Liverpool vs Spurs Match Thread

[nicdic]

100% this. The referees interpreted the law correctly, but the law is stupid - it's impossible to view that incident and not come to the conclusion that Kane gained an advantage from being in an offside position, but according to the rules he was (first phase) offside but not interfering, and (second phase) interfering but not offside. The problem arises from the idea that Lovren's mishit constituted a new phase of play.

Of course Lovren's mishit should constitute a new phase of play, the issue is whether Kane is offside when the ball is initially played by Alli.

 

[nicdic]

Yeah I agree, it was a lot easier before they fucked around with the offside rule, when if you were stood in an offside position you were offside. If you're not sure as a defender you have to play the ball & by doing so you make the opponent onside, it's farcical.

The farcical thing is a top 6 defender scuffing a clearance like that when he knows Kane is behind him.

 

[Charly***]

The farcical thing is a top 6 defender scuffing a clearance like that when he knows Kane is behind him.

Well yeah, for sure, but he probably felt he had to get something on it, to stop the ball getting to Kane so in real terms Kane was interfering with play, but by the rules of the game he wasn't. In all other instances in football you're told to play to the whistle, but in these cases that's counterintuitive.

 

[nicdic]

Well yeah, for sure, but he probably felt he had to get something on it, to stop the ball getting to Kane so in real terms Kane was interfering with play, but by the rules of the game he wasn't. In all other instances in football you're told to play to the whistle, but in these cases that's counterintuitive.

I kind of agree with you, but I think Carragher had it right last night, in saying that a PL defender should make that clearance every time even if Kane is hanging all over him and really interfering. The rule seems counter-intuitive in this very specific situation, but how else do you declare someone to be interfering with play?

 

[Ironskullll]

100% this. The referees interpreted the law correctly, but the law is stupid - it's impossible to view that incident and not come to the conclusion that Kane gained an advantage from being in an offside position, but according to the rules he was (first phase) offside but not interfering, and (second phase) interfering but not offside. The problem arises from the idea that Lovren's mishit constituted a new phase of play.

Does the old wording of “interfering with the player” still apply? You’d think that if a player’s presence induces an opponent to play in a given way, eg Lovren attempting to play the ball, then that would constitute interference. Nonetheless, the present interpretation is clear; rules is rules and all that. Not offside, however daft.

 

[nicdic]

Does the old wording of “interfering with the player” still apply? You’d think that if a player’s presence induces an opponent to play in a given way, eg Lovren attempting to play the ball, then that would constitute interference. Nonetheless, the present interpretation is clear; rules is rules and all that. Not offside, however daft.

Lovren would attempt to clear the ball whether Kane was behind him or not. So that doesn't wholly matter.

But the current laws dictate that interfering with play is making an action toward the ball, or being in the goalkeeper's line of vision or something along those lines. It is not an offence to be in an offside position.

 

[Roynie]

"If a player is not interfering with play he should't be on the pitch!". Attributed to both Bill Shankly and Brian Clough. Sums it up nicely for me!

 

[fletch82]

100% this. The referees interpreted the law correctly, but the law is stupid - it's impossible to view that incident and not come to the conclusion that Kane gained an advantage from being in an offside position, but according to the rules he was (first phase) offside but not interfering, and (second phase) interfering but not offside. The problem arises from the idea that Lovren's mishit constituted a new phase of play.

If this were the case salahs first goal should also be chalked off as he was in a offside position when Eric has a brain fart and sends him a through ball no ?

The real issue is Loren cant' kick a ball properly or head one as proved against us twice this season now

Ohh and im not sure if it' been mentioned but Liverpool fans are deluded monkey sperm stains on the undercrackers of life

 

[cwy21]

For those who think a player standing offside should be called for offside.

A striker makes a run and the pass doesn't come. The player is now standing in an offside position. Should play be stopped? Of course not.

A winger makes a run towards the end line and delivers a beautiful cross towards the penalty spot where an attacker runs onto it. When the striker heads the ball in, the winger who delivered the cross is now standing in an offside position by the corner flag. Should he be called offside? Of course not.

