Both decisions were right to the law. I dont agree with the offside one being not offside, but correct by the law nonetheless. Loved the discussion and Eriksen arguing with Can for the whole passage.
State of the refs in this country
- Thread starter Adisa
- Start date
If it has called offside we wouldn't have seen this debate, because it's really hard to not given an offside IMO the moment Alli played the ball Kane was in offside position and most of refs would have raise the flag considering Kane's position affected Lovren to try and clear the ball though.
They dont give offside nowadays when the ball is played, but when the striker touches the ball. So Lovren should have just cleared it better or left it, typical for him
Here lies the problem IMO. Even if the top refs now make double that in a year, it's still less than the top players and managers make in a week. I think higher salaries would attract a better calibre of refs.
Well you don't because the first sentence is clearly false. Being in a offside position is not in itself an offence. The question is whether Kane was active in play.
Offside goes in phases, and in this move there are two phases.
The first phase is when the Spurs player plays the ball. Kane is in an offside position at this point, but that does not mean he was active and therefore committing an offence.
The second phase is when Lovren makes a deliberate attempt to play the ball as Lovren, despite all evidence to the contrary, pretends to be a Liverpool player, and Kane can not be offside after this point.
So the decision comes down to whether Kane was active in play during the first phase. Him being offside does not make him active, nor does him necessarily being relatively close to Lovren.
So the question comes down to whether he makes a movement towards Lovren that can be deemed to be interfering with his ability to play the ball. If you read the criteria of what is considered 'impacting' an opponent Kane does none of those things, and running towards the ball (which Kane does the opposite of) is in and of itself not considered interfering. See: LOTG 2017/2018 p. 195.
I'm not convinced they got the decision right for the right reasons, but they definitely got it right.
Those images are from the old LOTG and there's been newer guidance since to clarify what is meant by the terms you're getting confused by.It shouldn't matter. If the ball is played towards Kane in an offside position he either a) distracts Lovren into making a poor clearance (see below)
or b) has the ball deflected onto him
... both of which are offside offences. It doesn't say "passed to him". It says "rebounds off an opponent", and it doesn't go into whether the rebound comes from a deliberate or accidental block.
The linesman has got it wrong IMO, because he's saying that "it's a deliberate action", but surely there's a difference between being forced into a snatched clearance / blocking a shot and a fecking back pass, which is what the "deliberate action" is supposed to prevent.
I mean, if Lovren's clearance had fallen to Karius and Karius had picked it up, would the referee had deemed it a back pass? That's the key for me, and no ref would ever give that as a back pass.
I know they don't. But surely Lovren would have cleared that ball right if Kane who was in offside position wasn't involved, but figured out it doesn't work that way. So bit hard decision to make.
I don’t really 100% agree with either penalty decision at Anfield tbh - the first should have been given offside and the second I don’t think there was enough contact and Lamela was too theatrical
However, both decisions where correct according to the rules of the game so you can’t really blame the officials who I thought did a good job
However, both decisions where correct according to the rules of the game so you can’t really blame the officials who I thought did a good job
I think you’ve replied to an earlier iteration of my post, I added an edit saying I deem Kane offside, as the ball is deliberately played to him and his presence causes Lovren to react. It’s not like he was just standing still waiting for a mistake like that.
I agree they got the decision right, my issue is the rule is awful and needs review
The thing I'm having a problem with is the following: If your interpretation of the rules is correct, that would mean that a player could never be offside from a shot that is parried out by the goalkeeper.
A shot comes in from player A. Player B is standing ten yards offside (but not obstructing the keeper's line of sight). The keeper deliberately makes a move to save the ball, but it falls to the previously offside player who sticks it into an empty net. Is that really the spirit of the rule? Surely the "deliberate action" is to prevent players from being called offside from back passes gone wrong, right?
A player that's offside when a blocked shot (from a defender) falls to him, he's not offside because the blocking of the shot is a deliberate action? Is that what the new rules are? If so, I'll happily admit to being wrong while pointing out that the rules are absolute wank and whoever came up with them should hang his head in shame.
I can honestly admit that I was heavily intoxicated last night, haha. Different opinions about the actions from last night now...
But yes, please continue with your pineapple.
Ba dum tsihh
Yes and I'm saying that his presence alone does not make him active as per the laws. In this situation I can see no argument that Kane did anything that impacted Lovren's ability to play the ball. If an opposition player standing within 2 metres of him causes Lovren to slice the ball then Liverpool have bigger problems than the referees getting decisions right!
A shot saved by the keeper (or any other player) is specifically exempted from offside. It goes by the position of the player when the original shot was taken because a save does not constitute a new phase.
Nailed it. Both decisions were correct by the law. I also agree with you the offside rules are a farce. Every player is interfering with play in my opinion.
Sorry I meant to say I deem him active, and therefore offside. I get that just being in an offside position doesn’t make you active.
I need to start proofreading my posts!
