What the pundits are saying about us

mil1lion

Bad Banter
Joined
May 7, 2004
Messages
29,958
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.
 

Col_M

Pointing out the Obvious
Joined
Feb 28, 2012
Messages
8,268
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.
Yep. You’re right. I saw a similar clip yesterday.
 

Riandor

SC Supporter
Joined
May 26, 2004
Messages
7,710
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.
 

thebenjamin

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
4,762
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.
The linesman didn't flag for offside
 

Sandros Shiny Head

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2013
Messages
2,168
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
 

Riandor

SC Supporter
Joined
May 26, 2004
Messages
7,710
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
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!
 

Riandor

SC Supporter
Joined
May 26, 2004
Messages
7,710
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 :D
Ish... I am more going on about the state of refereeing and stating that based on the conversation we overheard, I am flabbergasted that Moss awarded a penalty he could not be sure about. Sure, it was great for us at the time, sure, in retrospect it was probably the right call, it just appears to be a total fluke call. I think it's ok to say/discuss that we almost benefited from a dodgy decision.
 

Spurs 1961

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2012
Messages
3,667
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.
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
 

Riandor

SC Supporter
Joined
May 26, 2004
Messages
7,710
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
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.

And my personal criticism was more related to the fact that he suggests in the conversation to not know for sure that it hit Lovren and if it hasn't, then said consulted linesman said "then its offside." As I said, would have had (begrudgingly) more respect if he said, don't know and the lino said, then we can't award the Pen and Moss says, true, overturned.
 

'O Zio

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
1,894
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.
Exactly. I was talking to a semi-pro player about it after a similar incident a couple of years ago. He said even at that level, if someone leaves a leg out etc. and you shoot instead of going over it, then you'd better make damn sure you score because if you don't your teammates/manager etc. will crucify you in the dressing room. In their eyes, not going over and winning the pen is selfish because you're going for the glory of scoring the goal instead of winning the penaltry which gives your team a better chance to score

As you say, like it or loath it, that's just the way it is. I'm not saying it's right but you're just expected to draw the penalty like that at all levels of the game. I'm not talking about diving when there was no contact etc. but I mean if someone leaves a leg out, for example, and you go out of your way to avoid it, that's seen by players as not doing your job properly
 

spids

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2015
Messages
810
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!
Totally agree - that is what I was getting at earlier in this thread. The line in italics is really key - as it shows that the ref did not understand what the issue was, and was effectively ignoring the assistant who did know the rules. The next sentence is also unfortunate as the ref is not allowed to ask for or use TV replays.
 

$hoguN

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2005
Messages
21,285
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 decision
 

Led's Zeppelin

Flaccid Member
Joined
May 28, 2013
Messages
3,368
He missed the fucking thing, it galvanised Liverpool, they benefitted from it.

They benefitted from it, OK?

I don't care if the ref made a mistake or not, they all do. The point is, Liverpool benefitted from it. Soppy ****s.

The one we scored from was a 100% penalty. So, no problem, all's fair, justice done all round.

Except we were the better team and deserved to win, but that's life. We're big enough to take it without whinging like a bunch of delusional Scousers.
 
Top