Defectors Watch

Both were penalties and correct decisions by the laws of the game.

The fact that our two former mercenary centre backs were both at fault is even more satisfying.

Throw in a Wanyama screamer and it’s a LOL fest.

VVD is a knob, but Lamela dived.

He didn't. You could argue he deliberately put himself into a position where he was going to get kicked, but he got kicked.

VVD is a knob, but Lamela dived.

HTH

While I understand the rule, I dont understand the logic behind the offside rule in cases like the first goal.

Surely when the initial ball is played, Kane is offside so the flag should be immediately going up. Especially as he’s the active player. Anything that happens after that is meaningless?

Hahaha all the Liverpool fans/manager crying about the second penalty... not sure how kicking a player without getting the ball isn't a foul anywhere else on the pitch?

While I understand the rule, I dont understand the logic behind the offside rule in cases like the first goal.

 

Surely when the initial ball is played, Kane is offside so the flag should be immediately going up. Especially as he’s the active player. Anything that happens after that is meaningless?

Yeah I agree, he is offside when Alli plays it forwards towards him and should be flagged straight away. The fact Lovren touched it shouldn't change anything but refs are pretty cack these days.

[/img]

Sorry for the massive pic!

While I understand the rule, I dont understand the logic behind the offside rule in cases like the first goal.

 

Surely when the initial ball is played, Kane is offside so the flag should be immediately going up. Especially as he’s the active player. Anything that happens after that is meaningless?

What if the ball had glanced off the liverpool player closest to alli on its way to kane?

What if the ball had glanced off the liverpool player closest to alli on its way to kane?

Still offside, when the ball is played to Kane the flag should go straight up stopping play at that point.

Still offside, when the ball is played to Kane the flag should go straight up stopping play at that point.

The 4th official told the ref if lovren touched the ball it's a pen, and the ref gave it. It ended up as a missed pen anyway. The irritating thing for me was hearing jenas and the unbiased lawrenson both agreeing that the rules of the game had been observed by the ref, but for some reason both pundits felt they shouldn't have been. Also worth noting they said the lamela foul was a pen and not a dive, although lamela had manouevred himself into a position to be fouled; but they both said it's still a foul, and that's the pen kane scored from, not the offside one. If the first pen had gone in klopp would have something to moan about, and imho would have also made it a damn sight funnier

While I understand the rule, I dont understand the logic behind the offside rule in cases like the first goal.

 

Surely when the initial ball is played, Kane is offside so the flag should be immediately going up. Especially as he’s the active player. Anything that happens after that is meaningless?

Kinda gets me this, like people saying soccer, when it's football, but they are laws not rules. Just a thing that grates, sorry!

The offside rule needs another review as no one seems to understand it , plus using VAR , offside has been given when the feet are onside but part of the upper body has been deemed offside ! That's just a bit silly , perhaps ALL of the player should be off side like all of the ball has to be over the line . The use of VAR has become hair splitting as well as unclear , some decisions don't seem to be clear cut especially penalty shouts , this applies to rugby as well .

Perhaps the penalty area could be re defined with a D replacing the 6 yard box and becoming the new penalty area .

The offside rule needs another review as no one seems to understand it , plus using VAR , offside has been given when the feet are onside but part of the upper body has been deemed offside ! That's just a bit silly , perhaps ALL of the player should be off side like all of the ball has to be over the line . The use of VAR has become hair splitting as well as unclear , some decisions don't seem to be clear cut especially penalty shouts , this applies to rugby as well .

Perhaps the penalty area could be re defined with a D replacing the 6 yard box and becoming the new penalty area .

Er... them's the Laws. If you don't like them then go and play something else.

The referees and their assistants are schooled and drilled in every aspect of the Laws. If the supporters don't understand them then it's not the fault of the officials.

"Part of the body has been deemed offside" ???

 

Er... them's the Laws. If you don't like them then go and play something else.

 

The referees and their assistants are schooled and drilled in every aspect of the Laws. If the supporters don't understand them then it's not the fault of the officials.

He's saying the law is silly, which it probably is. If your feet are level but your head happens to be tilted beyond the last defender then you are offside. That seems silly.

VVD is a knob, but Lamela dived.

There was contact. Lamela made the most of the opportunity.

Yeah I agree, he is offside when Alli plays it forwards towards him and should be flagged straight away. The fact Lovren touched it shouldn't change anything but refs are pretty cack these days.