Fair enough, I hadn't seen that exception. We beat Leicester 2-0 in August, and Rashford had a shot blocked into the path of Fellaini (in offside position) who scored. Chris Foy was in the studio saying that Fellaini wasn't offside because Morgan made a deliberate block.
I accept that my interpretation is be wrong, but I can't see how an opponent's presence forcing a rushed clearance isn't deemed as interference with an opponent. If Kane's not there, regardless of whether he takes a step towards Lovren or not, then Lovren doesn't throw himself at the ball, instead runs with it or passes it to Karius.
Being in an offside position isn't an offence, I get that, but if your presence changes the decision an opponent makes, then surely you're interfering with him? I don't understand why movement comes into it, seems a bit pointless to me and just a way to muddy the waters. How big a movement is enough to interfere? Kane takes one step, does he have to take two to activate himself?
My point is that you can be a visual distraction and impact someone's decision making regardless of any actual movement taking place. Lovren has to assume that Kane's an active part of play and try to deal with the ball. If Kane's not there then his action becomes different -> Kane has interfered with Lovren.
I was in Costco yesterday almost bought a massive bag of chopped pineapple but they were not ripe. True story.
You'll never get perfect referees in the same way you don't get perfect strikers. A forward will have an off day, miss a sitter and look like he only learned how to put football boots on in a 15 minutes instructional video on YouTube right before the match, and referees will have days where they miss the most obvious of calls and make horrendous decisions.
The perpetual over-the-top quasi-disingenuous surprise expressed at that reality is difficult to understand. Short of the invention of a super robot human or pausing the game every 3 minutes for a 1 minute video review of everything that happened in each 3 minute section, that's just how it is. You can't eliminate human error from the game without changing the game beyond current recognition. The number of awful refereeing decisions are actually few and far between but the hysterical shrieks when they happen are louder each time, leading people to whip everyone up in a frenzy and convince everyone the game is ruined by poor officiating. It isn't, despite the fact poor officiating undoubtedly sometimes takes place.
The perpetual over-the-top quasi-disingenuous surprise expressed at that reality is difficult to understand. Short of the invention of a super robot human or pausing the game every 3 minutes for a 1 minute video review of everything that happened in each 3 minute section, that's just how it is. You can't eliminate human error from the game without changing the game beyond current recognition. The number of awful refereeing decisions are actually few and far between but the hysterical shrieks when they happen are louder each time, leading people to whip everyone up in a frenzy and convince everyone the game is ruined by poor officiating. It isn't, despite the fact poor officiating undoubtedly sometimes takes place.
So first you think that it should have been given offside, then you agree that it was given according to the rules of the game. Not sure what you are getting at.
The second one, Lamela was kicked behind his knee and according to the rules of the game, he was awarded a penalty. Fair play, if you ask me. Was it soft, perhaps. Was it stupid by Van Dijk? Definitely.
The referees and linesmen should have microphones so that we can hear what they are discussing and how they interpret the rules etc. They do that in rugby, not sure why it can't be done in football.
Both correct decisions but it still doesn't take away from the fact Moss was overheard by the TV microphones guessing the first one.
Getting it right doesn't make it a good decision if it's based on a guess.
Last edited:
80k is decent money. It's not like it's their main job, it's a 2nd career that is born out of a hobby. Definitely a tough job given the pressure and hatred. Don't think it's bad at top level, much worse at the lower levels where you are performing the same job but away from cameras and you pretty much get compesated for the travel to and from the match.
Basically because of ignorance, not righteousness. I thought at first it was offside because I didn't see Lovren trying to clear it but on the replay it was clear. Thought the linesman and ref did a great job of it but I understand the frustrations because it's a newer rule that many people aren't clear on. So unclear in fact that clever forwards that know their rules can take advantage of it.
I'll have to bow down to the referees superior knowledge on the rules of the game with regards to the first goal. That said, if the rules indeed were correctly applied then they need to be changed. There's no way Kane should be considered onside for the first goal. Second one is a blatant pen. I can't believe people are arguing otherwise.
The first was blatantly offside. The ball was played towards Kane who was offside. Someone trying to intercept a pass that was heading towards an offside player doesn't not make the guy offside, as the only reason he is going for it is because there is the threat of Kane. It's blatantly offside.
What's this new rule people are saying? Kane is actively offside as the pass is played towards him. It's not like Lovren passes it back to him, he slides to intercept and doesn't get enough of a connection on it. A pass deflecting off of someone doesn't make a player not offside all of a sudden.
Edit: looks like the reason for confusion is basically the amount of contact Lovren made. He swung a leg at it, IMO to just get something on it to stop it, ref interpreted it as a swing to kick it and he just got poor contact so it was essentially a back pass. Not for me IMO, if there's a grey area for that particular case, then the rule is just written really badly. Should be offside if the rules were written properly. Second can't even be debated though, he kicked him
What's this new rule people are saying? Kane is actively offside as the pass is played towards him. It's not like Lovren passes it back to him, he slides to intercept and doesn't get enough of a connection on it. A pass deflecting off of someone doesn't make a player not offside all of a sudden.
