Non AFCB - Spurs penalty

SlowDownDerek

SlowDownDerek

UTC Legend
Maybe I'm looking a in too much of an old school way but I simply cannot see how Kane isn't offside for the first penalty yesterday - that he missed.

The ball is played to him and he's offside. The ref and lino and most pundits say it was right not to be flagged because Lovren deliberately made a play for the ball but only managed to glance it - this apparently means Kane can't be offside..

Surely he's already offside at that point. He's moved into a position to play the ball, which has affected his opponent. We know he intends to play the ball - because he does. We also know it impacts on his opponent because Lovren feels he has to play the ball.

Clear offside surely. I don't understand any justification of it.

 
I agree. Kane is offside the moment the Spurs player threads the ball forward. The fact it clips Lovren doesn’t then make Kane onside.




 
From what I understand its down to Lovren's intent to play the ball.

Had Spurs shot and it deflected off Lovren towards Kane then that is offside all day long. The difference here is that Lovren has attempted to play the ball and made a mess of it. As its still a delibrate touch from Lovren then its a new phase of play and Kane is offside.

Personally I agree with SDD that Lovren is only playing the ball due to Kane being offside. However, following this debate on Twitter, apparently this has been the offside rule since 1994 so its not a new interpretation of the law.
 
Tinpot Club - 5/2/2018 11:12

apparently this has been the offside rule since 1994 so its not a new interpretation of the law.
Click to expand...

I'll just get confirmation from the missus on that :hihi:
 
red_house - 5/2/2018 11:16

Tinpot Club - 5/2/2018 11:12

apparently this has been the offside rule since 1994 so its not a new interpretation of the law.
Click to expand...

I'll just get confirmation from the missus on that :hihi:
Click to expand...

I'll ask my dog. He's just said 'woof' so it must have been offside. No-one seems to be clear about it any more.
 
Tinpot Club - 5/2/2018 11:12

From what I understand its down to Lovren's intent to play the ball.

Had Spurs shot and it deflected off Lovren towards Kane then that is offside all day long. The difference here is that Lovren has attempted to play the ball and made a mess of it. As its still a delibrate touch from Lovren then its a new phase of play and Kane is offside.
Click to expand...

This is a good summary of what the experts said on the radio and they all seem convinced it's right. I still don't get why he's not offside in the first phase of play before Lovren touches it. He's trying to get on the end of the pass and he's clearly had an impact on his opponent.

Either way it all seems like a loophole justification of it being onside from the officials. There's no way that it is in the spirit of the law that he's onside and it can't be right that whether Lovren manages to get a tiny touch on the ball or not is the key determining factor as to whether he's offside or not.

 
Offside for me.

As Tinpot says. Lovren plays (or attempts to play) the ball because Kane was there.
Kane is only there because he is offside from the original ball played through a fraction of a second before. Therefore, offside.

Dermot Gallacher on SSN says that Lovren playing the ball means that it's a new phase of play and Kane is not offside, but I don't get that, as Lovren is influenced by an opponent who was offside.
 
If Lovren was a better player he would have dealt with it and we wouldn't be having this discussion. As the rules stand it's onside, but imo it should be changed.

It's extra confusing when you factor in the pass wasn't even intended for Kane, it was intended for Lamela and deflected to Lovren, who shanked it into Kane's path.
 
If only Liverpool had been beneficiaries of a confusing and incorrect offside judgment in the past where the officials didn't understand their own rules.

Oh..! :hihi:
 
Offside for me too, in an offside position when the ball was played forward, if the rule was changed in 1994 change it back and make it a lot simpler!
 
Salah was stood in an offside position for his first goal - but because the ball was passed back by a Tottenham player it was allowed to stand.

 
So Lovren should have left the ball in the hope that Kane, the best finisher in the PL, was offside rather than attempt to clear it ???

If thats the law its bloody crazy.
 
Should it be like the back-pass rule? It seems a free-kick is never given for a back pass, particularly if it's a kind of deflected touch. Could the same be done for offsides (not seen the incident in question so may be completely missing the point)?
 
Thought the lino was excellent, both for the offside and the second penalty.

The "law" for the offside is plain daft though.
 
First one was offside and no penalty.

Second one despite Lamela's dying swan impression was a penalty.
 
Kane not off side until he touches the ball , ball played on to him via defender so not off side,....that's my reading of it for what it's worth
 
Another interesting point about offside I saw at the weekend is this trend of not flagging offsides until the forward actually challenges for the ball.

It might have been the same game actually. A forward was clearly offside, but was only flagged after he made contact with the keeper and potentially causing injury to both. You can argue that Kane was morally offside or not but for me, it’s situations where the law could result in injury to players that needs looking at first.
 
It's always frustrating when players in the box pretend they've been attacked by an axe murderer - some of them are legitimate pens but it sure makes it hard to tell the difference between these, and out-and-out dives.
No clear solution though - even with video replay you often can't tell whether contact would have caused a stumble or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;