Liverpool V Spurs

[NorthLondonRef]

Surely the purpose of the Law is not to "cancel out existing offside situations", but to ensure a player cannot be offside when receiving the ball from an opponent deliberate playing the ball. Otherwise defenders would be able to catch opponents offside rather easily. (Just pass the ball to them!)
But Harry Kane was in an offside position, and obviously seeking to gain an advantage, at the instant the ball was played through to him by a colleague. Therefore, offside and no penalty.
Whether or not Lovren played the ball only becomes relevant if:
a) Kane was onside when the original pass was made, and
b) Kane was in an offside position at the instant Lovren played the ball.

Just make the laws and rules up as you go along mate

 

[PinnerPaul]

Surely the purpose of the Law is not to "cancel out existing offside situations", but to ensure a player cannot be offside when receiving the ball from an opponent deliberate playing the ball. Otherwise defenders would be able to catch opponents offside rather easily. (Just pass the ball to them!)
But Harry Kane was in an offside position, and obviously seeking to gain an advantage, at the instant the ball was played through to him by a colleague. Therefore, offside and no penalty.
Whether or not Lovren played the ball only becomes relevant if:
a) Kane was onside when the original pass was made, and
b) Kane was in an offside position at the instant Lovren played the ball.

There are two flaws in that reasoning John

'Kane was in offside position' - It is NOT an offence to be in offside position.

'seeking to gain an advantage' - The word 'seeking' isn't in the laws, so that's not an offence and actually 'gaining an advantage - is defined in the laws as playing or touching the ball after it has rebounded to him from an opponent or the goal.

Just because the defender played the ball because Kane was there, does NOT mean Kane was interfering with or challenging the opponent for the ball, so he's not offside.

 

[JamesL]

Just to backup @PinnerPaul here see extract from lotg practical guidelines for the scenario that occurred during this game.

 

[PinnerPaul]

View attachment 1695

Just to backup @PinnerPaul here see extract from lotg practical guidelines for the scenario that occurred during this game.

Think that should be pinned up in every dressing room in the country!

 

[alexgr]

@PinnerPaul @JamesL Been looking for that one for a while, cheers for that! Feel like there's so many examples of exactly that sort of thing that gets penalised on a weekly basis even at the top level - defender knows an attacker is in an offside position behind them but goes for a header or to clear the ball but the flag then goes up - guess this is being incorrectly penalised then!

 

[JohnG]

There are two flaws in that reasoning John

'Kane was in offside position' - It is NOT an offence to be in offside position.

'seeking to gain an advantage' - The word 'seeking' isn't in the laws, so that's not an offence and actually 'gaining an advantage - is defined in the laws as playing or touching the ball after it has rebounded to him from an opponent or the goal.

Just because the defender played the ball because Kane was there, does NOT mean Kane was interfering with or challenging the opponent for the ball, so he's not offside.

Thanks PinnerPaul. Just to re-iterate then:
1) Kane was not off-side from the initial pass because he didn't gain any advantage from it - he didn't receive the ball (from the pass)!
2) By the time Kane did receive the ball, it was from an opponent deliberately playing it, which is not considered to be gaining an advantage.
Have I got it now?

 

[PinnerPaul]

Thanks PinnerPaul. Just to re-iterate then:
1) Kane was not off-side from the initial pass because he didn't gain any advantage from it - he didn't receive the ball (from the pass)!
2) By the time Kane did receive the ball, it was from an opponent deliberately playing it, which is not considered to be gaining an advantage.
Have I got it now?

Yes that's correct John. I might change some of your wording there but the logic is correct!

 

[NorthLondonRef]

I think there is a clear conflict or confusion between pure footballing talk and the laws in the game.

In this case speaking from a footballing point of view, in my opinion Kane is and does gain an advantage by being in that position however in terms of the laws he isn't gaining an advantage. Similarly, a player can be interfering with a defender from a playing and coaching point of view i.e making the defender clear the ball by being in his vicinity or behind him but in terms of the laws he isn't interfering.

I think there's a big difference between certain words i.e gaining an advantage, interference etc and what they actually mean and that's where fans and pundits can get confused.

