Bimpy474

Show the ones on our players in their box for fucks sake.

Exactly, utterly bizarre that

I said that earlier, the 4th official looking at a monitor ?

No. Too quick. Needs to be slow and painful. What if it was a glancing blow, but the shock caused him to shit out his intestines? I was hoping that the fact he had viciously accidentally stabbed himself 20 times might have finished him off but fair point....make it a Ford Hummer.

Ah sorry, would it be ok if gets hit by a falling anvil, acme style ?

I only asked like.

Noted.

Is it wrong to want this man to pass away in his sleep.

Anyone watching SSN News now, you can hear what the linesman is saying and it's wrong as he isn't taking into account who passed the initial ball. The interesting part is the ref asking 'Martin' if he has anything on the tv ? I thought they weren't allowed to do that, refer to the 4th official using a monitor, it's not a Vars game after all.

He is, and something the pundits seem to be completely overlooking.

Well i read the laws as that's off, pretty clearly imo given the direction of the ball as described in your post. I got the impression that Sky and Dermot didn't want to say the officials were wrong in that instance, which is ludicrous, unless the intention was to court controversy, which they would never do, would they.

I hope he plays, feels like a 75% fit Slimani is going to be far better than Gayle of Joselu.

Think we've lost the most points from a winning position of all the teams this season, not a surprise really.

We would had a 10 point deduction for going into administration you nutter.

Don't we have significantly more Premiership experienced players than say Brighton and Huddersfield. Most of our team have played in the Premiership a fair amount, Shelvey, Diame, Clark, Dummett even. It's just we lack real stand out quality something Rafa was trying to address but Ashley wouldn't let him.

Fine margins that amazingly a better striker and say a proper 10 might have helped solve. Then again fat Mike knows better don't he.

That's not how it was meant as you well know young man.

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.