LOLiverpooLOL - Next Season

[Sanguine]

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.

I don't think that's possible without skewing it too far back the other way, HB.

Let's say yesterday, the Spurs pass had been trapped by Lovren, and he had then turned and passed the ball slowly back to Karius, not realising Kane was there. It's the same situation - Kane not active before Lovren touches the ball, just being in an offside position is not 'active'. In reality, rather than a controlled pass, Lovren shanked a very deliberate attempt to play the ball.

I don't see how you can change the law to make Kane inactive in the first instance, and active in the second.

[BR0B0T]

Salah was in an advantageous 'offside' position for his first goal. Dier plays him through

[Hoop Blah]

Salah was in an advantageous 'offside' position for his first goal. Dier plays him through

I know they've messed about with the law a fair amount but it does still need to be a member of your own team that plays the ball...

I don't see how you can change the law to make Kane inactive in the first instance, and active in the second.

You leave it as offside at the point Ali plays the ball, when Kane was in an offside position when his teammate passed the ball into the area he was stood in, albeit via a deflection.

Furthermore, you accept that Kane being stood next to Lovren influences his action and potentially caused him to shank it instead of controlling it and playing it to a teammate. Kane is interfering with play because his presence is influencing the other team.

That's possibly the only error the officials made as they could've arguably flagged for him being offside then. It's only the current interpretation of the attacker having to make an attempt to play the ball or run towards etc that has stopped them doing so (as my post above shows they possibly should've done as per one of the offside guidance examples).

[Snowflake Royal]

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.

Surely VAR can only help on objective issues and on subjective ones can't override the referee. Similar to cricket where an Umpire gives not out for LBW and only part of the ball would hit the stumps, it's Umpire's decision, VAR has to leave close calls to the ref. In those cases, it is entirely a judgement call as to whether a player 'simulated' a foul having not really been impeded or was genuinely impeded.

VAR can only show you a picture, it can't show you the intent of players or how much of an affect a particular situation should have had. That's still down to a ref's judgement. VAR isn't a cure all. It's an incremental improvement for certain issues.

[Sanguine]

VAR can only show you a picture, it can't show you the intent of players or how much of an affect a particular situation should have had. That's still down to a ref's judgement. VAR isn't a cure all. It's an incremental improvement for certain issues.

I do agree. I guess I was highlighting that the consensus, on multiple viewings of the replays, sided with the decision made. Or moreover that the replays were used to 'prove' the decision made, rather than question it. As I said, I'd argue that Willian's trip was more of a penalty than Kane's, yet the consensus agreed Willian's was 'a dive'.

[Sanguine]

You leave it as offside at the point Ali plays the ball, when Kane was in an offside position when his teammate passed the ball into the area he was stood in, albeit via a deflection.

Furthermore, you accept that Kane being stood next to Lovren influences his action and potentially caused him to shank it instead of controlling it and playing it to a teammate. Kane is interfering with play because his presence is influencing the other team.

I don't think 'standing next to someone' is interfering with play. Kane made no movement toward the ball. And as I said - now change the scenario a bit. Lovren controls the ball, and then passes it back to Karius, putting Kane through on goal. It's actually exactly the same scenario, in respect of Kane's position and his impact on the passage of play. You'd have that offside too?

[Hoop Blah]

You leave it as offside at the point Ali plays the ball, when Kane was in an offside position when his teammate passed the ball into the area he was stood in, albeit via a deflection.

Furthermore, you accept that Kane being stood next to Lovren influences his action and potentially caused him to shank it instead of controlling it and playing it to a teammate. Kane is interfering with play because his presence is influencing the other team.

I don't think 'standing next to someone' is interfering with play. Kane made no movement toward the ball. And as I said - now change the scenario a bit. Lovren controls the ball, and then passes it back to Karius, putting Kane through on goal. It's actually exactly the same scenario, in respect of Kane's position and his impact on the passage of play. You'd have that offside too?

A defender getting the ball under control and passing it back is clearly different and I'd accept probably a second phase of play. How you phrase that in the law/guidance is probably that it's a deliberate attempt or something similar (as LWJ says, there is already a distinction between a deflection and a pass).

If Kane wasn't there, do you think Lovren would still have taken a wild swipe at the ball? This whole notion of moving towards the ball or attempting to play it is ridiculous. The defender has positioned himself and reacted because of the players around him, therefore the attacking is influencing and gaining an advantage from his position.

[Winston Biscuit]

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?

I prefer offside in it's most basic form tbh. If you are in an offside position anywhere in the opponents half and your team mate plays it through then you are off.