 

[RustyRef]

I wrote the below on a different forum, as a way of trying to look at how the law is written and how it should be applied in this instance.

If we look at the law in detail. Gaining an advantage is defined as ...

• gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when it has:
•• rebounded or been deflected off the goalpost, crossbar, match official or an opponent
••been deliberately saved by any opponent

It hasn't rebounded or deflected off of any of those things, and it cannot be classed as a save due to the distance from goal. So as far as the law is concerned he didn't gain an advantage. Some have said that he interfered with an opponent, so if we look at that ...

• interfering with an opponent by:
••preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
••challenging an opponent for the ball or
•• clearly attempting to play a ball which is close to him when this action impacts on an opponent or
•• making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

Kane didn't do any of those things, so that rules out interfering with an opponent. The next paragraph is the most telling in terms of this decision, as follows ...

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.

Lovren deliberately played the ball. It can't be classed as a save as that is defined as "a ball that is going into or very close to the goal", so the law is clear that Kane cannot have been considered to have gained an advantage.

 

[PinnerPaul]

I think there is a clear conflict or confusion between pure footballing talk and the laws in the game.

In this case speaking from a footballing point of view, in my opinion Kane is and does gain an advantage by being in that position however in terms of the laws he isn't gaining an advantage. Similarly, a player can be interfering with a defender from a playing and coaching point of view i.e making the defender clear the ball by being in his vicinity or behind him but in terms of the laws he isn't interfering.

I think there's a big difference between certain words i.e gaining an advantage, interference etc and what they actually mean and that's where fans and pundits can get confused.

I totally agree, but whilst its understandable that the average football doesn't know the laws, as the 'pundits' are being paid for their views, I think they should certainly take the trouble to look at the laws every now & again!

 

[bester]

You can't expect the pundits to get it right, nearly the whole of You Are The Ref team are out in force saying it's offside.

This was a major change to the interpretation of what a deliberate play was a few seasons ago, with many example videos to the support the change. Did the actual wording of the law change?

 

[one]

I wrote the below on a different forum, as a way of trying to look at how the law is written and how it should be applied in this instance.

If we look at the law in detail. Gaining an advantage is defined as ...

• gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when it has:
•• rebounded or been deflected off the goalpost, crossbar, match official or an opponent
••been deliberately saved by any opponent

It hasn't rebounded or deflected off of any of those things, and it cannot be classed as a save due to the distance from goal. So as far as the law is concerned he didn't gain an advantage. Some have said that he interfered with an opponent, so if we look at that ...

• interfering with an opponent by:
••preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
••challenging an opponent for the ball or
•• clearly attempting to play a ball which is close to him when this action impacts on an opponent or
•• making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

Kane didn't do any of those things, so that rules out interfering with an opponent. The next paragraph is the most telling in terms of this decision, as follows ...

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.

Lovren deliberately played the ball. It can't be classed as a save as that is defined as "a ball that is going into or very close to the goal", so the law is clear that Kane cannot have been considered to have gained an advantage.

While the logic in this post is correct, one assumption which wans't justified in term of lotg was "Lovren deliberately played the ball" and that is the main issue here. The law in terms of deliberate play has never changed or clarified as far as know (in recent years anyway). Here is another very similar incident which was given offside and accepted as offside. Did the defender deliberately play the ball in the general meaning of the term, yes (touched the ball and his actions were intentional), but in its "offside meaning", if you accept the decision of the referee then it wan't deliberate play.
The issue is in the interpretation of "deliberate play"

 

[santa sangria]

While the logic in this post is correct, one assumption which wans't justified in term of lotg was "Lovren deliberately played the ball" and that is the main issue here. The law in terms of deliberate play has never changed or clarified as far as know (in recent years anyway). Here is another very similar incident which was given offside and accepted as offside. Did the defender deliberately play the ball in the general meaning of the term, yes (touched the ball and his actions were intentional), but in its "offside meaning", if you accept the decision of the referee then it wan't deliberate play.
The issue is in the interpretation of "deliberate play"

Hmm - surely that goes down as a save as that deliberate touch fulfils the criteria for a save - that's why it was given offside?

 

[santa sangria]

I wrote the below on a different forum, as a way of trying to look at how the law is written and how it should be applied in this instance.

If we look at the law in detail. Gaining an advantage is defined as ...

• gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when it has:
•• rebounded or been deflected off the goalpost, crossbar, match official or an opponent
••been deliberately saved by any opponent

It hasn't rebounded or deflected off of any of those things, and it cannot be classed as a save due to the distance from goal. So as far as the law is concerned he didn't gain an advantage. Some have said that he interfered with an opponent, so if we look at that ...

• interfering with an opponent by:
••preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
••challenging an opponent for the ball or
•• clearly attempting to play a ball which is close to him when this action impacts on an opponent or
•• making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

Kane didn't do any of those things, so that rules out interfering with an opponent. The next paragraph is the most telling in terms of this decision, as follows ...

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.

Lovren deliberately played the ball. It can't be classed as a save as that is defined as "a ball that is going into or very close to the goal", so the law is clear that Kane cannot have been considered to have gained an advantage.

Yes, of course... except... "making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball"...

Kane makes an obvious action: he moves behind Lovren towards the goal. That clearly impacts on Lovren's ability to play the ball, as he has to attempt to play the ball to stop it reaching Kane. If Kane wasn't there, Lovren could have taken longer to decide how to play the ball, run after the ball and played it much later, or something else.

It is brutal on defenders, especially those at lower levels with less skill (and the Liverpool back line!) that a botched clearance, muffed touch etc. can have such drastic consequences - is this really the idea behind the laws and the spirit of the game?

 

[cwyeary]

Kane makes an obvious action: he moves behind Lovren towards the goal. That clearly impacts on Lovren's ability to play the ball, as he has to attempt to play the ball to stop it reaching Kane. If Kane wasn't there, Lovren could have taken longer to decide how to play the ball, run after the ball and played it much later, or something else.

Kane barely moves between the ball being passed by his teammate and the ball being played by Lovren. He in no way made an obvious action that impacted Lovren's ability to play the ball. How can you say this clearly impacted Lovren? Can you read his mind? Do you know for certain that if Kane was to simply vanish that he wouldn't have misplayed the ball? I for one am thrilled that the offside law doesn't require me to read the mind of the defender. Lovren deliberately played the ball (very poorly...) and Kane did not interfere with his ability to do so.

 

[one]

Hmm - surely that goes down as a save as that deliberate touch fulfils the criteria for a save - that's why it was given offside?

is this really the idea behind the laws and the spirit of the game?

I think you made my response much easier in your next post . Surly the definition was save was not for that context with so many players between the goal and the defender the the kick was not a shot on goal. Lets say (in an extreme case) the opposing goal keeper punts the ball form his own PA towards goal and it is deliberately played at by striker on the PA line 85 yards out. That can't be a save.
I am sure the AR did not consider that a save (IFAB defined save after this game was played) but even if it was a save, my point still stands with a more accurate example where the action is intended but contact with the ball can only be classified as a deflection.

 

[The Very Tetchy Referee]

I think Kane dived, contact or no contact. Please check out my view at very-tetchy-referee.blogspot.co.uk

 

[A Freethinker]

I think Kane dived, contact or no contact. Please check out my view at very-tetchy-referee.blogspot.co.uk

Agreed without even reading it! off his feet long before any and I mean if any contact was made..think Alli and Kane were having a diving competiton and the next chanllenger is Lamela!!!!

 

[PinnerPaul]

You can't expect the pundits to get it right, nearly the whole of You Are The Ref team are out in force saying it's offside.

This was a major change to the interpretation of what a deliberate play was a few seasons ago, with many example videos to the support the change. Did the actual wording of the law change?

I expect Jermaine Jenas to take note of the law when it is read to him on air! He just said 'I know what the law says, but for me its still offside' - how does that help?!

 

[Sheffields Finest]

I expect Jermaine Jenas to take note of the law when it is read to him on air! He just said 'I know what the law says, but for me its still offside' - how does that help?!

JJ needs to pull his finger out and learn the Laws of the Game in my opinion!! Its shameful!!!