In the 140 year history of the laws, it has never been an offense to be in an offside position.

 

[Disconosebleed]

Of course Lovren's mishit should constitute a new phase of play, the issue is whether Kane is offside when the ball is initially played by Alli.

Kane is clearly offside when the ball is played, there's no argument there. The issue here is entirely based around the idea of phases of play - while technically you are right, according to the laws of the game Lovren's touch is the beginning of a new phase of play, it seems fairly obvious that Kane is gaining an advantage from being in an offside position - but the change of phase means he can't be considered so.

Essentially the phase of play element of the law is designed to differentiate (using hypothetical scenarios here) between, at one end of the spectrum, Alli's through ball deflecting off Lovren (in which case it's clearly the same phase of play, Kane is offside), and at the other end of the spectrum Lovren intercepting Alli's through ball, controlling it and then losing the ball to Kane (clearly a new phase of play, Kane is onside). The issue is that the situation on Sunday is in the grey area between those two hypotheticals - Lovren's touch wasn't a deflection, but neither did he exactly have control of the ball. Essentially there is no definitive right answer unless you eliminate the grey area completely by instructing referees to always blow the whistle when a player is offside, but no one wants that.

My view is that the officials were correct according to the law, but the law doesn't quite function correctly in this case, because Kane clearly gained an advantage from being in an offside position. However, I don't think there's a workable solution to it (unless you want to instruct referees to use common sense in those scenarios, which places extra emphasis on their interpretation of the game and will inevitably lead to complaints about inconsistency), so we've ended up with controversy.

 

[Disconosebleed]

Does the old wording of “interfering with the player” still apply? You’d think that if a player’s presence induces an opponent to play in a given way, eg Lovren attempting to play the ball, then that would constitute interference. Nonetheless, the present interpretation is clear; rules is rules and all that. Not offside, however daft.

Spot on about the rules, Liverpool fans can feel aggrieved but directing it at the referees, while understandable, is wrong. They got the decision right according to the rules.

With regard to the understanding of interfering with play, personally I don't think it's a particularly useful rule. Thankfully examples like Sunday are pretty rare, but there are endless examples where a player who is, by the rules, 'not interfering with play', is clearly affecting the decisions of opposition players.

For example a defence pushes up to - successfully - catch a striker offside, only for an attacking midfielder to run past them onto the through ball. The striker might be nowhere near the ball, unarguably not interfering according to the laws...but if he wasn't there, the defenders wouldn't have pushed up, and would be concentrating on the attacking mids pushing forward. This happens regularly, and seems to be an accepted part of the game, but in this scenario the striker has directly affected play by causing the defenders to make decisions they wouldn't have made if he wasn't there - someone (Clough?) once joked that "if a player's not interfering with play, what's he doing on the pitch?", but there's a lot of truth in that; the moment a player steps on the pitch, he is affecting the decisions of everyone around him.

 

[Disconosebleed]

If this were the case salahs first goal should also be chalked off as he was in a offside position when Eric has a brain fart and sends him a through ball no ?

No, because he can only be offside when his own team pass the ball. You can't be offside when the other team have the ball, you can stand where you like.

 

[nicdic]

Kane is clearly offside when the ball is played, there's no argument there. The issue here is entirely based around the idea of phases of play - while technically you are right, according to the laws of the game Lovren's touch is the beginning of a new phase of play, it seems fairly obvious that Kane is gaining an advantage from being in an offside position - but the change of phase means he can't be considered so.

Essentially the phase of play element of the law is designed to differentiate (using hypothetical scenarios here) between, at one end of the spectrum, Alli's through ball deflecting off Lovren (in which case it's clearly the same phase of play, Kane is offside), and at the other end of the spectrum Lovren intercepting Alli's through ball, controlling it and then losing the ball to Kane (clearly a new phase of play, Kane is onside). The issue is that the situation on Sunday is in the grey area between those two hypotheticals - Lovren's touch wasn't a deflection, but neither did he exactly have control of the ball. Essentially there is no definitive right answer unless you eliminate the grey area completely by instructing referees to always blow the whistle when a player is offside, but no one wants that.

