red_devil83
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2014
- Messages
- 2,758
To be fair I don't think either were penalties but I'm glad Spurs equalised just for Klopp's face after
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.
At the start I thought it was penalty but I rewatched it like 5 times to make sure. I have to say it's not penalty.
The contact was so soft from VVD & VVD's main intention was to clear the ball away. Look at VVD's eye was on the ball only before the contact, he swing his leg to clear the ball but the moment he realised he won't get the ball, he tried to pull away his leg and ensure the less contact as possible he can do which he did the contact was so soft. Lamela's reaction was so late as well.
Klopp is obviously furious, Mourinho would have been furious as well. But we are all know Mourinho will get punished while Klopp will get away from being sarcastic about referee.
As an United fans, I'm happy with the result.
In an effort to remain open minded I just rewatched it a few times and I'm even more sure it's a peno. If you strip back the situation to the basics (reasons like eyes on the ball, trying to pull out, intentional or not, Lamela playing for it are actually irrelevant whether you agree with them or not) you have a Liverpool defender kicking a Spurs player inside the box. It's a peno.
If player A fouls player B but didn't mean to, it's still a foul right?
Agree on Klopp and is probable lack of punishment, if Mou said that he'd be slapped with a huge fine
If player A fouls player B but didn't mean to, it's still a foul right?
Can you call that as a foul though?
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.
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.
Can you call that as a foul though?
Can you call that as a foul though?
The Football Association has invited Jurgen Klopp to clarify his remarks that 'the FA is bent as f*ck and the poxy refs want shooting'. Mr Klopp has five years to respond.'
Seems so you've forgot your point too.
It was totally clear what he said. His English is excellent.Klopp co
Okay, so what else was he possibly trying to say when he said the referee wanted to be the center of attention?
It was not that bad a decision. It is a normal penalty for me. You see some of them given, some of them not. Van Djik did get contact with Lamela though he was clearly trying to pull out. Lamela did over-react as if his back was split. That's the only way you get penalties nowadays (Blame the refs for it)
But the player was touched and it was a foul.
The thing is when you touch a player in the box, you give a chance for the ref to make a decision. And it is not in your favour a good number of times.
If we're nitpicking about rules, then the first penalty should've been retaken
Thanks. Despite your heavy handed style of argument, including unfortunate references to disability, your points did help me get my head around the legalities of the case. You have persuaded me that the goal should have stood. But looking at the rules around offside brings home what a bloody complicated rule it is.And just to make sure you completely understand, I'll quote it from the above again, which is pivotal:
Q: Did lovren deliberately play the ball?
- 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.
A: yes, judging by his swing of the leg to attempt a clearance. I think everyone (unless issues with sight) agrees lovren tried to clear the ball. I think everyone agrees attempt to clear the ball is a deliberate attempt to play the ball (unless logic fails you)
Q: Did lovren touch the ball from his attempted clearance?
A: yes. Wherever the ball goes after is immaterial.
The rules didn't actually say anything about deliberately playing the ball means the ball has to travel in the direction of the intended target did it?
I'm not even sure why this is worth a debate. Pretty much black and white and nothing to argue about. You will be hard press[ed] to find an official or even an article to agree with klopp that it was offside.
It was not that bad a decision. It is a normal penalty for me. You see some of them given, some of them not. Van Djik did get contact with Lamela though he was clearly trying to pull out. Lamela did over-react as if his back was split. That's the only way you get penalties nowadays (Blame the refs for it)
But the player was touched and it was a foul.
The thing is when you touch a player in the box, you give a chance for the ref to make a decision. And it is not in your favour a good number of times.
He’s not actually trying to pull out, it’s Lamela’s leg that buckles and the lower part “recoils” from the violent kick he has made.
Funny thing about opinions is, I clearly see him not pulling out. He kicks the player as he would try to kick the ball. You see him clearly pulling out, I see him clearly not doing it, so the truth is obviously not clear.
The ironic thing is that Lovren’s clearance is absolutely beautiful, relative to the one he had five minutes earlier.
It is a foul and pen.it doesn't matter if he was trying to pull out (lol). He was too late. He kicks his calf. How can that not be a pen?
This a million times. They cannot shut up about the first pen but the first one was misse anywayCan'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.
If Mourinho did that he'd be banned until April.He's out of order the way he criticize the referee in my opinion, he can't claim that the linesman wanted to be the center of attention, it is questioning his integrity. Complain about the decision, but not the motive behind.
If Mourinho did that he'd be banned until April.