Bimpy474

Correct as i interpret the laws. Interpretation being the key, i think this one is quite clear but football as it is, not everyone will agree.

What's missing from the laws as you read them is the direction of the initial ball, where it was played from and by whom. Which is why there's confusion imo. The laws an arse to coin a phrase.

Confused me massively this has. I thought it was offside, but Sky and Dermot seem to think that because Lovren touched the ball, this is then a new phase of play meaning that Kane is onside. But Lovren only had to touch the ball because he was aware that Kane was behind him, so he was interfering with play in the first phase. I don’t understand why that isn’t the case. Which is utter crap, and completely mental to even think it was onside. In the future we should just stand Gayle on the edge of the oppo's box and hope a defender try to touch the ball as we smash it up to him, nonsense from Sky and Dermot that like. It's not nonsense, it's the laws of the game. They might well be nonsense mind. I ref and that's not how to interpret that law in this instance imo, it's not worded right for the incident we've just seen. You take into account where the players are in relation to the ball travelling forward, ie : are they active, is it meant for them, not that it matters on a Sunday morning as you get the most biased fat sub or some parent doing the line for you anyhoo. As a law reads doesn't always implement in any given situation al that well, that's where the ref and linos step in, wrongly as it was today imo. The law is quite clear imo. "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". If it had just hit Lovren and been deflected off him (so he hasn't deliberately played the ball) or gone through to Kane without a touch then yes he is offside. I think this law is wrong and needs to be changed to reflect situations like this as Kane clearly gained a massive advantage. That doesn't refer to where the initial ball came from, which is the crux of the matter in this case. Like i say your interpreting it wrongly as that isn't quite covering it all which isn't helping you. As we can't post footy vids i can't show you exactly where that law fits in, but in this case that law doesn't come into it as the ball was traveling forward at all times from the initial attacking players pass, it hasn't come to him from an opponent as in a tackle that from a defender that plays it backwards to an apparently offside striker. The deflection in this case isn't as your seeing it in that law, well imo like. Dermot Gallagher agrees with me. You are saying that Lovren didn't deliberately play the ball? I disagree. I'm not saying he didn't play it but as i and KI just said Kane was offside from the initial pass. And this part of the law says which again is open it interpretation : “gaining an advantage by being in that position” means playing a ball 1) that rebounds or is deflected to him off the goalpost, crossbar or an opponent having been in an offside position .

Confused me massively this has. I thought it was offside, but Sky and Dermot seem to think that because Lovren touched the ball, this is then a new phase of play meaning that Kane is onside. But Lovren only had to touch the ball because he was aware that Kane was behind him, so he was interfering with play in the first phase. I don’t understand why that isn’t the case. Which is utter crap, and completely mental to even think it was onside. In the future we should just stand Gayle on the edge of the oppo's box and hope a defender try to touch the ball as we smash it up to him, nonsense from Sky and Dermot that like. It's not nonsense, it's the laws of the game. They might well be nonsense mind. I ref and that's not how to interpret that law in this instance imo, it's not worded right for the incident we've just seen. You take into account where the players are in relation to the ball travelling forward, ie : are they active, is it meant for them, not that it matters on a Sunday morning as you get the most biased fat sub or some parent doing the line for you anyhoo. As a law reads doesn't always implement in any given situation al that well, that's where the ref and linos step in, wrongly as it was today imo. The law is quite clear imo. "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". If it had just hit Lovren and been deflected off him (so he hasn't deliberately played the ball) or gone through to Kane without a touch then yes he is offside. I think this law is wrong and needs to be changed to reflect situations like this as Kane clearly gained a massive advantage. That doesn't refer to where the initial ball came from, which is the crux of the matter in this case. Like i say your interpreting it wrongly as that isn't quite covering it all which isn't helping you. As we can't post footy vids i can't show you exactly where that law fits in, but in this case that law doesn't come into it as the ball was traveling forward at all times from the initial attacking players pass, it hasn't come to him from an opponent as in a tackle that from a defender that plays it backwards to an apparently offside striker. The deflection in this case isn't as your seeing it in that law, well imo like.

