Liverpool vs Spurs Match Thread
- Thread starter Bulletspur
- Start date
I disagree. The ball came off 2 pool players! The forward ball was simply a forward pass which was deflected by 2 pool players. The pass was for lamela. The second it had taken 2 touches from pool players it was effectively free ball.
Hard for me to explain clearly.
Just image....
1. A left back has the ball in the oppositions half and he looks to switch play from left to right....he strikes the ball (for somebody who is on the other side of pitch onside).
2. He hits the ball but as it becomes airborne it his an opposition player on tbe head and the ball changes direction and loops over his own teams defence.
3. There happens to be a striker there (who was offside when the attempted switch of play took place) who suddenly has a through ball to latch onto.
Should he be offside? No.
Ive not helped matters have i.
nightgoat
Well-Known Member
- Sep 12, 2005
- 24,604
- 21,898
whitelanefever
Well-Known Member
- Aug 21, 2012
- 2,149
- 2,855
Bloody hell every Liverpool fans I've talked to is in total meltdown..so funny
hughy
I'm SUPER cereal.
- Nov 18, 2007
- 31,921
- 57,124
If we didn't get the penalty I'd have like to have seen retrospective action taken against Can for his attempt to con the referee in to believing Lovren didn't get a touch on the ball.
Surely trying to con a team out of a penalty is as bad as trying to con the referee in to giving you a penalty.
Shadydan
Well-Known Member
- Jul 7, 2012
- 38,247
- 104,143
Streetspur77
Happy Clapper
- Jul 20, 2017
- 2,792
- 9,404
I think the difference here though is that it didn't just deflect off lovren but lovren actually attempted to play the ball. So ignoring the fact lovren is shit and miskicked it he still technically passed to Kane, rather than just a deflection
fortworthspur
Well-Known Member
- Nov 12, 2007
- 11,248
- 17,550
I disagree. The ball came off 2 pool players! The forward ball was simply a forward pass which was deflected by 2 pool players. The pass was for lamela. The second it had taken 2 touches from pool players it was effectively free ball.
Hard for me to explain clearly.
Just image....
1. A left back has the ball in the oppositions half and he looks to switch play from left to right....he strikes the ball (for somebody who is on the other side of pitch onside).
2. He hits the ball but as it becomes airborne it his an opposition player on tbe head and the ball changes direction and loops over his own teams defence.
3. There happens to be a striker there (who was offside when the attempted switch of play took place) who suddenly has a through ball to latch onto.
Should he be offside? No.
Ive not helped matters have i.
the FIFA link states you are offside if the ball is deflected off an opponent. it doesnt say anything about if an opponent intentionally kicks it. I cant find anything that addresses that but like I said, its always been offsides to me. You have to have two opponents behind you the last time the ball is hit, throws being the exception of course.
Matrix
Well-Known Member
- Aug 9, 2008
- 2,923
- 5,679
Thought Souness was spot on. He put Redknapp in his place, as per usual.
It does matter. The defender deliberately played the ball and it was not a save.
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.
interfering with an opponent by:
• 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 opponent to play the ball
• 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 opponent to play the ball
At the moment in the image above, he is not preventing an opponent from playing the ball nor is he obstructing the keepers line of vision.
He is not challenging an opponent for the ball. Kane standing in that position is not a challenge for the ball.
He is not attempting to play the ball (yet). This is tougher to convince you of because you probably think "of course he's attempting to play the ball here". But what IFAB means by attempt to play or challenge for the ball means making a move towards the ball or being shoulder to shoulder with the defender in an attempt to win the ball.
He's not making an obvious action to impact the opponent from playing the ball. Kane standing there is not an obvious action. The defender chooses to play the ball here. Yes he is probably playing the ball because Kane is there, but then you require the referee to be able to read the mind of a defender and ask why they played the ball. IFAB/FIFA has said since 2012 (or so) that a player standing in an offside position is not enough to say that they impacted an opponent from playing the ball. They need to actually challenge the defender or prevent them from playing the ball to be judged to have interfered with them.
I know some fans don't like it. I know "back in my day" that this was offside. It's not anymore and it hasn't been for five or six years. The law was changed in an attempt to promote more attacking and open football. If you disagree with the rule, ask yourself this. Why should the defender be rewarded for making a mistake and misplaying the ball?
Johnny J
Not the Kiwi you need but the one you deserve
- Aug 18, 2012
- 18,536
- 48,902
Great post, spot on.It does matter. The defender deliberately played the ball and it was not a save.
Lovern deliberately played the ball. The fact that he played the ball poorly does not mean he gets bailed out by the offside flag.