[Sanguine]

You leave it as offside at the point Ali plays the ball, when Kane was in an offside position when his teammate passed the ball into the area he was stood in, albeit via a deflection.

Furthermore, you accept that Kane being stood next to Lovren influences his action and potentially caused him to shank it instead of controlling it and playing it to a teammate. Kane is interfering with play because his presence is influencing the other team.

I don't think 'standing next to someone' is interfering with play. Kane made no movement toward the ball. And as I said - now change the scenario a bit. Lovren controls the ball, and then passes it back to Karius, putting Kane through on goal. It's actually exactly the same scenario, in respect of Kane's position and his impact on the passage of play. You'd have that offside too?

A defender getting the ball under control and passing it back is clearly different and I'd accept probably a second phase of play. How you phrase that in the law/guidance is probably that it's a deliberate attempt or something similar (as LWJ says, there is already a distinction between a deflection and a pass).

If Kane wasn't there, do you think Lovren would still have taken a wild swipe at the ball? This whole notion of moving towards the ball or attempting to play it is ridiculous. The defender has positioned himself and reacted because of the players around him, therefore the attacking is influencing and gaining an advantage from his position.

Right, but the law is phrased as 'deliberate attempt to play the ball' for a reason. The point I am making is that Lovren's shank was, essentially, the same as a pass back to Karius. And that's how the rule should be, it makes the decision far less subjective.

Simply being in the vicinity of a defender is not 'influencing' the game, and I'm personally pleased that the offside rule has been improved to take that into account.

[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?

I prefer offside in it's most basic form tbh. If you are in an offside position anywhere in the opponents half and your team mate plays it through then you are off.

so Kane offside or not with this rule

[Winston Biscuit]

How would you change it?

I prefer offside in it's most basic form tbh. If you are in an offside position anywhere in the opponents half and your team mate plays it through then you are off.

so Kane offside or not with this rule

In Winston World he is off as he was in an offside position when his m8 tried to play it through to him

[BR0B0T]

I prefer offside in it's most basic form tbh. If you are in an offside position anywhere in the opponents half and your team mate plays it through then you are off.

so Kane offside or not with this rule

In Winston World he is off as he was in an offside position when his m8 tried to play it through to him

his mate didn't attempt to play it too him...it hit Winaljen (cba sp?) and then Lovren spooned it.

I agree with you in principle but how do you codify it

[Hoop Blah]

his mate didn't attempt to play it too him...it hit Winaljen (cba sp?) and then Lovren spooned it.

I agree with you in principle but how do you codify it

Just call it when the ball is played forward by the attacking team (as it currently is). If it deflects off a defender to someone in an offside position they're still offside.

For me, the moment the ball is played forward by Ali Kane is offside. Despite what happened in between that pass and Kane receiving it Kane gained an advantage by being in an offside position and there was no change in the passage of play, IMO.

[Winston Biscuit]

so Kane offside or not with this rule

In Winston World he is off as he was in an offside position when his m8 tried to play it through to him

his mate didn't attempt to play it too him...it hit Winaljen (cba sp?) and then Lovren spooned it.

I agree with you in principle but how do you codify it

just been back to remind myself if it, Yeah, looks like the ball played through may well have been intended for someone eles but made it's way through to Kane unintentionally. He is still in an offside position when the ball is played forward in the opponents half though so under my aggressive regime he would be offside

[Hoop Blah]

Right, but the law is phrased as 'deliberate attempt to play the ball' for a reason. The point I am making is that Lovren's shank was, essentially, the same as a pass back to Karius. And that's how the rule should be, it makes the decision far less subjective.

Simply being in the vicinity of a defender is not 'influencing' the game, and I'm personally pleased that the offside rule has been improved to take that into account.

More than happy to agree to disagree then, but personally I think it tips things too far in the attacking teams favour and causes much more scope or error, confusion and personal interpretation and so therefore more inconsistency.

[Snowflake Royal]

VAR can only show you a picture, it can't show you the intent of players or how much of an affect a particular situation should have had. That's still down to a ref's judgement. VAR isn't a cure all. It's an incremental improvement for certain issues.

I do agree. I guess I was highlighting that the consensus, on multiple viewings of the replays, sided with the decision made. Or moreover that the replays were used to 'prove' the decision made, rather than question it. As I said, I'd argue that Willian's trip was more of a penalty than Kane's, yet the consensus agreed Willian's was 'a dive'.

