[Football] That Liverpool offside/penalty

[trueblue]

It's possible Moss's 'Have you got anything from TV?' is being misinterpreted. The 4th official and TV floor manager frequently speak to each other informally during the game. Unless things have changed in the last couple of years, the 4th official doesn't have a TV monitor so it's more likely Moss was asking whether he had found out that the TV commentators/Director were going ballistic about the offside call based on the replays (the floor manager hears all of that).

Still something he probably shouldn't have asked.

 

[Southern Scouse]

VAR.... very average ref.
I thought if the ref wasn’t sure, he ran over to a TV, looked, and made a decision. All this “I didn’t see it, did you, is it on TV?” Rubbish. They don’t need to talk! The ref, both captains have a look, decision made, end off.
I don’t want the ref to be the star of the show.

 

[golddene]

They are both pens. First one is due to a silly rule, but as they stand Kane is interfering until the ball reaches him, by then the Loveren touch makes him on side. Ridiculous but the letter of the law.

Second one is offside if you have a telescope but he has kicked him even if hes hit the deck like a sack of spuds

Look at the slo-mo in post 19, what chance do the officials have with this blatant cheating? I fully admit from the angles previously shown of the incident I had no doubt that VVD kicked Lamala, then you see that angle and I can see he withdrew his challenge!

 

[Marshy]

I didn't understand why they were even debating whether Lovren got a touch of the ball or not. Surely that's irrelevant, as Kane was clearly offside the moment the ball was played forward. Whether it touched a Liverpool player on the way through to him is neither here nor there.

Unless I'm missing something.

Agreed, just because Lovren made an attempt or touched the ball is not the point for me.

He's offside simple

The rule clearly needs changing on this.

 

[BensGrandad]

Agreed, just because Lovren made an attempt or touched the ball is not the point for me.

He's offside simple

The rule clearly needs changing on this.

That may be so and I wouldnt disagree but the ref can only do so to the rules that are in force and the ref did exactly that.

 

[sydney]

VAR.... very average ref.
I thought if the ref wasn’t sure, he ran over to a TV, looked, and made a decision. All this “I didn’t see it, did you, is it on TV?” Rubbish. They don’t need to talk! The ref, both captains have a look, decision made, end off.
I don’t want the ref to be the star of the show.

moss is now in the same canoe as the other pillock...!!

 

[Audax]

Lamela dived


Lamela looking for a pen by backing into a big challenge he hoped was coming, but it didn't as VVD withdrew the leg, yet Lamela threw himself to the ground as if it had.

Lamela's entire movement was unnatural, no intention of trapping the ball, bizarrely moving away from the ball when he was attacking.

English league football has well and truly caught up with cheating. Defenfers and goalies now must be scared of any challenge.

The ref booked Alli for diving yesterday, so it is rife.

Praying that this doesn't harm less savvy Albion in the final games this season.

Look at the slo-mo in post 19, what chance do the officials have with this blatant cheating? I fully admit from the angles previously shown of the incident I had no doubt that VVD kicked Lamala, then you see that angle and I can see he withdrew his challenge!

The angle of that video is really misleading, as is the way it's been slowed down. There's other angles of the incident that show that VVD did, in fact, end up kicking Lamela. In that particular slow mo, whether deliberate or accidental, it looks like the key frames from the real-time feed are missing. As a result, it gives an incorrect impression that VVD has withdrawn the challenge before it made contact.

Having said that: absolutely correct that Lamela's reaction after the contact is entirely fabricated in a clear effort to force the penalty decision to be made. I've said this before in another instance: this is a case where the laws need a bit of 'give' instead of requiring a black-and-white decision (it's either a pen or a booking for diving). IMO what needs to happen in cases like this is probably *both* sides of the coin: give the pen because VVD has fouled in the box, but also book Lamela for simulation because his post-contact actions are ridiculous.

