[Football] That Liverpool offside/penalty

[Seasidesage]

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

 

[Driver8]

More diving tonight. Watford this time.

 

[Iggle Piggle]

Seeing Klopp run down the touchline after Salah scored and then the smug grin wiped from his germanic face moments later was a joy to behold.

It was also a nice touch of Sky yesterday to have Dermot Gallagher explain why both pens were right before cutting to Klopp cry like a toddler who'd lost his toy about each decision in the post match interview. Tell you what Jurgen, tell the team to calm down instead of playing to the crowd and you might have won. You complete and utter bell end.

 

[liverpool_one]

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

shocking spelling too lol.

 

[papajaff]

I couldn't care less. It's just great to hear the Mickey Mousers whingeing.

 

[graz126]

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.

I was lino in a game about 2 year ago attacking team passed the ball to striker clearly offside, I waved the flag even though the throughball touched a defending player on the way through. I was told by the ref they had all been in a meeting that summer about this very situation. Its called the 2nd phase play and they are to follow strict guidelines on this. As soon as I saw this Lovern/Kane situation I thought the ref had made the right decision. Can see how Liverpool are aggrieved but it rules.

 

[Triggaaar]

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.

I agree completely, it's a stupid rule. The only reason Lovren went for the ball was because Kane was there, how the **** is that not interfering with play?

 

[Triggaaar]

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.

No shit.

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.

But he didn't recognise it, he clearly said that he didn't know if he'd touched the ball.

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.

Do we know he didn't get a response from the fourth official or something?

"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.

But he said he didn't ****ing see it!

 

[Triggaaar]

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.

Yeah, they're suggesting the rule is that he wasn't offside as he wasn't interfering with play. That's what Dermot Gallagher also said. It's bullshit.

 

[Triggaaar]

My reading of the rule is that if a defender PLAYS the ball it then immediately puts the attacker onside

It would appear so.

where as in the past it was if the defender touched the ball it did the same.

Er, no, in the past Kane would simply be offside the moment Spurs played the ball forward.

 

[Triggaaar]

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.

VVD definitely made contact with the back of Lamela's leg. Probably with some force, but that's difficult to see.

Lamela's entire movement was unnatural, no intention of trapping the ball

I agree there, his intention appears to be to get between the ball and VVD - but that is allowed, and he does it, and VVD kicks him.

 

[Bozza]

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.

Yeah, they're suggesting the rule is that he wasn't offside as he wasn't interfering with play. That's what Dermot Gallagher also said. It's bullshit.

When a defender plays the ball blindly back to his goalkeeper, not knowing there's a forward behind him, the forward is not offside when he intercepts the backpass. We all know that.

The same rules that covers that (copy and pasted from the FA website) means Kane was not offside, and is:

"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."

The "deliberately plays the ball" bit means that if the ball just happens to bounce off a defender then they'll not be adjudged to have played the ball deliberately and the forward will be penalised. However, as Lovren did intentionally play the ball (but did so badly) means Kane wasn't offside according to FA rules.

 

[Triggaaar]

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

shocking spelling too lol.

So the linesman celebrated a goal, even though one wasn't scored? That's weird.

 

[Triggaaar]

When a defender plays the ball blindly back to his goalkeeper, not knowing there's a forward behind him, the forward is not offside when he intercepts the backpass. We all know that.

The same rules that covers that (copy and pasted from the FA website) means Kane was not offside, and is:

"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."

The "deliberately plays the ball" bit means that if the ball just happens to bounce off a defender then they'll not be adjudged to have played the ball deliberately and the forward will be offside. However, as Lovren did intentionally play the ball (but did so badly) means Kane wasn't offside according to FA rules.

That's interesting reading, and I'm not convinced they're interpreting it right:

It seems that they're trying to allow attacking players to intercept back-passes:

When a defender plays the ball blindly back to his goalkeeper, not knowing there's a forward behind him, the forward is not offside when he intercepts the backpass.

but this clearly wasn't a back-pass.

The keeper can't pick up a deliberate back-pass, but if the ball that Lovren touched had gone onto the keeper, he could have picked it up, because the player was trying to clear it, not pass it back. They just haven't written it properly into the rules, so when he's deliberately attempted to clear it, it's coming across as he's deliberately played the ball backwards, which obviously he hasn't.

 

[Bozza]

That's interesting reading, and I'm not convinced they're interpreting it right:

It seems that they're trying to allow attacking players to intercept back-passes:
but this clearly wasn't a back-pass.

The keeper can't pick up a deliberate back-pass, but if the ball that Lovren touched had gone onto the keeper, he could have picked it up, because the player was trying to clear it, not pass it back. They just haven't written it properly into the rules, so when he's deliberately attempted to clear it, it's coming across as he's deliberately played the ball backwards, which obviously he hasn't.

Probably, but to the letter of the law Lovren deliberately played the ball which meant that although Kane was in an offside position, he could not be penalised for it:

"a player is not committing an offence simply by being in an offside position. Active involvement plus offside position is the offence."

 

[Triggaaar]

Probably, but to the letter of the law Lovren deliberately played the ball which meant that although Kane was in an offside position, he could not be penalised for it

Indeed, no argument there. I just think they've not thought of all possibilities when putting pen to paper and this loophole has slipped through.

"a player is not committing an offence simply by being in an offside position. Active involvement plus offside position is the offence."

But they count being in the keepers line of sight as being active don't they (or has that gone)? Anyway, if they just add the word 'backwards' to the rule, I think it would be better. Thus players can attempt to clear a pass.
"A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball backwards (except from a deliberate save by any opponent) is not considered to have gained an advantage."

 

[Falmer Flutter ©]

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

No he wasn't. That player didn't deliberately play the ball. In the end Jon Moss made the correct decision (even though, like others, I disagree with this interpretation of the current law), but the way he got there was awful. The footage of the lino telling him the law is unbelievable. Moss hasn't got a clue and is clearly unsure whether Lovren played the ball or not. In the end he basically goes "**** it, I'm giving a penalty".

 

[Gazwag]

Both very soft penalties, makes you wonder how on earth we didn't even get one against Chelsea.

This sort of provides your answer

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

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

 

[Bozza]

No he wasn't. That player didn't deliberately play the ball. In the end Jon Moss made the correct decision (even though, like others, I disagree with this interpretation of the current law), but the way he got there was awful. The footage of the lino telling him the law is unbelievable. Moss hasn't got a clue and is clearly unsure whether Lovren played the ball or not. In the end he basically goes "**** it, I'm giving a penalty".

He'd already given a penalty. The discussion was to validate that decision, and he decided to stick with it.

With the assistant unable to give him any reason to change the initial decision, giving it had to be the right thing to do as football doesn't allow referees to give a decision "just in case" and then take some time to decide whether to stick with it or not.

 

[Falmer Flutter ©]

He'd already given a penalty. The discussion was to validate that decision, and he decided to stick with it.

With the assistant unable to give him any reason to change the initial decision, giving it had to be the right thing to do as football doesn't allow referees to give a decision "just in case" and then take some time to decide whether to stick with it or not.

But the lino did give him a reason to change the initial decision. Pretty sure he explained the law and said that if Moss was sure that Lovren had played the ball then it's a penalty and if he was unsure then it had to be offside. Moss said he was unsure, then asked "Martin" to have a look at the TV, before suddenly saying "I'm giving a penalty". I would have more respect for a referee holding his hands up here and making the incorrect call, but for the right reason. He actually made the right call, but on pure guesswork.