LOLiverpooLOL - Next Season

[Winston Biscuit]

My understanding is that the first phase of play where Kane is in an offside position is negated by Lovren touching it. It essentially ends the phase and starts a new phase.

It's a sh*t rule though and is not implemented consistently.

Yep, I get the principal they're applying but I'm just not convinced it's how the interpretation of the law and current guidance is supposed to be applied.

I'm probably just being biased because, as you say, it's a shit rule and it's one of my biggest gripes with the laws as they stand. There's no way that that's two phases of play and there's no way that Kane isn't interfering with play or gaining an advantage in doing so.

Agree. Also if the rule is as they implemented it today, then when you get the player who is way offside making his way on, can he now immediately challenge the defender for the ball the second the defender has touched it as the phase where he was offside is now over?

No is the answer. The whistle alway goes for offside.

[LWJ]

A replay I saw looked like it showed two touches by two separate Liverpool players. Thus making it another passage of play before Kane was involved.

[LWJ]

If you watch from 1:28 on here: http://www.skysports.com/football/news/ ... -penalties (need a sky ID) shows the two touches.

Decision was 100% correct to not award the offside, and was a great spot by the linesman to make the referee aware of what he had seen so they could come to the right conclusion.

We should be applauding decisions like this.

[genome]

Did anyone see the lino do a little celebratory fist pump after the Moss awarded the penalty?

Edit: Here you go https://twitter.com/neiltipping/status/ ... 3930433536

[Hoop Blah]

If you watch from 1:28 on here: http://www.skysports.com/football/news/ ... -penalties (need a sky ID) shows the two touches.

Decision was 100% correct to not award the offside, and was a great spot by the linesman to make the referee aware of what he had seen so they could come to the right conclusion.

We should be applauding decisions like this.

That's bollocks though, it's not (or at least shouldn't been seen as) two phases of play. When the ball is played, by a Spurs player, Kane is in an offside position and is interfering with play. A Liverpool player touching the ball shouldn't change that fact and certainly shouldn't make it a second phase of play.

A second phase of play should only come in if the Liverpool player has cleared the ball and then it's played back in, not that they've scuffed a clearance or it's flicked off a shin.

[LWJ]

If you watch from 1:28 on here: http://www.skysports.com/football/news/ ... -penalties (need a sky ID) shows the two touches.

Decision was 100% correct to not award the offside, and was a great spot by the linesman to make the referee aware of what he had seen so they could come to the right conclusion.

We should be applauding decisions like this.

That's bollocks though, it's not (or at least shouldn't been seen as) two phases of play. When the ball is played, by a Spurs player, Kane is in an offside position and is interfering with play. A Liverpool player touching the ball shouldn't change that fact and certainly shouldn't make it a second phase of play.

A second phase of play should only come in if the Liverpool player has cleared the ball and then it's played back in, not that they've scuffed a clearance or it's flicked off a shin.

Kane isn't interfering with play when the ball is played, nor does he get involved in play till the second touch has occurred. Lovren made a deliberate attempt to play the ball, thus making it the second passage of play. If it was a deflection where Lovren hadn't attempted to play the ball, but it had bounced off of him this would be a different conversation. You can't penalise Kane for taking advantage of a oxf*rd up.

For the record I've recently become a qualified referee so have literally been studying the laws over the past few months.

[genome]

Isn't this kind of moot considering he missed the pen? Justice was done

[LWJ]

Isn't this kind of moot considering he missed the pen? Justice was done

Not really. Needs to be discussed so that fans have a better understanding of the offside law.

.

Interested to hear your thoughts PTR.

[Hoop Blah]

Kane isn't interfering with play when the ball is played, nor does he get involved in play till the second touch has occurred. Lovren made a deliberate attempt to play the ball, thus making it the second passage of play. If it was a deflection where Lovren hadn't attempted to play the ball, but it had bounced off of him this would be a different conversation. You can't penalise Kane for taking advantage of a oxf*rd up.

For the record I've recently become a qualified referee so have literally been studying the laws over the past few months.

It's a total fallacy to suggest that Kane isn't interfering with play when the ball is played, but that's an issue with the way the current interpretations have buggered up the rule. If Kane wasn't there then the ball wouldn't have been played there in the first place. If he wasn't there then Lovren wouldn't have had to attempt his hash of a clearance so Kane has to be interfering with play as he's influences what happens in that passage of play.

A phase of play shouldn't be dictated by failed clearance. I don't believe that was the intention of the change in interpretation when it was implemented a few years back and it's making a mockery of the rule.

[Sanguine]

Agree with the comments previous so won't add to them. Second penalty obviously a foul, irrespective of it being an accident.

For another perspective, I think the first penalty is an example of one of the weaknesses of VAR. Or at least, one way in which it doesn't improve the game. I think it's become clear that as fans we look to VAR to vindicate the decision made, rather than question whether it is the right one.

Two examples, Willian's trip in the box against Norwich in the cup. And Kane's first penalty yesterday. In the first case, the referee did not give a penalty - and the view most landed at through replays was that Willian 'earned' the foul by trailing his leg across the defender, and that he was already going down before contact was made. In Kane's case, he essentially did the same thing, stabbed the ball past Karius, and then let his back leg clip the keeper, who was pretty much static. In this case though, after it was given, general consensus that it was a penalty on viewing several replays.

To my mind, Willian's was 'more' of a foul, yet consensus has sided with the officials on multiple replays, on both occasions.

I don't know if that is good or bad, just an observation. I guess it's right, maybe, as we should use VAR to overturn obviously incorrect decisions only.

[Winston Biscuit]

I am very much under the impression that the officials implements the laws correctly, but the law itself is an arse.