Yeah, ok. I'd expect the consensus to go with the referee in the majority of cases because I'd expect people to recognise what a hard job it is and how there is no definitive right answer in many case. For me, VAR is to show if the ref is clearly wrong or has missed something key. Ultimately, the ref's authority should retain primacy.

I think I'm not in line with consensus on either decision, as I thought Willian was very harshly penalised to be booked for diving (funny as it was), and it could easily have been given as a pen with few complaints. Kane, I haven't seen as much or as well, but I hate the idea that there has to be contact for a foul to occur. I think there's a reasonable argument that Kane was impeded in having to avoid the keeper to continue.

I wish there was some way to reconcile giving penalties and fouls where there has been an impediment and also booking a player for trying to exaggerate it or 'win' it too. And the whole feigning injury bullshit.

[Snowflake Royal]

You leave it as offside at the point Ali plays the ball, when Kane was in an offside position when his teammate passed the ball into the area he was stood in, albeit via a deflection.

Furthermore, you accept that Kane being stood next to Lovren influences his action and potentially caused him to shank it instead of controlling it and playing it to a teammate. Kane is interfering with play because his presence is influencing the other team.

I don't think 'standing next to someone' is interfering with play. Kane made no movement toward the ball. And as I said - now change the scenario a bit. Lovren controls the ball, and then passes it back to Karius, putting Kane through on goal. It's actually exactly the same scenario, in respect of Kane's position and his impact on the passage of play. You'd have that offside too?

A defender getting the ball under control and passing it back is clearly different and I'd accept probably a second phase of play. How you phrase that in the law/guidance is probably that it's a deliberate attempt or something similar (as LWJ says, there is already a distinction between a deflection and a pass).

If Kane wasn't there, do you think Lovren would still have taken a wild swipe at the ball? This whole notion of moving towards the ball or attempting to play it is ridiculous. The defender has positioned himself and reacted because of the players around him, therefore the attacking is influencing and gaining an advantage from his position.

I'd like to see something along the lines of 'active in an active area of the pitch'

That's incredibly clunkily phrased, but I agree that if you are in the area the ball is moving through or heading towards, you're involved in play, regardless of whether you make an attempt to touch it or not. What we want is a rule that means if you're clearly uninvolved in play - lying injured 20 yards away, on the left wing when the ball is in the six yard box etc - there's no offside, but when you're in the midst of the action, you are.

But this is definitely a law problem, not an official problem.

[paultheroyal]

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.

Hi - LWJ is spot on with his analysis.

Tell you what has p1ssed me off more than anything with this - is the fall out and pundits oh and social media saying we have the worst refs in the world and no wonder none are going to the world cup. Utter poppycock. Refereeing standard is no different really - they are all carrying out instructions to the letter of the law. What is missing is personalities. Rob Styles had it, Howard Webb, Clattenburg etc - and there personalities often rise above or deter from the incident. Unfortunately now the FA are encouraging mechanical refs which is causing the disconnect to fans / media and officials. Not the officials fault though.

Other thing I am really narked about is the number of stories running about the refereeing saying (after being picked up on mic) something like "I have not got a clue what went on there" - so what that he said that...he was bloody right - he wasn't sure hence why he did not give a penalty. To then criticise him for saying that and now hanging onto their every word makes my first point totally valid about why there is such a disconnect between media and officials etc.

Another point I would like to add is that if you had VAR yesterday, all that excitement and fun in the last 10 minutes would not of taken place, actually everyone would be still trying to work out what would be the correct decision.

[Sanguine]

Other thing I am really narked about is the number of stories running about the refereeing saying (after being picked up on mic) something like "I have not got a clue what went on there" - so what that he said that...he was bloody right - he wasn't sure hence why he did not give a penalty.

I think on that point, having heard the linesman clearly say that he didn't know either, many have wondered how Moss then awarded the penalty. There is some talk of Martin Atkinson, the fourth official, giving the nod having seen it on replays.

[paultheroyal]

Other thing I am really narked about is the number of stories running about the refereeing saying (after being picked up on mic) something like "I have not got a clue what went on there" - so what that he said that...he was bloody right - he wasn't sure hence why he did not give a penalty.

I think on that point, having heard the linesman clearly say that he didn't know either, many have wondered how Moss then awarded the penalty. There is some talk of Martin Atkinson, the fourth official, giving the nod having seen it on replays.

I didn't know about the ref assistant comment but it actually did cross my mind when that was all being played out yesterday that they were actually using delaying tactics and getting someone to check it quickly to radio back into them. It has been sneakily used / happen before.