- Jan 27, 2011
- 771
- 2,521
Famous for saying Palace were a better team and would finish above us the other year! Absolutely clueless.Lads, It’s Sutton
Famous for saying Palace were a better team and would finish above us the other year! Absolutely clueless.Lads, It’s Sutton
#JusticeforoffsiderulesI half expect them to have t-shirts printed up for the next game.
In Sutton's defence, at least he has an exciting voice...Famous for saying Palace were a better team and would finish above us the other year! Absolutely clueless.
No they showed it clearer on SSN. The ref said he doesn't know if Lovren touched the ball or not. He then spoke on the headset to the 4th official and said he was giving it. The most important thing is they got it right between them.I thinking the REF did see the Lovren pass, it was the lino that said he couldn’t be sure. I don’t believe the 4th official is allowed any opinion other than managing the substitutions and the extra time.
No they showed it clearer on SSN. The ref said he doesn't know if Lovren touched the ball or not. He then spoke on the headset to the 4th official and said he was giving it. The most important thing is they got it right between them.
No they showed it clearer on SSN. The ref said he doesn't know if Lovren touched the ball or not. He then spoke on the headset to the 4th official and said he was giving it. The most important thing is they got it right between them.
Not sure I agree.
If the Ref is not sure a Liverpool player played a backpass/touched the ball, then surely he has to go with what the Linesman says, i.e. that Kane is offside. We hate mistakes, but at least the ref would have made the right call as he saw it and not "guessed and fluked a right call."
He made a decision, was then unsure and stuck with it, because, who likes to admit they made a mistake. I am afraid the video/mic evidence does him no favours in this regard, even if the decision was deemed to be the correct one in the end.
If Kane goes on to win the match and I am a Liverpool supporter, I think I would rightly be livid. If that happens against us, that a ref essentially tosses a coin to make a decision (even if video evidence proved the call correct), I would hate it, because we would be condoning poor refereeing. The technologies coming into the game are supposed to assist competent refs, but at this rate, we are going to be calling for the tech to replace them.
He did quote the rule though. He said to Moss that if no Liverpool player touched it, then Kane would have been offside.The linesman didn't flag for offside
Are we still going on about a penalty that was MISSED?
Pretty sure it was said that when the ref said he didn't know if Lovren had touched it he meant that literally but knew that whoever the Liverpool player was, did touch it. Just wasn't sure if it was Lovren, which is who the link was referencing. Think it was in the statements from PGMOL
Are we still going on about a penalty that was MISSED?
Seriously, it's actually amazing how people can't seem to let it go
No they showed it clearer on SSN. The ref said he doesn't know if Lovren touched the ball or not. He then spoke on the headset to the 4th official and said he was giving it. The most important thing is they got it right between them.
I think you are right, in the sense that refs should totally be encouraged to assess the decision with a linesman, etc... the criticism Moss is getting (from non Liverpool fans) is his asking for "anything on the TV", which i a bizarre question to ask as VAR or any other tech is not permissible as of yet.The question is did he know someone touched the ball but not who? So when the linesman said that unless Lovren touched it Kane is offside perhaps the ref knew someone touched the ball but not the identity of the player? Perhaps the ref just wanted confirmation that he was interpreting the rule correctly.
I, and probably most of us, are quick to criticise refs for not consulting assistant referes so it seems to me strange that the referee in the instance is being attacked for discussing with his team. Isn't that what all good leaders do ... consult and then make an informed decision?
Personally I think if this kind of consultation was encouraged and fourth officials used as well then video technology for decisions might not be needed. It's crazy that we have four officials, and is it six for European games , and the man with the whistle is not allowed to fully utilise them
In the English game this, ironically, goes all the way back to Owen going over Poch's outstretched boot in the 2002 WC. It changed the way English players and pundits alike approached players going down int he box. It became accepted that if a defender or keeper is stupid enough to leave a leg or hand out and not get the ball the player should 'go over'.
At Wembley in the cup semi-final against Chelsea when Moses went down under Son's reckless 'long slide', there actually wasn't any contact. All the pundits said Son was naive going to ground and gave the penalty away by letting Moses dive over him.
https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/fo...alty-after-heung-min-son-tackle-a3521256.html
Love it or loathe it, the concept of 'going over' a player's outstretched limb is now a well established part of english football culture.
The conversation in full:
Smart: ‘All I need to know is, did Lovren touch the ball?’
Moss: ‘I don’t know.’
Smart: ‘If he’s not touched the ball, it is offside, so you’re chalking off the penalty. It has to be offside if Lovren has not touched the ball.’
Christian Eriksen: ‘He did touch the ball.’
Emre Can: ‘He didn’t touch the ball.’
Moss: ‘Just talk to me again.’
Smart: ‘You know what I’m asking; I need to clarify, has Lovren touched the ball? If he has, it’s a deliberate action and, therefore, it’s a penalty. If he has not, it is offside.’
Moss: ‘I have no idea whether Lovren touched the ball to be honest with you. Martin, have you got anything from TV? I’m giving the penalty.’
That last line in italics just makes me cringe. Replays suggest the ball did come off a Liverpool player, but to not be sure and still award the penalty??? To me, I would have been annoyed if he hadn't have given it, BUT based on that conversation, I think it's dangerous from a netral perspective to argue the Ref made the informed decision!
Soft signal was penalty though. Ref saw Kane get his legs taken without the offside flag going up. Therefore he awarded the penalty. He can only reverse that decision if there is clear evidence that Kane is offside. The linesman indicates he is not sure if Lovren has touched it or not, so the ref has no reason to reverse the decisionThe conversation in full:
Smart: ‘All I need to know is, did Lovren touch the ball?’
Moss: ‘I don’t know.’
Smart: ‘If he’s not touched the ball, it is offside, so you’re chalking off the penalty. It has to be offside if Lovren has not touched the ball.’
Christian Eriksen: ‘He did touch the ball.’
Emre Can: ‘He didn’t touch the ball.’
Moss: ‘Just talk to me again.’
Smart: ‘You know what I’m asking; I need to clarify, has Lovren touched the ball? If he has, it’s a deliberate action and, therefore, it’s a penalty. If he has not, it is offside.’
Moss: ‘I have no idea whether Lovren touched the ball to be honest with you. Martin, have you got anything from TV? I’m giving the penalty.’
That last line in italics just makes me cringe. Replays suggest the ball did come off a Liverpool player, but to not be sure and still award the penalty??? To me, I would have been annoyed if he hadn't have given it, BUT based on that conversation, I think it's dangerous from a netral perspective to argue the Ref made the informed decision!
Doesn't really help either of them though does it?Soft signal was penalty though. Ref saw Kane get his legs taken without the offside flag going up. Therefore he awarded the penalty. He can only reverse that decision if there is clear evidence that Kane is offside. The linesman indicates he is not sure if Lovren has touched it or not, so the ref has no reason to reverse the decision