Incorrect. Please see a better explanation from fellow caf here :
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/state-of-the-refs-in-this-country.421006/page-7
Jurgen Klopp Sack Watch
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/state-of-the-refs-in-this-country.421006/page-7
It's a matter of opinion I suppose as I've seen plenty of similar decisions already happen. But like I said in the same thread, it's a human trait so you can't take it out of the referee, only try to help him make better./consistent decisions with the help of technology. Even if the argument can be made that the offside shouldn't have been give, it was a clear dive by Kane in any case.
Makes me laugh when Liverpool fans say that isn't a pen yet when Vidic slid in on Torres making no contact, their fans said it was a pen as he'd onsytobstr his path without winning the ball...
But you missed out a very crucial point with regards to the advantage part and also interpreted the deliberate attempt one.
You think Lovren "deliberately" flicked the ball to Kane or was it a miscue attempt at clearance for a through ball which was played towards Kane. It's not like Dier who was not affected by Salah. Lovren was affected by Kane as he was automatically going to become active/dangerous if Lovren didn't attempt the clearance.
As for the advantage part:
- gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when it has:
- rebounded or been deflected off the goalpost, crossbar or an opponent
- been deliberately saved by any opponent
This shows that Lovren was trying to save the ball going to Kane with a clearance which was not executed properly. Kane then got "advantage" from that botched "save" which did not include Lovren using his hands and the ball was moving towards goal.
The above lines show IMO that Kane should have been flagged offside.
As you said, that is your opinion and it is not according to the letter of the rules.
The fact is lovren deliberately attempt to play the ball and successfully connected with the ball. These two actions are all that is required. the rules does not state that he has to deliberately play the ball to the offside player. It says "deliberately plays the ball".
As for your advantage argument, if lovren did not miskick, but controlled the ball, then deliberately play it to an offside Kane, doesn't Kane then considered to have gain an advantage from an offside position?
This is not a handball situation where interpretation is needed. The referee in this instance does not need to interpret if lovren miskick or actually meant it. He just need to assess if lovren made an attempt to kick (note it's kick, not block).
If you keep arguing that it is a save, imagine the redicule the commentator would get if a defender make a clearance, and the commentator say, wow what a good save by the defender.
Last edited:
To be honest, the offside call is not an opinion. It is black and white according to the rules. The dive by Kane however is open to interpretation, unless he comes out and admit it is a dive.
Is there anyone on the planet still insisting this wasnt a penalty? Ouch
People need to stop blaming others for their own failings. For example here with Kane and lovren. Lovren, if he is aware of surroundings, should let the ball run to Kane. And if that level of awareness is beyond him, then he needs to work on his composure. And if that is also beyond him, then he needs to work on his technique of clearing the ball hastily.
What we see there is a bad defender. Stop blaming Kane who did not even lay a finger lovren or in any shape or form impede him.
The offside rule in the current form does not protect a bad defender with bad techniques.
What we see there is a bad defender. Stop blaming Kane who did not even lay a finger lovren or in any shape or form impede him.
The offside rule in the current form does not protect a bad defender with bad techniques.
A Liverpool fan at work is and the worst part a United "fan" (a fecking idiot to be honest as he wanted Pool to win
)I feel you are getting hung up on the word "save". The save was clearly defined as an attempt to prevent the ball moving towards goal. Also it's an opinion and so is yours. If it was black and white, it wouldn't have been discussed. The letter of the law is open to interpretation. Different refs interpret it differently, so you cannot claim one is right and the other is definitely wrong.
Not sure who is blaming Kane here. He plays on as no offside was called. Didn't hear anyone saying he should have stopped playing or is at fault for anything.
As I said before, you will be hard press to find a ref that interprets it differently. If you have followed EPL this year closely, you would have know that was the exact same decision earlier in the season. You will not find one example that when a defender attempts to kick the ball, connects, and falls into the path of an offside attacker, it is being called offside.
The only chance that the ref will called Kane offside in that situation will be if he errorly did not see lovren connects with the ball, which is the second important part requirement to negate the advantage of the offside person.
No, you were saying lovren miskick because of Kane. In actual fact, lovren miskick because of lovren.
Needs to face disciplinary action for those comments. Moaning about the 'offside penalty' that Spurs didn't even benefit from. If anything, it 'spurred' his team on to go back in front when the penalty was missed the and crowd were up. Ignoring the offside, both penalties were just that, penalties. Sure, both made an absolute meal of it, but it was more clumsy defending and Klopp should be more annoyed about that (obviously, he'll look for any excuse other than his team is poor defensively).
Lamela isn't invisible, he can't not see him.
A friend at work said he is compensating for a rather average career as a player. Not much it is but it made me smile.
Celebrate like a maniac after the game is finished
@Listar is 100% right.
The key to it is Lovren intending to play the ball. He does so, horrifically and would have been better off;
1) leaving it
2) taking a touch
3) Managing to strike a fairly straight forward back pass like any kind of decent footballer.
Kane ‘putting him off’ is not similar to say, a player unsighting the keeper, or throwing a leg out but not connecting with a shot. Really he’s just standing on the pitch like every other player, offside or otherwise.
If Lovren takes a touch and then back heels it would Kane be offside?
As for Lamella and VVD I can’t believe anyone doesn’t think it’s a pen, it’s clumsy and a little unfortunate but saying Lamela throws himself into it, he gets across his man and toward the ball... as you would want to do! Everyone has the right to position themselves largely wherever they like and it’s not a free pass to kick someone. It’s not his fault VVD is wildly swinging his legs around in his own penalty box.