And it depends on whether you're a crap ref as well, honestly we are so short of refs it's untrue and i never seen such an influx of 16/17 year olds trying to fill the void, who aren't able to deal with aggressive men, Saturdays and Sundays.

To me he's offside whether Lovren touches it or not. He was offside for the whole of that period from the original through ball. Correct, Lovren's touch is irrelevant as the ball went forward toward Kane who was offside from that initial ball. There were no other phases of play for Kane to be onside, which he never was at any time anyhoo. Wrong. If it had deflected off Lovren it would have been offside but because he played the ball (badly) it is offside. See the laws of the game: "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." That is offside every single time. The ball is played toward Kane, he's offside from the initial pass, and stays so no matter how it gets to him, and who it touches. If there was a second phase of pay then fine, where the ball goes back toward the Tottenham goal and back toward Kane off a Liverpool maybe, you could argue, which i would argue is still offside but there wasn't. It's interpretation of the laws and they're interpreting them wrong, any person with eyes can see that. The moment that pass is played toward an offside Kane, the flag should have been raised. Exactly how i see it and how i was taught to ref. To be honest you don't ever really look at the laws again unless, well only when you get new instructions. Then it's still about the interpretation of whatever new or changed law it is.

To me he's offside whether Lovren touches it or not. He was offside for the whole of that period from the original through ball. Correct, Lovren's touch is irrelevant as the ball went forward toward Kane who was offside from that initial ball. There were no other phases of play for Kane to be onside, which he never was at any time anyhoo. Wrong. If it had deflected off Lovren it would have been offside but because he played the ball (badly) it is offside. See the laws of the game: "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." That is offside every single time. The ball is played toward Kane, he's offside from the initial pass, and stays so no matter how it gets to him, and who it touches. If there was a second phase of pay then fine, where the ball goes back toward the Tottenham goal and back toward Kane off a Liverpool maybe, you could argue, which i would argue is still offside but there wasn't. It's interpretation of the laws and they're interpreting them wrong, any person with eyes can see that. Wrong. I'm not saying I agree with the laws. But they are what they are. Fair enough but i think you're interpreting them wrongly, that's what we love about footy though, difference of opinions.

Confused me massively this has. I thought it was offside, but Sky and Dermot seem to think that because Lovren touched the ball, this is then a new phase of play meaning that Kane is onside. But Lovren only had to touch the ball because he was aware that Kane was behind him, so he was interfering with play in the first phase. I don’t understand why that isn’t the case. Which is utter crap, and completely mental to even think it was onside. In the future we should just stand Gayle on the edge of the oppo's box and hope a defender try to touch the ball as we smash it up to him, nonsense from Sky and Dermot that like. It's not nonsense, it's the laws of the game. They might well be nonsense mind. I ref and that's not how to interpret that law in this instance imo, it's not worded right for the incident we've just seen. You take into account where the players are in relation to the ball travelling forward, ie : are they active, is it meant for them, not that it matters on a Sunday morning as you get the most biased fat sub or some parent doing the line for you anyhoo. As a law reads it doesn't always implement in any given situation all that well, that's where the ref and linos step in, wrongly as it was today imo.

To me he's offside whether Lovren touches it or not. He was offside for the whole of that period from the original through ball. Correct, Lovren's touch is irrelevant as the ball went forward toward Kane who was offside from that initial ball. There were no other phases of play for Kane to be onside, which he never was at any time anyhoo. Wrong. If it had deflected off Lovren it would have been offside but because he played the ball (badly) it is offside. See the laws of the game: "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." That is offside every single time. The ball is played toward Kane, he's offside from the initial pass, and stays so no matter how it gets to him, and who it touches. If there was a second phase of pay then fine, where the ball goes back toward the Tottenham goal and back toward Kane off a Liverpool maybe, you could argue, which i would argue is still offside but there wasn't. It's interpretation of the laws and they're interpreting them wrong, any person with eyes can see that.

