Neither penalty should have been given.
Kane offside for the first.
The second was a clear dive.
Kane wasn't offside, Lovren touched the ball.
Neither penalty should have been given.
Kane offside for the first.
The second was a clear dive.
Logically it should, but under the current rules and how refs interpret them it doesn't count until the player is close enough to the ball. We got screwed by this a few years back when Evans scored an own-goal against Newcastle because there was a player behind him and he tried to deflect the ball anywhere and there's quite a few other examples. I'm not happy about the rule or the interpretation of when a player is interfering but the referee and the linesman were spot on today.Man, that explanation was nebulous. Sorry, but for first pen call, the whole offside thing, does not make sense. Surely, the player is actively affecting the game when the ball goes towards him and he's running off the last defender.
Neither penalty should have been given.
Kane offside for the first.
The second was a clear dive.
Neither penalty should have been given.
Kane offside for the first.
The second was a clear dive.
I think that part was the referee. The linesman was telling the ref that it was offside if he didn't touch it but if he did then it was onside and the referee then made the decision to give the penalty.Incorrect - Kane was played onside as the defender touched the ball. Very good spot by the lines man.
It's not a grey area though. Having looked it up I was wrong to say it was the interpretation of the rule, the rule is clear: "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."It's one of the grey areas of the offside rule. Kane was offside when the first ball was played. Is it considered a new phase of play as soon as Lovren touches it? I think it's fair to say Kane is interfering with play as the defence are reacting to a pass which is going through to an offside player, causing Lovren to try to get a touch on it. To me it should be offside due to that, and a few years ago it probably would be, but the offside rule seems to get amended regularly, and now it isn't, based on what the linesman appears to be saying. Not convinced the actual foul from Karius was a penalty either, but they didn't seem to show many replays of that one during the game.
Not that it really matters as he missed it anyway. The 2nd penalty was a much clearer one and the right decision eventually.
Agreed.Both were correct decisions.
A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:It's not a grey area though. Having looked it up I was wrong to say it was the interpretation of the rule, the rule is clear: "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 lino said that right? Moss knew he touched therefore onside.
It's not a grey area though. Having looked it up I was wrong to say it was the interpretation of the rule, the rule is clear: "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."
Neither penalty should have been given.
Kane offside for the first.
The second was a clear dive.
From what I heard, the linesman wasn't sure, nor was the referee. So the linesman said "if Lovren hasn't touched the ball, then its offside". To which the referee replies "I have no idea if he touched it" and then went ahead and gave the penalty.
I'm telling you, this kind of decision is gonna happen against us( the non-offside call ) and you guys are all gonna change your tune. It's just far too complicated and open to interpretation. The only way that thing could have not been awarded as an offside decision would have been if a Liverpool player made a backpass. Basically, they're interpreting Lovren's attempted clearance as a backpass, as if he were in control of the ball whilst, in reality, it should have been seen as a deviation.
Who told you that?From what I heard, the linesman wasn't sure, nor was the referee. So the linesman said "if Lovren hasn't touched the ball, then its offside". To which the referee replies "I have no idea if he touched it" and then went ahead and gave the penalty.
Who told you that?
I asked this in the Klopp thread, but does anyone have an idea of how much refs and linesmen get paid?
It's a deflection, not a new passage of play. He had no control over the ball.Why does it have to be a back pass? When he fecks up the clearance it's a new passage of play. If he leaves it, Kane is offside.
I think I read it's at the level of worth doing but not totally silly - 2k a game or something (ballpark) & might be ore now.
It's a deflection, not a new passage of play. He had no control over the ball.
That was what they'd get about 20 years ago. They're on more, considerably more.
It's a deflection, not a new passage of play. He had no control over the ball.
That was what they'd get about 20 years ago. They're on more, considerably more.
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.
• preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
• challenging an opponent for the ball or
• clearly attempting to play a ball which is close to him when this action impacts on an opponent or
• making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an or opponent to play the ball
Agreed. Officialdom at its best. Under tremendous pressure they manage to get both calls correctExcellent refereeing today in Liverpool-Spurs game tbh.
It shouldn't matter. If the ball is played towards Kane in an offside position he either a) distracts Lovren into making a poor clearance (see below)Kane wasn't offside, Lovren touched the ball.