With regard to a player standing in an offside position and not playing the ball, only to then come alive when someone else touches it and the action resumes, I think Ruud van Nistelrooy was the first striker I really noticed who exploited that one. I hated it at the time, and I wanted the old rule to be applied, but that was when the game started having conversations about active and inactive, and so on.
Bobby jumped to head the ball. It went over his head. It could easily have been called for offside but it wasnāt. Ox controlled it, and it wouldnāt come down nicely for him, so the hit he got - low and hard, was very good in the circumstance. I will take it, and enjoy the Palace tears.
As for the penalty, obviously there was a collision and Jota won the penalty. How much of the collision was down to the goalie coming into the player, or the player going into the space to make the most of the coming contact, is an issue for debate. Loads of penalties are given, week in week out, where the goalie makes contact and the attacker makes the most of the contact.
It is only being discussed by Lineker and co because their brains canāt handle seeing Liverpool being refereed, for once, to the same standard as everyone else.
Again, a bit harsh on Palace and I will take it, and enjoy their tears.
Iām making a point about the team mindset, not about whoās fault it is. Matip stops, then Virgil stops. The first thought is to play offside even though theyāve got no idea whatās happening on the other side of the pitch. Itās too easy to get in behind us. Sometimes retreating is a better option, particularly when youāre defending a lead.
As soon as the Palace goalkeeper put a hand on Jotaās stomach, it was a rightful penalty.
It is an identical action of an outfield player putting a boot into the same regionā¦!!
Itās important to remember Iāve never claimed some all-encompassing conspiracy against us. Friend and Pawson(?) arenāt among that group who I consider corrupt when they referee us although Iāve seen both of them have shockers to our detriment in the past.
Our 2nd could have been disallowed and under the rules of the game we could have no argument. The penalty was a penalty imo, if a goalkeeper comes off his line and knocks an attacker off his feet then he can have no complaints. Soft? Maybe, but Iāve seen plenty of softer ones given against us with little hysteria in the media.
Palaceās goal was a joke imo. VVD clearly tries to play Edouard off-side and succeeds in doing so but Edouard is then allowed to carry on his run and score a simple tap-in. It was all the same phase of play as Edouard simply carries on his run and gains a massive advantage by being yards ahead of the defence. His run clearly influences how VVD defended so nobody can claim he wasnāt active. Itās a massive grey area and if Oxās goal was disallowed then in a fair world so would Edouardās.
Iāll end by saying had Tierney, Kavanagh or Taylor been involved Iāve no confidence the result would have been the same.
Definitely a penā¦ any doubters still out there then picture thisā¦
If Jota was standing on the penalty spot with his back to goal and the ball was 12" off the groundā¦ then the goalkeeper comes rushing out and pushes him down to the groundā¦ we cry penalty all day longā¦ Personally canāt see the difference between the scenario and actual happening apart from position in the 18yd boxā¦
The only thing I am in no doubt about is Friend and Pawson have ensured is that we will not get another penalty nor VAR decision from now until the end of the season.
Blockquote The big difference though is what the offside law states. If a player attempts to play the ball, he is offending. If he doesnāt, he isnāt. The very first line of Law 11 states It is not an offence to be in an offside position. It may distract your opponent but that in itself is not an offence. > Blockquote
I am not sure if I have succeeded in quoting you. I understand the point you raise in regards to the laws of football but what I am trying to say is that the current law is still open to interpretation and by that i mean human judgement. One official may see it differently to another, how about when a player makes a forward run and the ball gets played with intent to them they initially make a run then realise they are offside and stop their run to let another attacker take possession of the ball. They could still be considered to have played the ball - when I say this I refer to realistic situations. Who is to say that Firmino upon jumping for the ball/header realised he was offside and left the ball for a colleague who was potentially onside, in this case Ox?
Im not trying to dismiss the point you have raised, because as you stated, it is the Laws of the game, but in my opinion it is still open to interpretation by the people refereeing.
Another example of this is that as you refer to In your quote of the laws, it states that it is not an offence to be in an offside position. It may distract your opponent but that in itself is not an offence. Again, very open to interpretation, going by the language used it would suggest to me that it is perfectly fine for a player to walk around in front of the keeper as long as they dont attempt to play the ball. It may distract the keeper but hey, they are the rules.
Look, I know I am being very flippant and the laws you quoted are most likely covered under a different section/law. I am not saying i am correct in my opinion, far from it. I am saying that In an era of advanced technology, that does work when there are set boundaries ie the offside lines, it is a shame the Law is still open to opinion. Either they use the technology given to them to insert set definitive parameters where they can, if not just scrap it.