My view is that the officials were correct according to the law, but the law doesn't quite function correctly in this case, because Kane clearly gained an advantage from being in an offside position. However, I don't think there's a workable solution to it (unless you want to instruct referees to use common sense in those scenarios, which places extra emphasis on their interpretation of the game and will inevitably lead to complaints about inconsistency), so we've ended up with controversy.

I have a bunch of issues with this, but one would be that Kane only gains an advantage once Lovren makes his miskick. Until then Kane has no advantage at all. Lovren should have been able to make that clearance easily. Just as Dier should have been able to play a safe pass rather than into the "offside" Salah.

I think the laws are relatively clear, and you don't seem to be arguing with the laws that are there, instead pushing them further.

The law says deliberate actions that create a new phase, or make someone offside. Lovren makes a deliberate action to clear the ball initiating a new phase. Kane makes no deliberate attempt to get the ball before that, thus not offside.

I'm really not sure it's all that controversial, and how would make it clearer or better? I'm not sure there's a way.

 

[cwy21]

My view is that the officials were correct according to the law, but the law doesn't quite function correctly in this case, because Kane clearly gained an advantage from being in an offside position. However, I don't think there's a workable solution to it (unless you want to instruct referees to use common sense in those scenarios, which places extra emphasis on their interpretation of the game and will inevitably lead to complaints about inconsistency), so we've ended up with controversy.

I should probably let this match go, but I want to add a couple more points.

One of the things that has been mentioned a lot is a "grey area" in the laws. The current interpretation has been designed to eliminate as much of the grey area as possible. The referee can't possibly get inside Lovren's head to determine what he meant to do or what he was thinking because Kane was near him. The law is written in a way that the referees only judge what actually happened. In this case, Lovren deliberately played the ball. The fact that he played the ball so poorly is not the referees problem. He gets paid 100,000 pounds a week to not play the ball poorly in that situation.

As for Kane interfering with an opponent. This goes back to asking the referee to read the defenders mind. That is something that cannot be done consistently. What is easiest to apply consistently is looking at how the offside player behaves. In this case, Kane made no sudden or deliberate move towards the ball. He did not block Lovren's path towards the ball. Kane just stood there. Of course Lovren probably knew he was there. Of course he probably tried to play the ball because Kane was there. But asking the referee to judge why a player did something instead of judging what he did is a slippery slope.

Lastly, lets compare the Kane PK to Salah's first goal. Lovern and Dier both deliberately played the ball and it went to player who was in an offside position. They had a similar amount of time to react. The difference is Dier successfully played the ball in the direction he intended and Lovren didn't. Why should Lovren be rewarded for doing his job worse than Dier?

 

[nicdic]

No, because he can only be offside when his own team pass the ball. You can't be offside when the other team have the ball, you can stand where you like.

And Kane is standing offside when Lovren kicks the ball.

 

[nicdic]

I should probably let this match go, but I want to add a couple more points.

One of the things that has been mentioned a lot is a "grey area" in the laws. The current interpretation has been designed to eliminate as much of the grey area as possible. The referee can't possibly get inside Lovren's head to determine what he meant to do or what he was thinking because Kane was near him. The law is written in a way that the referees only judge what actually happened. In this case, Lovren deliberately played the ball. The fact that he played the ball so poorly is not the referees problem. He gets paid 100,000 pounds a week to not play the ball poorly in that situation.

As for Kane interfering with an opponent. This goes back to asking the referee to read the defenders mind. That is something that cannot be done consistently. What is easiest to apply consistently is looking at how the offside player behaves. In this case, Kane made no sudden or deliberate move towards the ball. He did not block Lovren's path towards the ball. Kane just stood there. Of course Lovren probably knew he was there. Of course he probably tried to play the ball because Kane was there. But asking the referee to judge why a player did something instead of judging what he did is a slippery slope.