While I'm here, on the first one: what a shambles the off-side rule is. IMO the "interfering with play" element should trump any other consideration. Kane was active, while in an off-side position, and was clearly the target for the pass. I need to see it again, but from memory there were no other Tottenham players who could have got on the end of it even if Kane had ignored it?

hmmm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXBkwZ22B0s

shocking spelling too lol.

Clearly not celebrating the "goal" given that happens before the pen is even taken. He's "celebrating" convincing the ref that a pen was required.

 

[golddene]

The angle of that video is really misleading, as is the way it's been slowed down. There's other angles of the incident that show that VVD did, in fact, end up kicking Lamela. In that particular slow mo, whether deliberate or accidental, it looks like the key frames from the real-time feed are missing. As a result, it gives an incorrect impression that VVD has withdrawn the challenge before it made contact.

I hear what you're saying but I've watched the clip over again and watching the seconds on the timer (top left) I do not think the clip has been altered, if it has what on earth would the point be?

 

[Seasidesage]

Look at the slo-mo in post 19, what chance do the officials have with this blatant cheating? I fully admit from the angles previously shown of the incident I had no doubt that VVD kicked Lamala, then you see that angle and I can see he withdrew his challenge!

He doesn't though. He pulls it for sure but the contact is still there. Would it have felled you or me? No. But its contact without playing the ball. Its a foul.

Same as the first one. Has Kane played for the Pen? 100% but the contact is still made. None of this is Queensbury rules but I'd want our lads to go down in the same situations. Not that we'dve got the decisions!

 

[Triggaaar]

Look at the slo-mo in post 19, what chance do the officials have with this blatant cheating? I fully admit from the angles previously shown of the incident I had no doubt that VVD kicked Lamala, then you see that angle and I can see he withdrew his challenge!

He didn't withdraw it, he 100% made contact. The video being in slow mo just makes it harder to see what the challenge was like.

 

[Audax]

I hear what you're saying but I've watched the clip over again and watching the seconds on the timer (top left) I do not think the clip has been altered, if it has what on earth would the point be?

It's entirely possible for frames to be dropped without the clock being obviously affected. You don't need to drop very many of them. Given the way slow mo works, it's definitely that some frames will have been lost in this video. Whether deliberate or not (to be honest, I don't think it is deliberate - just an unfortunate side effect of the technique used to produce the slow mo), there's frames at the key moment that aren't present. I've not got time to download the video and have a play with it in software that let's me look at it frame-by-frame, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's key frames missing from the time where the contact was made which leads to an incorrect assumption that it didn't happen.

 

[Easy 10]

He doesn't though. He pulls it for sure but the contact is still there. Would it have felled you or me? No. But its contact without playing the ball. Its a foul.

Same as the first one. Has Kane played for the Pen? 100% but the contact is still made. None of this is Queensbury rules but I'd want our lads to go down in the same situations. Not that we'dve got the decisions!

Contact doesn't automatically make it a foul.

 

[Triggaaar]

I wouldn't be surprised if there's key frames missing from the time where the contact was made which leads to an incorrect assumption that it didn't happen.

If contact wasn't made (it 100% was), Lamela must have supernatural powers for reaching back and grabbing the part of his leg where contact was nearly made.

 

[golddene]

It's entirely possible for frames to be dropped without the clock being obviously affected. You don't need to drop very many of them. Given the way slow mo works, it's definitely that some frames will have been lost in this video. Whether deliberate or not (to be honest, I don't think it is deliberate - just an unfortunate side effect of the technique used to produce the slow mo), there's frames at the key moment that aren't present. I've not got time to download the video and have a play with it in software that let's me look at it frame-by-frame, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's key frames missing from the time where the contact was made which leads to an incorrect assumption that it didn't happen.

Feck me, I'm just an ignorant technophobe, please don't confuse me with someone who knows what he's talking about? Just thought it would have been major hassle removing frames for no real gain, I bow to your better knowledge, I'll keep my nose out of techie stuff that I have no knowledge of, sorry mate. PS this reply is straight up, no sarcasm or anything else intended.