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.
interfering with an opponent by:
• 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 opponent to play the ball
At the moment in the image above, he is not preventing an opponent from playing the ball nor is he obstructing the keepers line of vision.
He is not challenging an opponent for the ball. Kane standing in that position is not a challenge for the ball.
He is not attempting to play the ball (yet). This is tougher to convince you of because you probably think "of course he's attempting to play the ball here". But what IFAB means by attempt to play or challenge for the ball means making a move towards the ball or being shoulder to shoulder with the defender in an attempt to win the ball.
He's not making an obvious action to impact the opponent from playing the ball. Kane standing there is not an obvious action. The defender chooses to play the ball here. Yes he is probably playing the ball because Kane is there, but then you require the referee to be able to read the mind of a defender and ask why they played the ball. IFAB/FIFA has said since 2012 (or so) that a player standing in an offside position is not enough to say that they impacted an opponent from playing the ball. They need to actually challenge the defender or prevent them from playing the ball to be judged to have interfered with them.
I know some fans don't like it. I know "back in my day" that this was offside. It's not anymore and it hasn't been for five or six years. The law was changed in an attempt to promote more attacking and open football. If you disagree with the rule, ask yourself this. Why should the defender be rewarded for making a mistake and misplaying the ball?
Both were penalties. If Liverpool fans want to be annoyed, it should be Lovren for fucking up his clearance, Karius for going in hard on Kane, and Van Dijk for kicking Lamela in the back of the leg in the box, thus giving the ref a decision to make, regardless of how dramatically Lamela went down.
Alli's dive was fucking embarrassing though.
Eriksen using his jedi powers.
"I'm not sure he touched the ball."
"Well, he touched the ball!"
"Penalty."
fortworthspur
Well-Known Member
- Nov 12, 2007
- 11,248
- 17,550
It does matter. The defender deliberately played the ball and it was not a save.
Lovern deliberately played the ball. The fact that he played the ball poorly does not mean he gets bailed out by the offside flag.
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.
interfering with an opponent by:
• 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 opponent to play the ball
At the moment in the image above, he is not preventing an opponent from playing the ball nor is he obstructing the keepers line of vision.
He is not challenging an opponent for the ball. Kane standing in that position is not a challenge for the ball.
He is not attempting to play the ball (yet). This is tougher to convince you of because you probably think "of course he's attempting to play the ball here". But what IFAB means by attempt to play or challenge for the ball means making a move towards the ball or being shoulder to shoulder with the defender in an attempt to win the ball.
He's not making an obvious action to impact the opponent from playing the ball. Kane standing there is not an obvious action. The defender chooses to play the ball here. Yes he is probably playing the ball because Kane is there, but then you require the referee to be able to read the mind of a defender and ask why they played the ball. IFAB/FIFA has said since 2012 (or so) that a player standing in an offside position is not enough to say that they impacted an opponent from playing the ball. They need to actually challenge the defender or prevent them from playing the ball to be judged to have interfered with them.
I know some fans don't like it. I know "back in my day" that this was offside. It's not anymore and it hasn't been for five or six years. The law was changed in an attempt to promote more attacking and open football. If you disagree with the rule, ask yourself this. Why should the defender be rewarded for making a mistake and misplaying the ball?
yeah, I just saw the new rule about deliberate play from a defender, so no offside. had the ball simply deflected to Kane his subsequent actions would have counted as "playing the ball" and it would have been whistled.
but its academic because he missed the pen.
Matrix
Well-Known Member
- Aug 9, 2008
- 2,923
- 5,679
He said it when he was at Basel. Roughly the same time we played them in Europe I think.
jolsnogross
Well-Known Member
- May 17, 2005
- 3,777
- 5,517
He was offside from the original through ball - the fact that Lovren touched it didn't make him onside from the original pass. And that touch didn't make it a 2nd phase of play, so presumably he should have been flagged.
And it was a great goal by Salah, but I'll maintain my overly-critical stance that Lloris was flat on the ground before he kicked it.
Wirral Spurs
Well-Known Member
- Jun 9, 2009
- 958
- 1,386
Exactly, why all the fuss?
tiger666
Large Member
- Jan 4, 2005
- 27,978
- 82,216
Yeah, I can't find anything.
https://streamable.com/fkrh0
The AR tells Moss that he couldn't tell if Lovren played the ball, but if he did it would be a PK. Eriksen said he did and Emre Can said he didn't. Moss apparently doesn't know either and you can even hear him ask Atkinson (4th official) if he knows. Since they can't be 100% sure that Lovren didn't touch the ball, Moss goes with the PK.