Edit: looks like the reason for confusion is basically the amount of contact Lovren made. He swung a leg at it, IMO to just get something on it to stop it, ref interpreted it as a swing to kick it and he just got poor contact so it was essentially a back pass. Not for me IMO, if there's a grey area for that particular case, then the rule is just written really badly. Should be offside if the rules were written properly. Second can't even be debated though, he kicked him
Last edited:
Both penalties where highly questionable. First one should have been offside. Second one is a difficult one to figure out. Lamela drew it 100%, & wasn't even trying to play the ball. He just tried to get in the way of the kick and fell down once he felt contact. I think Lamela's action is more reckless & could result in an injury to VVD, than VVD's actual kick to Lamela. Running into a player as he's trying to kick is a foul. However, VVD did end up missing the ball and kicking Lamela so its hard to say what matters more intent or result. Personally i think it shouldn't be a penalty because of the intent.
Reminds me of Nani's red card, except Lamela wasn't even going for the ball. Liverpool were cheated here, but it happens all the time, can't expect the refs to get something right live, we can't even figure out watching replays. Either introduce VR for controversial decisions, or accept errors as part of the game.
I think it was offside. A pass played to Kean (who is in offside position) forces the defender to react since if the ball goes through, the attacker would be clear on goal. They can sugarcoat it all they want but I think it was a clear mistake. Most of us would have been fuming had such decisions gone against us in a game.
The result benefits us but that is not the point. Terrible refs all around.
The result benefits us but that is not the point. Terrible refs all around.
The Liverpool fans think who think VVD didn't commit a foul can seriously feck off 
A clear pen, it doesn't matter if he tried to stop himself.
A clear pen, it doesn't matter if he tried to stop himself.Agreed but there wasn't a whole lot Moss could have done at that point. He has to guess whether he thinks Lovren touched the ball. Only technology could clear that up.
What did Moss say after " I have no idea if he touched the ball or not", was he calling 4th ref ?
If so then the penalty was 100% right call.
Agreed, as much fun it is to watch them rage they have a good case here. For the first pen Kane is clearly offside when the pass is hit and the second is soft as feck as Lamela gets a knee in the arse and then goes down easily. For comparison, McTomminay did not get a pen for getting absolutely poleaxed on Saturday, so if thats not a pen, how the feck is this one considered a foul? What is the deciding factor?
Knee in arse is forbidden, but arse/hip area in head is fine?
I’m saying that it should be offside because imo Lovren only goes for the ball because Kane is behind him and it’s not really Lovren’s responsibility to decide in that split second whether Kane is on or off. However, according to the rules of the game Kane was not involved in the first phase and therefore not off. So the officials made the correct call, I think it’s the rules that need changing
I play CB myself sometimes and it’s impossible now you have to go for everything
It wasn't a knee in the arse, it was a full-on kick to the back of the leg. Obviously not on purpose, but a clear and just penalty.
Finding the discussion on Sky to be quite confusing. The pass was made directly towards Kane in a forward movement, who was visibly offside. There doesn't need to be any rule change or anything, he's offside as the pass is towards him and he was off when it was made.
yeah but Lovren touched it so he wasn't, I think it's a bonkers law myself, he's interfering with play so should be offside but the laws of the game say's he isn't
I can't believe people are saying the 2nd pen was soft. That was about as blatant as a penalty can get. Try getting smashed full pelt in the calf and see how quickly you go down. If that was other way round and pen had not been given you would have had tshirts being printed already.
But it's part of the same phase of play, because the pass was towards him and it only covered at most what, 15-20 metres? If Lovren stopped the ball and chose to pass it back then it would be different, but I find it crazy that an actual ex-ref can say that was onside due to a sliced clearance. Ming boggling stuff. Not to mention the obvious dive.
Us against Huddersfield and Liverpool against Tottenham were two of the worst ref performances I have seen all season. It simply amazes me how refs at this level can be wrong with every second call they make.
Yesterday swung me in favour of VAR.
out of interest which decisions would have been overruled?
There was nothing in the Liverpool/Spurs game as remotely blatant as the Kongolo incident. That has been said by pretty much everyone that it should have been a penalty... where as yesterday a lot of people think the first one should of been (within the laws of the game) and a whole lot more still think the second one was.
Even two ex refs don't agree with each other, Clattenburg and Graham Poll (or someone) both made exact opposite points. So when that's the case it's impossible to call ref's decisions as bad or worst performance.
Tbh Linesman had balls of steel to call for penalty.
And then some... from his angle it clearly looks like VVD takes a good whack at the back of Lamela so frankly the bad officiating would have been not to flag.
Honestly, the ref's were excellent yesterday, and the fact that VAR would not have overturned either decisions pretty much confirms that.