Confused me massively this has. I thought it was offside, but Sky and Dermot seem to think that because Lovren touched the ball, this is then a new phase of play meaning that Kane is onside. But Lovren only had to touch the ball because he was aware that Kane was behind him, so he was interfering with play in the first phase. I don’t understand why that isn’t the case. Which is utter crap, and completely mental to even think it was onside. In the future we should just stand Gayle on the edge of the oppo's box and hope a defender try to touch the ball as we smash it up to him, nonsense from Sky and Dermot that like.

To me he's offside whether Lovren touches it or not. He was offside for the whole of that period from the original through ball. Correct, Lovren's touch is irrelevant as the ball went forward toward Kane who was offside from that initial ball. There were no other phases of play for Kane to be onside, which he never was at any time anyhoo.

What a game

Wahey

Offside and a possible dive, and saved

Wow.

Good for you, i like a decisive man.

Yet another Alli dive, hmm.

Your first sentence contradicts itself. You answer yourself by explaining the squads are inherently different. Point nullified, it's f*** all like Pardew. We'd have gone there, Zaha would destroy us, Pards would praise him and bemoan the lack of luck in our 4-0 defeat whilst trying to flog kenedy despite him being on loan. Erm no, one explains why Rafa's team ends up hoofing when under pressure. Unlike Pardew who hoofed it by design. And the rest of your posts reads as if i'm sticking up for Pardew, which i'm not. In fact i'm one of the first of us to hate his guts, and saw through him a bit before most. While i do describe Rafa's football as a bit boring, you give him a proper forward, a proper 10 and better overlapping full backs and that'll change. He's done brilliantly to have us out of the bottom three as it is, give him better players and everything changes, style, thinking, the football itself becomes altogether different. Probably a good idea to actually read it properly, or not as is your preference.

Your first sentence contradicts itself. You answer yourself by explaining the squads are inherently different. Point nullified, it's fuck all like Pardew. We'd have gone there, Zaha would destroy us, Pards would praise him and bemoan the lack of luck in our 4-0 defeat whilst trying to flog kenedy despite him being on loan. Erm no, one explains why Rafa's team ends up hoofing when under pressure. Unlike Pardew who hoofed it by design. And the rest of your posts reads as if i'm sticking up for Pardew, which i'm not. In fact i'm one of the first of us to hate his guts, and saw through him a bit before most. While i do describe Rafa's football as a bit boring, you give him a proper forward, a proper 10 and better overlapping full backs and that'll change. He's done brilliantly to have us out of the bottom three as it is, give him better players and everything changes, style, thinking, the football itself becomes altogether different.

I'd say that 2nd half was as bad as anything Pardew served up, the one thing forgotten about that though, would be Pardew had a far superior team and had no need to play such shite football, as he could have had a out ball, something we need badly now. Today it was clear we lacked a player to hold the ball up/turn the oppo round. Hopefully Slimani can be that player, he can run in behind as well as hold it which is perfect for Rafa's one up. Perez and Gayle were so weak the ball just came back over and over.

The Burnley one was point blank, he did well to even get a hand to it, it was a class save he just got unbelievably unlucky imo. Obviously it was a reaction, but a better keeper beats that away rather than flap it onto the bar You've got be fucking kidding right ?

How about our last 5 games or so against the bottom half ?

Oh yeah

It is a penalty but as you say we never get them and should have had two in this game, and you very rarely see them given in other games. Still doesn't change the fact it was a penalty like.

Need another angle, looks like it came of Sane so it could have been off. Might need another trip to vision express I'd only had one quick look, just seen it again, clearly off Dier. Thanks for the advice, I'll follow that.