The key to it is Lovren intending to play the ball. He does so, horrifically and would have been better off;
1) leaving it
2) taking a touch
3) Managing to strike a fairly straight forward back pass like any kind of decent footballer.
Kane ‘putting him off’ is not similar to say, a player unsighting the keeper, or throwing a leg out but not connecting with a shot. Really he’s just standing on the pitch like every other player, offside or otherwise.
If Lovren takes a touch and then back heels it would Kane be offside?
As for Lamella and VVD I can’t believe anyone doesn’t think it’s a pen, it’s clumsy and a little unfortunate but saying Lamela throws himself into it, he gets across his man and toward the ball... as you would want to do! Everyone has the right to position themselves largely wherever they like and it’s not a free pass to kick someone. It’s not his fault VVD is wildly swinging his legs around in his own penalty box.
It's Liverpool fans. They'd whinge and cry foul if they got beat 4-0 with all the goals being like the Wanyama thunderbastard. It'd be all about how the referee wanted them to lose and was slyly telling the opposition players to shoot.
He actually admitted that he saw him.
The rules say nothing about ‘resettling’ anything, that’s your invention.
If you mean for instance a goal line clearance should not count as an attempt to save the ball, whereas a goal line block should, you’re allowed to, but I for one would deem that stupid.
I’ve forgotten what your point was
I said Lovren miskicked because he was under pressure as Kane was behind him through on goal and he didn't know Kane was offside.
I cannot recollect if it's this season or last, but we have seen instances of those kind of offside calls being given.
I think we are going in circles now. We can agree to disagree since I feel the rules are written in a way that it can be interpreted in a different way. Lovren back heeling it is not going to come into the picture since it's clear as day Lovren didn't get the ball through to the keeper deliberately.
The key point that many of you are missing is this...
Seems so you've forgot your point too.I’ve forgotten what your point was
I don’t remember Vidic and Torres ever being involved in an incident like that.
I remember another instance of this 'offside' now - also Anfield as it happens, with I *think* LFC getting the benefit of this one, but don't remember the opponent. But is a good example of why the rule has to be like it is (a bit stupid?)
Big long cross goes in to the far post, travels a long way. Everyone is onside, no problem with it. At the far post, a little bit later, an attacker & a defender compete for a towering header - but by now, there are attackers offside, having got in front of the play moving for the cross & a couple more attackers who moved later and are onside, & have been onside all through this.
The big header is won by the defender but, under pressure, he only succeeds in heading the ball back across goal, where 1 of 4 or 5 attackers scores easily, was he onside or is he one of those who moved accidentally too early, and how does the lino decide - unless you say that the defender's last touch 'resets' the play & ought not to be considered,
Having onside players given off all the time isn't what the rules want to say is happening. Leaves the lino just having to judge the original play - which is best I suppose. And why should Lovren benefit from incompetent play, equally if the ball hits him & rebounds, then the attacker ought not to benefit from that, if he has originally been offside.
I *think* - and possibly not greatly explained again. It looks daft (and looks offside) when it happens, though.
Big long cross goes in to the far post, travels a long way. Everyone is onside, no problem with it. At the far post, a little bit later, an attacker & a defender compete for a towering header - but by now, there are attackers offside, having got in front of the play moving for the cross & a couple more attackers who moved later and are onside, & have been onside all through this.
The big header is won by the defender but, under pressure, he only succeeds in heading the ball back across goal, where 1 of 4 or 5 attackers scores easily, was he onside or is he one of those who moved accidentally too early, and how does the lino decide - unless you say that the defender's last touch 'resets' the play & ought not to be considered,
Having onside players given off all the time isn't what the rules want to say is happening. Leaves the lino just having to judge the original play - which is best I suppose. And why should Lovren benefit from incompetent play, equally if the ball hits him & rebounds, then the attacker ought not to benefit from that, if he has originally been offside.
I *think* - and possibly not greatly explained again. It looks daft (and looks offside) when it happens, though.
Last edited:
Can't believe you guys are still arguing about the 1st penalty, he didn't score so who cares, no injustice has been done.
The 2nd one is as clear a penalty as you are ever going to get.
The 2nd one is as clear a penalty as you are ever going to get.
But the rule doesn't state anything about positioning, it says action. While Harry was offside he didn't attempt to tackle Lovern. If the ball had simply bounced off Lovern Kane would have been offside, but he botched his clearance.
Exactly. Kane's in an 'offside' position, but by the rules in this instance, it's not an offside offence. Major props to Moss and particularly the lino for taking the time to get it right.
Which goes to Klopp, because he's such a character.
Klopp co
Okay, so what else was he possibly trying to say when he said the referee wanted to be the center of attention?
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the first penalty, i hope Klopp asks Lovren about his attempted clearance. if he cleared the ball properly, there's no talking point but as Kane missed the penalty there's no point in Klopp complaining. The 2nd penalty is a penalty.
Nah, he made his legs give way and fell. Definitely made more of it, but if that's what it takes to make the ref see it, so be it.
Why all the fuss over the Kane dive or not, he missed the penalty, so what does it matter??
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Watched the last 12 minutes. Great timing! Klopp has a bit of a persecution complex.
Has he been charged yet?
Every media outlet I've looked at concentrates on Liverpool fans' fury & suspicions; not a word about whether Klopp should be charged for his comment.