[Football] That Liverpool offside/penalty

[Official Old Man]

I've just watched SSN and they showed in detail the Kane penalty where he was offside but Lovren played him onside.
Put yourself in the Liverpool players expensive boots. Had he stepped away from the ball Kane was offside but what if the linesman missed it and the ref said play on?
Surely there has to be a law where the offside player is offside because he was interfering with play i.e. Lovren played the ball knowing Kane was behind him.

 

[HantsSeagull]

kane dived and should be subject to a respective ban but we all know that won't happen.

 

[Scappa]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42943628

Referee Jon Moss was "misguided" to ask the fourth official for help using television when awarding Tottenham's first penalty at Liverpool on Sunday, the Professional Game Match Officials Limited (PGMOL) says.

Moss made the request to Martin Atkinson via his headset after Harry Kane had been brought down by Reds keeper Loris Karius - with the referee trying to clarify if the Spurs striker was offside.

Video assistant referee (VAR) was not in operation at Anfield.

"For the avoidance of doubt, Atkinson did not view a television monitor and did not relay any information to the on-field officials," PGMOL said in a statement.

PGMOL said Moss was right to give the spot-kick - which was missed - and was correct in recognising that Kane was not offside because Liverpool defender Dejan Lovren had deliberately played the ball in the run-up to the incident.

After initially awarding the penalty, Moss spoke with assistant referee Eddie Smart to clarify if Kane had been offside.

Moss was seen on camera asking Atkinson if there was "anything from TV" showing if Lovren had touched the ball, before sticking to his decision without receiving a response.

Kane's effort was saved by Karius, though the England forward made no mistake when Tottenham were given a second penalty - also awarded after consultation with Smart - in the dying seconds of the game to score his 100th Premier League goal and secure a 2-2 draw.

"Jon Moss was in a good position to see that a Liverpool player deliberately played the ball before it fell to Harry Kane in the penalty area. He then correctly judged that Kane was fouled by Loris Karius," the statement said.

"However, given the speed of the attack he was uncertain of the identity of the Liverpool player who kicked the ball.

"Eddie Smart, having identified that Kane was in an offside position, correctly sought clarification on whether Dejan Lovren had deliberately played the ball.

"In real time this was a difficult series of decisions which the match officials judged correctly."

 

[hans kraay fan club]

I've just watched SSN and they showed in detail the Kane penalty where he was offside but Lovren played him onside.
Put yourself in the Liverpool players expensive boots. Had he stepped away from the ball Kane was offside but what if the linesman missed it and the ref said play on?
Surely there has to be a law where the offside player is offside because he was interfering with play i.e. Lovren played the ball knowing Kane was behind him.

Agreed. IMO the interpretation of the rule they’ve been quoting, is wrong. Kane DID go toward the ball (in an offside position) and that necessitated Lovren’s touch. Without Kane there, he could have let in run through to Karius.

Absolutely offside (and a dive for the actual pen, but that’s a whole other argument)

 

[Easy 10]

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.

 

[Pavilionaire]

The whole thing stinks. Lovren made a right hash of his clearance, scuffing the ball into the path of Kane, while £75mill Van Dijk doesn't want to admit he booted Lamela up the arse.

As a 49-year old brought up seeing The Kop pressurising refs to give Liverpool a load of bogus penalties in the late 70s / early 80s it's nice to see them get a touch of payback now.

 

[AmexRuislip]

Edit

 

[Official Old Man]

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.

Yes, from the second Lovren touched the ball Kane was onside as a Liverpool player touched the ball last. The argument being Lovren touched the ball because Kane was behind him. But had Lovren just stepped aside would the lino waved offside, they sometimes get it wrong.

 

[zefarelly]

Toting ham are a bunch of ****ing cheats.

I couldn't give a shit about Liverpool but there were at least 3 times, all different players where a minimum of a booking was appropriate for simulation.

 

[The Optimist]

Yes, from the second Lovren touched the ball Kane was onside as a Liverpool player touched the ball last. The argument being Lovren touched the ball because Kane was behind him. But had Lovren just stepped aside would the lino waved offside, they sometimes get it wrong.

That's ridiculous. I don't mean you're wrong, I just mean that's a ridiculous rule. How on earth is Lovren supposed to know if Kane is offside and therefore whether to try to intercept the pass to him or not. Say Lovren had done even worse in his attempt and completely missed the ball then Kane is offside.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

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.

You are. There was some "clarification" on the offside rule by FIFA a couple of years ago, which is why on this occasion, as long as they've decided Lovren made a deliberate attempt to play the ball- no matter how light his touch subsequently was- Kane was technically onside.

I used the term "clarification" with some degree of cynicism here, you'll note

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Refs and linesman have no chance because of the offside law.

It’s rubbish.

Unlike the Liverpool meltdown, which is hilarious

 

[BensGrandad]

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.

My reading of the rule is that if a defender PLAYS the ball it then immediately puts the attacker onside where as in the past it was if the defender touched the ball it did the same.

 

[SeagullinExile]

Players from the top six teams never get a retrospective....

It's the rules, I thought everybody knew that.

 

[lawros left foot]

Clearly Jon Miss and his team need ‘resting’ from officiating at PL games. It was okay when his awful penalty decisions were only costing Little Brighton, like they did against Chelsea, but now hes started costing BIG CLUBS.

 

[Dorset Seagull]

Kane was actually played onside by the Liverpool player who touched it before Lovren touched it

 

[Easy 10]

Yes, from the second Lovren touched the ball Kane was onside as a Liverpool player touched the ball last. The argument being Lovren touched the ball because Kane was behind him. But had Lovren just stepped aside would the lino waved offside, they sometimes get it wrong.

You are. There was some "clarification" on the offside rule by FIFA a couple of years ago, which is why on this occasion, as long as they've decided Lovren made a deliberate attempt to play the ball- no matter how light his touch subsequently was- Kane was technically onside.

I used the term "clarification" with some degree of cynicism here, you'll note

My reading of the rule is that if a defender PLAYS the ball it then immediately puts the attacker onside where as in the past it was if the defender touched the ball it did the same.

News to me. I always thought the offside decision is purely the moment the ball is played forward (with the "interfering with play" aspect taken into account). This additional layer makes it lovely and complicated doesn't it.

 

[LlcoolJ]

Toting ham are a bunch of ****ing cheats.

I couldn't give a shit about Liverpool but there were at least 3 times, all different players where a minimum of a booking was appropriate for simulation.

Debbie needs a five match ban to stop him from being the second worst diver in the league. There's just no need when he's actually a very good player.

The offside rule is a load of toss nowadays. I don't think anyone fully understands it.

 

[Weststander]

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.

 

[CaptainDaveUK]

Both very soft penalties, makes you wonder how on earth we didn't even get one against Chelsea. Regarding offside, I think that when the ball is played forward, an attacking player who is in an offside position should have to stop running and indicate that he wants to be considered as not interfering with play or be at risk of being flagged.