Bimpy474 Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 The assistant saying if Lovren's not touched the ball, it's offside. It was offside, still gave the pen. Total joke. 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bimpy474 Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 Definitely think Kane should have been given offside for the first pel 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeyt Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 There was an incident in our game today when Clark or Lascelles controlled the ball from a Palace long pass and then Benteke tried to nick it off off one of them after coming back from an offside position and was flagged, I guess he shouldn't have been given offside either. Unless I'm interpreting it wrong Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figures 1-0 Football Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 Definitely think Kane should have been given offside for the first pel 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. Aye Greg, but that rule is talking about where a player has received a ball directly from the opposition player (ie, Lovren tackled someone and the ball came through to Kane, he wouldn’t be offside). The issue here is that a Tottenham player played a pass to Kane when he was in an offside position and interfering with play - he’s offside. The next ‘phase’ shouldn’t exist, because he’s already offside. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 There was an incident in our game today when Clark or Lascelles controlled the ball from a Palace long pass and then Benteke tried to nick it off off one of them after coming back from an offside position, I guess he shouldn't have been given offside either. Unless I'm interpreting it wrong No. That's different but if he had stayed in an offside position and not challenged Clark / Lascelles and Clark / Lascelles played the ball deliberately but it had gone to Benteke - then he wouldn't be offside. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bimpy474 Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 Definitely think Kane should have been given offside for the first pel 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 Definitely think Kane should have been given offside for the first pel 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. Aye Greg, but that rule is talking about where a player has received a ball directly from the opposition player (ie, Lovren tackled someone and the ball came through to Kane, he wouldn’t be offside). The issue here is that a Tottenham player played a pass to Kane when he was in an offside position and interfering with play - he’s offside. The next ‘phase’ shouldn’t exist, because he’s already offside. I guess that's the point, according to the laws of the game that's not the case. It would have been if he had received the ball directly, it had been deflected off Lovren, if he been challenging for the ball etc. But he wasn't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 Definitely think Kane should have been given offside for the first pel 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 He was offside before Lovren touched it... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 Glad VAR will be here next season to completely resolve these decisions that we all agree on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 He was offside before Lovren touched it... He was in an offside position, but it wasn't an offside offence. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 He was offside before Lovren touched it... He was in an offside position, but it wasn't an offside offence. Then the rules are moronic. The ball played by the Spurs player is intended for Kane. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 I can observe from this conversation the offside law is an ass and needs changing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 I can observe from this conversation the offside law is an ass and needs changing. I agree. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bimpy474 Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 Definitely think Kane should have been given offside for the first pel 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 . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 Getting refs on the telly to justify these stupid decisions based on stupid rules, with smug confidence has just made things worse imo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 I think we're forgetting the important thing here, which is how fucking bad defending it is from Lovren Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rompe Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 The only reason Lovren plays that ball (or tries to) is because of Kane, who is offside. Surely he is interfering with play in the situation, and therefore it should be offside, no? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bimpy474 Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bimpy474 Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 The only reason Lovren plays that ball (or tries to) is because of Kane, who is offside. Surely he is interfering with play in the situation, and therefore it should be offside, no? 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incognito Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 If the law deems Kane to be onside due to a piece of comedic play from Lovren, then it really is an ass. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 It's ridiculous. Erikson passes to Kane. Kane's position: Offside. Decision: Offside. Lovren touches the ball. Kane's position: Still offside having never come back onside. Decision: Onside. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts