Look at his passing stats. Ball winning stats too perhaps. Key passes might be an interesting one.
But thatâs just subjective isnât it? To me it is, and otherwise it would just incentivise defensive players to kick it around the back all the time and not actually play?
Yeah, I remember that clearly. Total farce. Then to top it all off, PGMOL connive to write a response to bend things as much as possible to try to keep their hands clean.
They are experts in not writing transparently about the flow of the decision making, but to give them some sort of plausible deniability.
Anway, the audio was clear:
Ed Smart, assistant referee: âAll I need to know is, did Lovren touch the ball?â
Jonathan Moss: âI donât know.â
Smart: âIf he has, itâs a deliberate action and, therefore, itâs a penalty. If he has not, it is offside.â
Moss: âI have no idea whether Lovren touched the ball to be honest with you. Martin, have you got anything from TV? Iâm giving the penalty.â
1 Like
This is why the rule was changed. Its an example of the footballing public not liking the situation like the Kane-Lovren one (ignoring Mossâs terrible handling of it) and the authorities listening and refining the rule to be more in line with everyoneâs expectations. But even now, it still creates controversy and confusion. Remember the France Tunisia game in the world cup where Griezemannâs injury time equalizer was ruled out. He was in an offside position when a ball was played into the box. Other french players were better positioned to go for it so he just stepped back, out of the way. The tunisian defender won a contested header at the back post against a different french player (i.e. he was forced to defend the cross for reasons other than Griezemann being there) and his header dropped down perfectly for Grizemann to volley home. It was given offside. It was a slightly different application fof the rule, because it wasnt griezemannâs presence in an offside position that forced the defender to try to intervene, but it still shows that simply defending a situation is not enough to play an offside player on.
1 Like
Yeah it was Watford.
There wasnât much you could do in that though as there was no way you could say Firmino was really effecting play and he only would if the ball had got past the Watford guy.
This place would have exploded even though I think we won 5-0. I would have stuck with the original rule on touching, I think the change has also allowed for some unintentional hand balls off the arm to stand mind.
Which to me is a bollocks rule unless it allows the goal scorer to obviously shift position.
1 Like
OmG Dale give it a fucking rest.
The officials are all shit, we get it.
We also get that they can make countless wrong decisions / fuck ups without review or consequence and we have to continue putting up with all their shittyness. Yes we get it.
Btw where he pauses it on 0:07 and draws the line (very good line btw) from that angle itâs still inconclusive whether any part of Trentâs body is over that line or not.
Although not the clearest, (close) offside calls can only be judged by these kind of angles.
Is Doak pronounced as oak tree?
That sounds about right.
1 Like
1 Like
Fixture details for Liverpoolâs Emirates FA Cup third-round replay with Wolverhampton Wanderers have been confirmed.
The match at Molineux will be played at 7.45pm GMT on Tuesday January 17.
BBC One will broadcast the contest live in the UK.
1 Like
Maybe Wolves should give it a rest
1 Like
Stefan Bajcetic missed Liverpoolâs game against Wolves on the weekend through injury, but it isnât thought to be long-term. [@CaoimheSport]
Canât see us winning the replay regardless and Brighton will beat them in the next round.
1 Like
Sadly I agree.
1 Like
I was very confident that it was a goal due to the Rodri issue the other season against Villa and the Lovren/Kane incident. However, I was not aware of the rule change that @Limiescouse advised until I read your post.
I disagree with your view that the goal should have been ruled offside, because in my opinion the defender meant to head the ball, he just got it completely wrong.
I think what a lot of us agree on, is that the defender without the assurance that Salah was offside, tried to clear the ball. If he avoided the header and Salah scored and determined to be onside he would have been criticised. The pundits would be âdeal with it, ask questions laterâ and this is where I feel the law is wrong.
I personally believe the goal should have been disallowed. Salah was offside when the ball was played and benefited from his advanced positioning.
The rule should be less subjective. Maybe stating that the ball played by the defender was with intent. So, in this scenario, the defender controlled the ball where Salah was offside and then played it back to the Keeper only for Salah to intercept and score.
Or, with growing popularity back to the, if a player is offside, its offside. Maybe defined by an area.
There used to be a joke/comment (probably deemed offensive today) about men trying to explain the offside rule to women using condiments. For a sport that in the past was referred to as a simple game, it is madness that in an attempt to make the game fairer, the football authorities have made it so confusing.
1 Like
My initial view was the defender played Mo onside but apparently thatâs not how it works anymore. I think if itâs the intention of the defender to do what he did that it can stand. Otherwise itâs off. God knows how anyone is meant to judge whether a defender meant to play the ball in the way he did.
Iâm sure @Limiescouse can clarify.
1 Like
Most of us would have grown up understanding to be played onside by a defender he had to legit pass you the ball. It couldnât just come off him. I dont think there was ever much concern over refsâ ability to tell the difference back thenâŚalbeit defenders actually passing from the back was much more rare.
These more seemingly unfair interpretations that make life hell for defenders are relatively new. None of them have worked and so the interpretation has been shifted back to something far closer that most of us would have grown up with and while there are always edge cases that can produce some weird outcomes I dont think its particularly difficult to tell the difference between a defender defending vs trying to do something constructive.
Wrapped up in all of this is the thing that Webb has said heâd like to address, and that is the lack of communication. The ref has made a seemingly bad decision, but it would be nice to least be able to hear him out, even if only to explain why he fucked it up. As a player, the ref admitting to me he probably got something wrong but explaining why he did what he did was always easier to deal with than a ref who just stonewalled you and refused to even consider that he got something wrong
3 Likes
The confusion is how the defender played Mo onside. In my opinion he didnât because Mo was standing in a position where the basic law of offside (i think) states that two defending players should be between the attacker and the goal line when the ball is played. again I used to interpret this as the ball being played forward until recently
I am a defender (or at least used to be). I am going to attempt that headed clearance, try and clear the ball Lovren sliced all day long because I do not know if the attacker is offside and because it is natural instinctive.
To be penalised for an honest attempt to defend based on the fact the attacking player has not been deemed to be offside is very unfair.
On a side note, another issue of mine is when a defender goes to clear a ball and as they do so, a player gets their body in the way, meaning you kick them. It is a guaranteed foul, yet the defender has not intentionally kicked them and the attacker does not have control of the ball.
LOL
in game chat;
Lynch â no way referee the ball is fucking there to be wonâ
after the game chat;
Lynch â dya see me line that prick right up?..â