At the end of the day as a Liverpool fan it was a fair result. They battered us second half. The first penalty wasn't one in my opinion even if only because Kane trailed his leg. The second pen, hey ho. It was a soft one. Gutted for Salah not being on the winning team after two superb goals but that isn't how the game goes. We should never have let Spurs back in. It hardly came as a shock that we did though.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Football
- Thread starter MidnightFlyer
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
You see it that way, other analysts are seeing it the complete opposite and offering the exact same documentation to expand their argument. Shouting offside to me isn't going to make a great deal of difference to my opinion.
Karius wasn't involved at this point nor made a save so the bracketed point is irrelevant, Kane didn't gain an advantage. Lovren was deemed to have deliberately played the ball because he tried to clear it.
Regardless of whether he was or wasn't, the decision should not have been given simply because the referee wan't sure about any of it, he should not guess. Then there is the matter of the assistant seemingly celebrating the decision.
Last edited:
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
The analysts are wrong beause they are not applying the Laws of the Game.
The Laws are really clear. If the ball is played forward and via a deflection it finds its way to an attacker who interferes with play, it’s offside. It can’t really be up for debate and I’m saddened at how many people don’t understand the Law.
However, the offside rule in its application has become very woolly and inconsistent, and nobody actually knows what the Laws say any more. This includes professional pundits, many of whom didn’t play under the current confusing regime.
I’ve long thought that they should simplify to Rule to what it used to be. If you’re in an offside position when the ball is played forward, you’re offside. That’s that. Causes far fewer arguments.
They are interpreting this law of the game.
Kane was in an offside position, he received the ball from an opponent who deliberately played the ball. He therefore is not considered to have gained an advantage.
But yes, the laws with their application and interpretation are a mess.
Kane was in an offside position, he received the ball from an opponent who deliberately played the ball. He therefore is not considered to have gained an advantage.
But yes, the laws with their application and interpretation are a mess.
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
This is not in the Laws of the Game.
Anyway:
Lovren did not deliberately play the ball. He would have to make a short backpass to play the ball. Miskicking or failing to kick the ball cleanly surely cannot be “playing the ball” in this context.
Imagine this scenario. I’m 5 yards offside, and the ball is played through to me. I am running on to the ball but I have not yet touched it. A defender comes alongside and tries to make a last ditch tackle before I touch the ball, he stumbles and doesn’t make a clean contact, getting only a slight touch. The ball continues to run into my path and I slot the ball coolly into the goal. It’s surely offside. If it was flagged offside then nobody would question it.
The sentence you mention is included to explain that if a defending player plays the ball to you and you’re offside, no offence is committed. Like Liverpool’s first goal, for example. That wasn’t offside.
Kane was offside and the offence complete *before* Lovren touched the ball. He was offside and committing an offence the moment his teammate released the ball. He was in an offside position and interfering with play. His presence meant that Lovren could not allow the ball to run through to the goalkeeper. His position, actions, and run were 100% interfering with play.
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
What isn't in the laws of the game? The part I quoted? Ok then.
http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-11---offside
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
No, sorry, badly articulated by me there - I wasn’t disputing the quote, I was disputing the interpretation of deliberately playing the ball.
Trust me I read the Laws very extensively last night, absolutely livid at yet another example of the law being applied inconsistently!
I acknowledge that it’s all swings and roundabouts but in the age of VAR it seems so odd to have this very basic inconsistency.
And the words you have used there in interpretation and inconsistency are the fundamental issue behind the current laws and how they are written. It's very easy to take one portion of these laws and interpret a phase of play to match, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it tallies with another portion of the law. Then we end up in this situation.
And to think that at one point I actually considered being a referee because of George Courtney, a good friend of my dad. I wouldn't want to do it now for all of the money in the world!
And to think that at one point I actually considered being a referee because of George Courtney, a good friend of my dad. I wouldn't want to do it now for all of the money in the world!
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
I also considered it as well!
The problem for me wouldn’t be refereeing “proper” games 20 years into my career, maybe in the Football League or even the Premier League. I’d enjoy that.
I wouldn’t enjoy the many years of refereeing youth and Sunday league football prior to that though!
My bad. Don't tell anyone.
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
It’s alright. Paisley would have still thought it, but not said it!
61653 HTAFC
Veteran Member
I'm impressed that these great managers of the past were able to see into the future to 1994, when the "not interfering" aspect of the offside rule was introduced (unless I'm mistaken, which I may well be)...