 

[/img]

Hmm. I thought it can only be flagged / blown when Kane touches the ball. And if Lovren touches it in-between and hes then NOT offside, that it cant be blown (?)

Hmm. I thought it can only be flagged / blown when Kane touches the ball. And if Lovren touches it in-between and hes then NOT offside, that it cant be blown (?)

Correct he's not offside-anyone who doesn't understand this go and read the laws of the game. Lovren makes an attempt to play the ball and does play the ball therefore Kane is not offside as the ball has been played by a defender. Where Kane was standing when Ali plays the ball becomes completely irrelevant in this situation as Kane didn't not become involved until after Lovren's touch. He is 100% onside there is no scope for argument or debate is as straightforward as a ball crossing a line . If Lovren doesn't attempt to play the ball he is however, off side ,but that's not what happened.

Correct he's not offside-anyone who doesn't understand this go and read the laws of the game. Lovren makes an attempt to play the ball and does play the ball therefore Kane is not offside as the ball has been played by a defender. Where Kane was standing when Ali plays the ball becomes completely irrelevant in this situation as Kane didn't not become involved until after Lovren's touch. He is 100% onside there is no scope for argument or debate is as straightforward as a ball crossing a line . If Lovren doesn't attempt to play the ball he is however, off side ,but that's not what happened.

Not the point pal. Perfectly understand the laws of the game; rather am suggesting that they are illogical. In many cases, the lino will raise his the flag as soon as the ball is played, especially if it is in direction of the active player. As such, the game is blown dead and the defending player is not in a position to touch the ball ot impact play.

The result is an arbitrary situation where in some cases, the game will stop because the lino puts his flag up immediately; and in other cases where the game will continue because the lino has been to slow to raise his flag for whatever reason and the ball proceeds to touch the defender, making the attacker onside.

Correct he's not offside-anyone who doesn't understand this go and read the laws of the game. Lovren makes an attempt to play the ball and does play the ball therefore Kane is not offside as the ball has been played by a defender. Where Kane was standing when Ali plays the ball becomes completely irrelevant in this situation as Kane didn't not become involved until after Lovren's touch. He is 100% onside there is no scope for argument or debate is as straightforward as a ball crossing a line . If Lovren doesn't attempt to play the ball he is however, off side ,but that's not what happened.

So by going with that, if a ball is played over the top and a defender and striker are running onto it..lets say the strikers offside when it starts and the defender stretches and touches it trying to cut out the ball, resulting in the ball falling nicely for the striker he wouldn't be offside? Ok. Rules have changed since I played so apologise for not knowing.

Not the point pal. Perfectly understand the laws of the game; rather am suggesting that they are illogical. In many cases, the lino will raise his the flag as soon as the ball is played, especially if it is in direction of the active player. As such, the game is blown dead and the defending player is not in a position to touch the ball ot impact play.

 

The result is an arbitrary situation where in some cases, the game will stop because the lino puts his flag up immediately; and in other cases where the game will continue because the lino has been to slow to raise his flag for whatever reason and the ball proceeds to touch the defender, making the attacker onside.

Thanks Pal. Good to know you are an expert , even though I was replying to Alpine's query and trying to add some clarification for those in doubt ( not you obviously). Brilliant idea to have a debate on the illogical laws of the game and the ramifications when the assistant referee prematurely and incorrectly raise their flags and the consequences there of, the scope is limitless. I'll sit it out but you carry on.

So by going with that, if a ball is played over the top and a defender and striker are running onto it..lets say the strikers offside when it starts and the defender stretches and touches it trying to cut out the ball, resulting in the ball falling nicely for the striker he wouldn't be offside? Ok. Rules have changed since I played so apologise for not knowing.

Basically yes-however the interpretation relies on whether the defender has deliberately attempted to play the ball or its deflected off him. The former he's onside the latter he's off, I cant remember the exact wording but that's basically the gist of it. In this case Lovren definitely attempted to play the ball, he made a mess of it but that doesn't matter. ie if he'd let it go Kane , would have been off. Obviously Lovren doesn't know he's off so has to play it, you could therefore say Kane's got an advantage from being off side therefore he should be flagged but that doesn't matter under the current law as soon as Lovren's swung his boot and connected Kane is onside.