[Hoop Blah]

Isn't this kind of moot considering he missed the pen? Justice was done

Not really. Needs to be discussed so that fans have a better understanding of the offside law.

I agree, it's a worthwhile conversation, or as worthwhile as any is on here!

There was another example of this ridiculous current view of offside which the commentators picked up on earlier in the half where Firmino was through on Lloris, from a clearly offside position. Because the lino isn't allowed to flag until the attacker makes an effort to play or challenge for the ball it created a 50/50 tackle between the two players who both had to commit to winning the ball in case the Lino had missed the offside. As the two came together the flag went up.

Both players could've been injured in a needless challenge. It's a daft situation created by needless tinkering with the rules.

[LWJ]

Kane isn't interfering with play when the ball is played, nor does he get involved in play till the second touch has occurred. Lovren made a deliberate attempt to play the ball, thus making it the second passage of play. If it was a deflection where Lovren hadn't attempted to play the ball, but it had bounced off of him this would be a different conversation. You can't penalise Kane for taking advantage of a oxf*rd up.

For the record I've recently become a qualified referee so have literally been studying the laws over the past few months.

It's a total fallacy to suggest that Kane isn't interfering with play when the ball is played, but that's an issue with the way the current interpretations have buggered up the rule. If Kane wasn't there then the ball wouldn't have been played there in the first place. .

The ball played by Ali was intended for Lamela, the first deflection took it a foot wide of him towards Lovren who scuffed it into Kane. Kane doesn't even react to the ball until after the scuffed clearance. He doesn't challenge or move towards it. The link I've posted with the time frame shows all of this.

[Sanguine]

Liverpool observations.
The game summed up Dejan Lovren - untroubled for 80 minutes, a total calamity and he 'assists' Kane's first penalty.
VVD will take some time to get back to his best in defence. He's a beast at attacking corners - I think I've seen him get on the end of a couple in every game he has played for Liverpool so far.
It's the midfield three that is key to Liverpool. When Henderson and Can (in particular) clicked, the front three were free and looked as threatening as before Coutinho left.
Klopp's substitutions were perplexing. Liverpool were starting to get overrun in midfield - bringing on Matip and Milner only worsened that and gave Spurs more space.
Anyone blaming Karius for Wanyama's goal is foolish. It was a good cross and had Karius not got to it Kane would have nodded in. Worldie from Wanyama.

[LWJ]

I agree, it's a worthwhile conversation, or as worthwhile as any is on here!

There was another example of this ridiculous current view of offside which the commentators picked up on earlier in the half where Firmino was through on Lloris, from a clearly offside position. Because the lino isn't allowed to flag until the attacker makes an effort to play or challenge for the ball it created a 50/50 tackle between the two players who both had to commit to winning the ball in case the Lino had missed the offside. As the two came together the flag went up.

Both players could've been injured in a needless challenge. It's a daft situation created by needless tinkering with the rules.

If it's the same incident I am thinking of I would have expected Firmino to be flagged earlier, as he moves toward the ball thus becoming involved.

I do agree some officials interpret the rule all too seriously and wait for the player to be within a couple of yards before signalling them as offside. I'm not at a high enough level to know what they are instructed to do.

[Hoop Blah]

It's a total fallacy to suggest that Kane isn't interfering with play when the ball is played, but that's an issue with the way the current interpretations have buggered up the rule. If Kane wasn't there then the ball wouldn't have been played there in the first place. .

The ball played by Ali was intended for Lamela, the first deflection took it a foot wide of him towards Lovren who scuffed it into Kane. Kane doesn't even react to the ball until after the scuffed clearance. He doesn't challenge or move towards it. The link I've posted with the time frame shows all of this.

Just re-watched it and yes, agreed, Kane doesn't move until after the deflection from Lovren's miscued clearance, but he was still in an offside position from the outset and waiting for the ball to come through, and gained an advantage from being there.

I still don't think that should be seen as either not interfering with play or being a second phase of play because he's clearly gaining an advantage by being in an offside position when the pass was made, irrespective of the player it's intended for and Lovren's error. If Lovren leaves the ball Kane would be deemed offside and so, according to the guidance for officials, Kane should've been flagged as soon as the first deflection meant Lamella couldn't play the ball, thus making Lovren's clearance unnecessary as the offside offence has already ocurred.

A player in an offside position (A) may be penalised before playing or
touching the ball, if, in the opinion of the referee, no other team-mate in an
onside position has the opportunity to play the ball.

I wouldn't, and don't think I have been (at least intentionally), critical of the officials on this one as I do generally feel it's a cock up in the way the law is being applied currently and not, as such, an error by them.

[John Smith]

If you watch from 1:28 on here: http://www.skysports.com/football/news/ ... -penalties (need a sky ID) shows the two touches.

Decision was 100% correct to not award the offside, and was a great spot by the linesman to make the referee aware of what he had seen so they could come to the right conclusion.

We should be applauding decisions like this.

I agree: Kop end, fans right behind him and Klopp bellowing appeals down the line in embarrassing sarcastic style and still has the balls to give two difficult pens.

[BR0B0T]

I am very much under the impression that the officials implements the laws correctly, but the law itself is an arse.

How would you change it?

[Hoop Blah]

I am very much under the impression that the officials implements the laws correctly, but the law itself is an arse.

How would you change it?

Simplify it so that interfering is easier to judge and sort out this passage of play rubbish where.

To my mind offside was a lot clearer, and fairer, before they started meddling with it.

[BR0B0T]

I am very much under the impression that the officials implements the laws correctly, but the law itself is an arse.

How would you change it?

Simplify it so that interfering is easier to judge and sort out this passage of play rubbish where.

To my mind offside was a lot clearer, and fairer, before they started meddling with it.

could you be more specific with the simplication