I do think officials need regular retesting on the rules of the game though. At one of our home games earlier this season (Tottenham I think) we had an assistant referee frantically flagging for an offside... from a throw-in!
I do think officials need regular retesting on the rules of the game though. At one of our home games earlier this season (Tottenham I think) we had an assistant referee frantically flagging for an offside... from a throw-in!
Ha ha. You are right about that. He was quite a quiet man, that said he was a bit more outspoken about Liverpool being in Rome and what happened last time he was there. That said that may have been careless gossip on the part of people who should have known better. Loved Paisley and Shankley.
The interfering with play part of the offside law was introduced in 1903
61653 HTAFC
Veteran Member
Ah... I could've sworn there was some modification to the offside rule introduced at the 1994 World Cup along with the rule preventing goalkeepers from handling backpasses. Good job I'm not a pundit, or I'd end up with egg on my face more often than not!
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
The definition and application of that has changed considerably though. I remember the early 2000s saw the start of forwards standing in a deliberately offside position in the penalty area after some change in the law or guidance in its application. The idea being they’d do nothing when the ball was played in and hope for a rebound in the “second phase”. A total nonsense which doesn’t apply now as the rule was further clarified a couple of years back.
SteveP29
Member
That is my interpretation and if you aren't sure, you can't give it
They should never have changed it.
I was always under the belief that you determine offside from the moment the ball is played forward, so the ball being deliberately played by a defender should never enter the equation.
The deliberately playing the ball bit is ridiculous to me, why should a team be penalised because a player does what he and thousands of others has been taught to do from day one and that's play to the whistle. Are FIFA, UEFA, the FA etc all suggesting that in the heat of the moment, a defender should just stop playing when a player is in an offside position to ensure that he doesn't play the ball and play him onside? Its stupid and it shows that the tweaks to the rules are being made by people who have never kicked a ball in anything more competitive than a bunch of lads in the park. I can name only 1 improvement to the game made in the last 26 years and that was the back pass rule.
I was always told that it was Bill Nicholson that said that
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
I often wonder, having heard comments from spectators over the last 50+ years, how many of these would actually pass the detailed knowledge requirements required of referees concerning the Laws of the Game.
61653 HTAFC
Veteran Member
That is a good point. However given that a top-level assistant referee tried to give an offside from a throw-in this season, I don't think it's just us "punters" who need to brush up on the rules!
Where would you stand when the referee, fourth official and Graham Poll in the press don't agree? I would tend to go with the referee, in which case Liverpool would most likely have won Sundays game.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
Somewhat immaterial to the point that I was making that solely referred to the spectator's detailed knowledge requirements of the Laws of the Game.
Ha ha, that isn't what I asked.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
I know what full well what you meant, but I am not falling into that cunning-plan Scouse trap of yours that you so carefully laid for me......
Ha ha, you never answered though. If it was left to the referee and his knowledge of the game Liverpool very probably would have have won the game.I know what full well what you meant, but I am not falling into that cunning-plan Scouse trap of yours that you so carefully laid for me......
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
Are you not aware of my "famed" posting responses on this website that usually use arcane and flowery language to circumvent the question put to me in a manner that any politician worth his salt would be proud of.....
Ha ha, well aware. They are much loved, you know your stuff.Are you not aware of my "famed" posting responses on this website that usually use arcane and flowery language to circumvent the question put to me in a manner that any politician worth his salt would be proud of.....
61653 HTAFC
Veteran Member
There is a song by the cult Wirral-based musical group Half Man Half Biscuit called "The Referee's Alphabet", which broadly does what it says on the tin. One of the lines from this song is:
"M is for the mistakes we sometimes make. Surely a bit of controversy is part of the game's appeal."
This is something that concerns me a bit about the introduction of VAR. Especially as even with it, many decisions still come down to interpretation. Particularly with things like handball, which to quote Nigel Blackwell of HMHB again, "has to be deliberate, and very rarely is.".
All that's before we get into the issues with introducing a rule mid-way through a season, or one which can be applied at some venues but not others due to the cost of equipment and so on.
"M is for the mistakes we sometimes make. Surely a bit of controversy is part of the game's appeal."
This is something that concerns me a bit about the introduction of VAR. Especially as even with it, many decisions still come down to interpretation. Particularly with things like handball, which to quote Nigel Blackwell of HMHB again, "has to be deliberate, and very rarely is.".
All that's before we get into the issues with introducing a rule mid-way through a season, or one which can be applied at some venues but not others due to the cost of equipment and so on.
J-2739
Established Member
Well, good riddance to Heckingbottom!