So by going with that, if a ball is played over the top and a defender and striker are running onto it..lets say the strikers offside when it starts and the defender stretches and touches it trying to cut out the ball, resulting in the ball falling nicely for the striker he wouldn't be offside? Ok. Rules have changed since I played so apologise for not knowing.

That would seem to be one implication yes.

Basically yes-however the interpretation relies on whether the defender has deliberately attempted to play the ball or its deflected off him. The former he's onside the latter he's off, I cant remember the exact wording but that's basically the gist of it. In this case Lovren definitely attempted to play the ball, he made a mess of it but that doesn't matter. ie if he'd let it go Kane , would have been off. Obviously Lovren doesn't know he's off so has to play it, you could therefore say Kane's got an advantage from being off side therefore he should be flagged but that doesn't matter under the current law as soon as Lovren's swung his boot and connected Kane is onside.

Seems pretty harsh rule for the defenders as in a split second you see a striker making a run behind you there is no way really to know for sure if they are off. When was this rule brought in?

Keepers can still pick up back passes also?

That would seem to be one implication yes.

Would the striker then be deemed to be interfering with play / being active and would be flagged regardless of not touching the ball?

He's saying the law is silly, which it probably is. If your feet are level but your head happens to be tilted beyond the last defender then you are offside. That seems silly.

Anyway, I prefer the way offside used to be 50 years ago. Off side and it's an offence. Plain and simple.

It's pretty clear cut. Kane is not active until he attempts to become involved in the play. If Alli's pass had gone through to him, and he allowed to to run through for another Spurs player to get, he would not have been offside.

Kane is not offside, and as soon as Lovren plays the ball, it's a different phase (and Kane can't be offside is it was played by a Liverpool player).

Harsh on the defence, but we all want to see more goals, and the law is intended to favour attacking players.

Not really. Why concentrate on just the feet?

 

Anyway, I prefer the way offside used to be 50 years ago. Off side and it's an offence. Plain and simple.

Brilliant, so Kane could of been stood offside by the corner flag and Big Vics goal would be disallowed.

The first one was not offside because Lovren played the ball intentionally as opposed to it hitting him accidentally. Linos flag when the ball reaches the offside player but this season they’ve been told to hold off with the flag, unless it’s 100% certain. The Lino clearly must have seen lovren attempt to play the ball but was unsure whether he touched it or completely miss kicked it, therefore did the correct thing by keeping his flag down and then asking Moss. We’re going to see this week in week out when VAR comes in. I’m sure pundits and fans are going to wonder how Lino’s missed certain offsides, but they won’t have, they’re being told to keep their flags down. The only thing that was dodgy about the officials behaviour on that one was Moss asking the 4th official whether the tv showed anything. But that’s been going on unofficially for years ,it’s claimed and pretty much accepted that ZIdane was sent off in a World Cup final on the say so of the 4th official watching the reply.

The second one was a peno, but would have been given offside in the build up if VAR was in play. There is no benefit of doubt for offsides, no clear and obvious error policy, you’re either offside or onside and his foot was offside. If anything you can play the ball with is beyond the last defender you’re offside. Head, Chest, Foot, knee etc. Arm or hand would have been onside (unless it’s Watford).

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Seems pretty harsh rule for the defenders as in a split second you see a striker making a run behind you there is no way really to know for sure if they are off. When was this rule brought in?

 

Keepers can still pick up back passes also?

LOL -I don't know but relatively recently I think .I do a bit of youth coaching and refereeing ( qualified coach -not ref) and that's how I understand by my own reading of the rules .Also for volunteer refs Hants FA do evening classes and seminars for those that haven't got time or inclination to do full referee course .This scenario came up in one of our sessions and that's how we were briefed to deal with it, because that's the rules. It seems unfair and harsh and very difficult to get right, but ultimately the ref was correct yesterday ( according to my understanding and Hants FA's Referee Development Officer !).Happy to be told otherwise if someone knows better but I'm sure what I've said is correct.

I see the PGMOL have issued a statement about last night's refereeing.

You have to question whether they'd do the same about some questionable decisions affecting 'lil old Southampton

quite funny reading people saying VvD never touched lamela last night

lol

He's saying the law is silly, which it probably is. If your feet are level but your head happens to be tilted beyond the last defender then you are offside. That seems silly.

