It’s about two or three penalties, judging by the offences committed.
1 Like
Well, it’s not cool to try and “win” an argument by what you and others do/have done in the past.
I have reffed/played to a high standard (take your pick) so this means I must be right and I know more than you.
The rules quoted are not definitive but subjective. Some ex professional refs arguing against.
I just find it interesting how the usual suspects are all in agreement that this decision that went against us was the correct decision.
Don’t blow your own trumpet. You guys don’t know what others have/haven’t done.
2 Likes
Didn’t realise Bella-Kotchap played for Arsenal, obviously not watching the same clip I did… 
Dermot thought it was a red. He also thought the offside call was correct as he didn’t intentionally play the ball. Not sure on that to be honest with you.
The decision is subjective.
Walton says goal, Gallagher says no goal because the decision is subjective.
@Limiescouse says the rule is not meant to be understood colloquially, but to be understood in referee language. Is this really the case? Refs have a language that football does not understand?
Elven possibly, or some higher order dialect mere mortals cannot decipher.
The subjective part is based upon a deliberate play. But not as we know deliberate. In the view of many, Konsta plays the ball. By doing so he plays Virgil on.
The subjective decision of Brooks, who was victim of a dangerously serious infringement by Klopp a couple of weeks ago is offside. How Brooks survived that dastardly act is testament to the man he is.
Totally unrelated of course.
Its actually funny how much time we put into these discussions.
2 Likes
Thats the job. Smart arse comment.
Because you are wrong anyway, it should be a penalty
A lot more is covered in scenarios where a player in an offside position is NOT played on by a touch from a defender than someone playing it off an unwitting defender. That is clear both in the language IFAB released in the summer and the sample videos they provided. The key piece of the clarification is that if the defender isnt in possession, they must have a reasonable possibility of passing to a teammate with the touch in question.
Admittedly some of the clarification videos IFAB used are confusing, but video 13 in this list is a good representation of why this goal would almost always be ruled out
https://www.theifab.com/news/law-11-offside-deliberate-play-guidelines-clarified/
As always, Dale Johnson gives a good description of it here
2 Likes
You got me. Well done.
1 Like
Perhaps but I’m not arguing whether it’s a pen or not, but rather the extent and for me it leans more on the soft side than clear. A clear pen is what we saw Ibou give away yesterday or Romero give away in the 4-3
You can say I’m wrong all you like, but this is based on you being convinced in your mind that you are right…it’s not going to change my mind.
I think it is one of the examples of version creep that are rife in the Laws right now. To me, that was a failed attempt to clear - which is one of the examples set out in the IFAB guidance (including heading it clear).
I find it sort of amusing how often those guidelines come out with the ‘not a law change’ disclaimer, and then we see significant changes to how the game is played - last major example I can recall was around this rule as well, with the delay in calling an attacking player offside until such time as they actually made a play that put them offside. Grumpy old man league defenders absolutely hate that one.
He doesn’t make it any clearer TBH. This is his quote:
“A block is a block. A genuine attempt to play the ball is to take the ball under control, clear it for a corner or to clear it up field.”
He was absolutely trying to clear it for a corner. I suppose it’s whether that was a genuine play or not. Had VVD not been there it would absolutely have been a corner. However, if he had cleared it cleanly it would have landed in the middle of the Kop.
To my mind, it was a genuine play. He could have hit it more cleanly but I think 9 times out of 10 that gets skied for a corner.
4 Likes
They definitely back themselves into a corner by doing year by year modifications which end up creating a frankenstein’s monster sort of rule with language that is indecipherable unless you have a historical understanding of the context of previous versions. The guidance ends up looking like its been written by 3 separate groups none of whom have spoken to anyone, probably because that’s pretty close to how its gets done. I mean, can anyone decipher the bolded bit of the clarification?
A “deliberate play” is when a player has control of the ball with the possibility of:
- passing the ball to a teammate;
- or gaining possession of the ball; - or clearing the ball (e.g. by kicking or heading it.)
How can a player be in control of the ball with the possibility of gaining possession of it? Was this specifically written for Emile Heskey?
However, with that said, I think this portion of the guidance is pretty clear. There is no way anyone can argue with a straight face that in that situation Konsa might have a reasonable expectation of being able to find a team mate with this touch. And that is what this portion of the rule focuses on.
2 Likes
This almost caused coffee to be spit out
3 Likes
Right, but that ignores the clearance aspect. As I said earlier, given what the rules have to say, I can’t be too irate at the call. But that clearance clause is very hard to connect to the rest of the language. Did Konsa have an expectation that he could kick the ball out of play? I think he did.
5 Likes
Pull that tinfoil hat well down on your head…
Liverpool on seven match winning run.
Final nail in CL coffin on Saturday.
And I know that the early season contributed to that, but we are on a mini roll…
Two major decisions go against us.
Mings should be sent off.
And before anyone quotes the Jota example, that discussion is done. I think we wll know Mings deserves red.
Cody’s goal is ruled offside, but despite the arguments on both sides…its a subjective decision that could reasonably been allowed as a goal. Former refs are at odds on the decision. We most likely won’t resolve it here.
Two major decisions that contribute to points dropped. And thats taking into account the fact that we played badly, as already pointed out.
Two points dropped and pressure off Utd.
The man chosen to officiate, to make season defining subjective decisions is the same man Klopp celebrated in front of two weeks ago.
Is there any miniscule chance that this act by Klopp colours Brook’s decision making in such an important match?
Why was he given the match? Is it not potentially incendiary?
Lets see how Klopp reacts now?
As I said, put the tinfoil on and muse over this scenario.
2 Likes
Maybe he shouldn’t.
Hear it time and time again on here but it’s going achieve bugger all.
Didn’t mean fuck all when we walked the league did it? Pretty much the exact same group of refs then as it is now. The difference? We weren’t inconsistent.
1 Like
That is hardly the point.
The only points in the league we dropped until Watford, came as a result of a referee fucking us over. The terrible reffing was there, but we made it irrelevant.
The point is we shouldn’t have to be better the good enough. You could make the same argument about City’s doping. Just win all your games and you don’t need to worry about them. Well sure, but you can’t do that every season, can you.
3 Likes
I’m a data analyst. Understanding biases then reducing them before delivering information is what I do.
3 Likes
Have you read the Tompkins analysis?
1 Like