'loophole', I mean they already do it by having a striker drop behind the defender in anticipation of a passback, but I think any strategy based around getting behind the line and hoping for a mis-clearance will probably skyrocket the offside stat for that match and wouldn't be very successful!
That's how I see it anyway.
EDIT: I see Mark Clattenburg has thrown his hat into the ring. His logic sounds a bit dodgy to me, but I'll say no more.
Last edited:
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
So, back to Moss. Gutted as it now looks like he had made two fundamental errors. For the Kane pen, if he or the assistant have not seen a defender play the ball it has to be offside. At home we know Lovren (and possibly Can!) have deliberately played the ball. But given what the officials actually saw, Moss has made a KMI decision by making it up.
For the second penalty, Moss has made a decision. The nature of the contact and nature and timing of the theatre caused him to decide no. He should not allow himself to be overruled when so close to thd play on such a judgement call.
Ignoring the result and the goals this looks very bad for JM. Question is why? Is this connected to the erosion of ref control by VAR?
For the second penalty, Moss has made a decision. The nature of the contact and nature and timing of the theatre caused him to decide no. He should not allow himself to be overruled when so close to thd play on such a judgement call.
Ignoring the result and the goals this looks very bad for JM. Question is why? Is this connected to the erosion of ref control by VAR?
NorthLondonRef
Active Member
[/QUOTE]
Loophole was the wrong word but I guess I am playing devil's advocate from the defending point of view and not how a team would intentionally exploit it. I was thinking out loud in regards to Kane's positioning and the fact that he is there means Lovren has to clear the ball because Lovren doesn't know he is in an offside position. So in terms of defending, if Lovren allows that ball to run past him he runs the risk of Kane collecting it not knowing that he's in an offside position. If he takes a touch and Kane attempts to challenge for the ball, he's offside. If it hits Lovren and bounces to Kane it's offside. I'm just thinking out loud in terms of what's the difference between a deflection and an attempted pass and the interpretations between both, and the fact Kane is gaining an advantage by being in an offside position.
I understand the law, I was trying thinking out loud.
NorthLondonRef
Active Member
I don't see it as Moss making it up. Regardless of what he said, he's allowed to come to an informed decision by taking everything into account in my opinion. He said he had no idea if Lovren touched it, but then could have had a couple of seconds to calculate the bounce of the ball etc and decide it was very likely he had. It's a judgement call that he had to make.
The second one. The AR threw him under the bus by raising the flag, if Moss was adamant it wasn't a penalty. They could have had a chat via the comms and came to the same decision or Moss could have said "not enough contact". It appears the AR was adamant it was a penalty hence he put his flag up, so imo in that situation Moss has to give the decision, especially if he wasn't sure himself.
I agree though that last part was a little hectic and Moss did look slightly flustered. The fact that he asked the AR "speak to me again" and the AR said "you know what I am asking, Did Lovren etc" was a little condescending imo and did make me think "whose in charge here?".
Yeah I don't like that the script of the dialogue is now published, I'm by no means justifying or defending anyone. But again for the media that's a scoop and unfortunately casts a dim light on the performance of the officials of the night. I agree, I don't like how the tone used reads... Both calls were very very tight, however the process leading up to both were very very scruffy. AND it showed, Moss was flustered and i can understand why (especially for the 2nd pen) probably thinking why on earth are swinging that flag.
And while we want to reach the correct decision, not like this! This is not a brave decision in my opinion, (albeit very very difficult in real time to call). We and hundreds others have reviewed the clips and can't make up our mind definitely or each a consensus on either penalty (even more so on the 2nd one) so how can you the AR after seeing that clear signal from your referee be 100% sure of what you THINK you saw is beyond me!
I'm not taking the PGMOL's word as gospel I'm afraid - they're not lawmakers, they're simply a union for referees, with some very unsubtle vested interests when it comes to not wanting to make match officials look bad...
I know this sounds strange, but I actually think the assistant and/or Moss DID see that touch. Otherwise it's simply not feasible to me that deliberate action would even be in the conversation. At one point, the assistant says, "if he has touched the ball, it's a deliberate action." Why is he so sure about that? Shouldn't he be thinking about a deflection if he hasn't seen the touch? The clues are there. It's almost as if, in front of the players, the assistant was trying to avoid conveying the impression that it was his call. I admit it's a weird exchange, but I am very much against fans/media being able to hear what referees are saying anyway. I know I have said some ridiculous things on the pitch because I couldn't find the words in a moment of stress, but I didn't doubt the decision.
Did the Liverpool players engineer that discussion or were they responding to a flag? If it was the former, the penalty decision makes more sense on an evidence basis.
Last edited:
They are far from a union, they are employers.
Anyone spot the Lino fist pump when his recommendation is accepted! Not wise that!
I meant more metaphorically in terms of over-representing their member/employee's interests, rather than literally a union, but fair point!
Point is, when they make a statement, it's generally more PR than fact.
I've actually seen more commentary from PGMOL pointing out errors made in matches and what it should have properly been.
Agree Alex, they rarely come out and back the referee when he has been correct but still criticised, and most comments are where they explain the officials got it wrong.