Such a rule change would make it even harder for the assistant ref. Much simpler to determine if just one part of the body is offside (which they still get wrong too often), than having to add the complication of also deciding (in a split second) if another part of the body may be onside.

I see the PGMOL have issued a statement about last night's refereeing.

 

You have to question whether they'd do the same about some questionable decisions affecting 'lil old Southampton

That really bugged me as well, there is no way it would get a mention if it was us involved.

Whilst watching Liverpool mess it up was hilarious it was also a bit irritating watching Spurs get decisions that Saints would probably never get at Anfield in similar circumstances.

I see the PGMOL have issued a statement about last night's refereeing.

 

You have to question whether they'd do the same about some questionable decisions affecting 'lil old Southampton

To be fair they are only questioning his attempt to discuss the offside with the 4th official not the actual decision.

quite amusing

Spiderman getting a hammering from Everton fans o talk sport this evening. One saying he's the worst player to pull on an Everton shirt (assuming attitude wise)

Have they got a song for Martina?

Lallana getting sent off for Liverpool U23s

 

Lallana getting sent off for Liverpool U23s

****

Jesus christ, he looks like such an idiot these days. Give it 12 months and I can see him on loan at a Stoke or WHU.

 

Lallana getting sent off for Liverpool U23s

Hard man

do under 23s red cards for violent conduct carry three match bans? and do they count for PL proper? Just wondering if he is trying to make sure he can't play at SMS next weekend....

Not the point pal. Perfectly understand the laws of the game; rather am suggesting that they are illogical. In many cases, the lino will raise his the flag as soon as the ball is played, especially if it is in direction of the active player. As such, the game is blown dead and the defending player is not in a position to touch the ball ot impact play.

 

The result is an arbitrary situation where in some cases, the game will stop because the lino puts his flag up immediately; and in other cases where the game will continue because the lino has been to slow to raise his flag for whatever reason and the ball proceeds to touch the defender, making the attacker onside.

Am I right in saying that, had Lovren controlled the ball, and Kane had then tackled him, this would have been flagged? I’ve seen numerous occasions where a player was in an offside position when the ball was played, attempted to tackle the defender and been flagged offside.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Jesus christ, he looks like such an idiot these days. Give it 12 months and I can see him on loan at a Stoke or WHU.

Jesus christ, he looks like such an idiot these days. Give it 12 months and I can see him on loan at a Stoke or WHU.

It was bizarre and pathetic.

The victims will defend him of course. But if he did that playing for my club I would be pretty unimpressed, and would hope he'd be nowhere near the first team for a few weeks more.

Absolute bellend. Honestly. What a little turd.

Lollana.

On the offside rule there was one in our game I wasn't certain about. WBA had a corner which was cleared. Ball played back in, thier striker stood a few yards behind Bertrand who headed it out for a corner. Their player made no attempt at all to play the ball.

I believe he headed it because he knew a player was behind him but was unsure as to whether he was offside, however his position in the penalty area forced Bertrand to play the ball.

End result they get a corner. Should it have been flagged for offside?

Indeed. Looks to have put on a bit of weight too. Perhaps TheVMAN could reassure us all is ok...

Something about karma coming back to bite him on the arse or something like that...

Why does he look like Jimmy Bullard now?

Why does he look like Jimmy Bullard now?

Because he's such a p*ssy he's decided he wants to look like a c*ck

Lollana.

 

On the offside rule there was one in our game I wasn't certain about. WBA had a corner which was cleared. Ball played back in, thier striker stood a few yards behind Bertrand who headed it out for a corner. Their player made no attempt at all to play the ball.

 

I believe he headed it because he knew a player was behind him but was unsure as to whether he was offside, however his position in the penalty area forced Bertrand to play the ball.

 

End result they get a corner. Should it have been flagged for offside?

I believe the rule states he isn't offside unless he makes an attempt to play the ball. It is a ridiculous rule, made even more so by the fact that once the defender plays the ball they are no longer offside (though I'm not sure where the line is between deflection & deliberate pass).

Stupid rule, but it is the rule nonetheless. I remember a similar debate in an Arsenal-Spurs game 2 seasons ago, when Wimmer scored an own goal despite Arsenal players being stood offside waiting for the ball. Puts defenders in an impossible position.

****

WTF?! It wasn't even a challenge worth getting upset about, barely even a foul. Bizzare.