Lastly, lets compare the Kane PK to Salah's first goal. Lovern and Dier both deliberately played the ball and it went to player who was in an offside position. They had a similar amount of time to react. The difference is Dier successfully played the ball in the direction he intended and Lovren didn't. Why should Lovren be rewarded for doing his job worse than Dier?

Plus, whether Kane was there or not Lovren would have attempted to hoof that ball. He didn't try and clear it just because Kane was there.

 

[fletch82]

No, because he can only be offside when his own team pass the ball. You can't be offside when the other team have the ball, you can stand where you like.

You are missing the point methinks

Dier kicks the ball to salahs who was in a offside position therefore actually making salahs onside as it becomes a new phase of play the second dier kicks it (stay with me)

Now if you put lovers skill in to dier foot he would skew it out for a corner but salah would still be onside as dier deliberately plays the ball

Now take it forward to the lovren kane situation and it' exactly the same all except it' now lovren kicking the ball quite deliberately but he is a utter spoon miskick it straight in to the path of kane who was offside but as lovren deliberately plays the ball a new phase of play starts where kane is now onside as he was played in by lovren.

So if kane's Peno was offside (he missed by the way) then salah's goal should also be chalked off so in retrospect we are the ones who should be moaning because we actually won 1-2
Simple really

 

[jezz]

Dele tried to pass to Lamela not Kane (So technically at this point he's not offside) and not interfering with play.
Wyneldum closes Dele down and deflects the ball past Lamela to Lovern. (Kane is technically onside)
Lovern tried to clear the ball but fcuks it up and Kane is clear on goal. Not offside.
If Dele had tried to pass to Kane then it's offside.

 

[Disconosebleed]

I have a bunch of issues with this, but one would be that Kane only gains an advantage once Lovren makes his miskick. Until then Kane has no advantage at all. Lovren should have been able to make that clearance easily. Just as Dier should have been able to play a safe pass rather than into the "offside" Salah.

I think the laws are relatively clear, and you don't seem to be arguing with the laws that are there, instead pushing them further.

The law says deliberate actions that create a new phase, or make someone offside. Lovren makes a deliberate action to clear the ball initiating a new phase. Kane makes no deliberate attempt to get the ball before that, thus not offside.

I'm really not sure it's all that controversial, and how would make it clearer or better? I'm not sure there's a way.

Definitely agree on the last three paragraphs - the law is clear, or at least as clear as it can be, and I completely agree that it's difficult or impossible to improve on it without having a blanket "game automatically stops when a player is in an offside position" law.

The first bit is where I have a bit of a problem, but again I should reiterate that it's a tough scenario. It is fair to lay the responsibility with Lovren and say, well, this has only come about because he fucked his clearance. However I don't think that solves the issue that, whatever way you look at it, Kane has gained an advantage from being beyond Lovren ie. offside.

Perhaps rather than saying the law is outright wrong, I should say that the situation itself is very difficult to officiate in a way that satisfies everyone - what it boils down to is that, at some point, there must be a new phase of play, and Lovren gaining control of the ball is a reasonable place for that to be; however that is obfuscated by the fact that within a split second of Lovren's error, Kane is clean through on goal having been in an offside position just beforehand. Essentially what my long-winded point boils down to is that the officials were correct, the law is impossible to implement in a foolproof way, but I can completely understand why Liverpool would feel hard-done-by.

 

[slartibartfast]

100% this. The referees interpreted the law correctly, but the law is stupid - it's impossible to view that incident and not come to the conclusion that Kane gained an advantage from being in an offside position, but according to the rules he was (first phase) offside but not interfering, and (second phase) interfering but not offside. The problem arises from the idea that Lovren's mishit constituted a new phase of play.

What's getting on my tits is this is hardly aa new thing. We see and have seen countless incidents of defenders pushing up to play players offside, only for them to leave the ball and an onside player run.onto it. How can the offside player possibly be deemed to be 'not interfering with play'???? The defence wouldn't have acted as it did were it not for those offside players. Fkin stupid rule.