A&H

RMA vs LIV

Just seen another replay, I can see he goes to put his right foot in to tackle before it, misses it, then it bounces off his left knee, I suppose that touch was not deliberate which may explain it .. even though he no doubt intended to play it just not with his left knee
 
The Referee Store
Only thing I can of was that the slide which was clearly a deliberate action was started by Fabinho before the Real Madrid player touched it.
 
Anubis said:
The one thing I was sure of was his offside position
Click to expand...
Not according to Twitter, who are pointing out that he’s onside because there was a defender behind him 🙄

Walton has tried clearing it up saying it’s actually “quite easy” but I disagree. Think ref should have been sent over to decide for himself
 
es1 said:
Does that reset offside though? They're attempted blocks/saves?
Click to expand...
It's the Konate touch that needs to be scrutinsed.
Is that a save? Was the ball going into or close to the goal? Or is that a deliberate play, thus resetting offside?
 
  • Like
Reactions: es1
If a player slide tackling a player is not deemed playing the ball then what is?

He tackled him and it went onto his own player. So it should be a goal.

Change it up a little.... Its a through ball and Konate slide to try and intercept it, and played it into the attacker it's a goal. There is no difference.
 
For me after the last touch by a Real Madrid player, Konaté makes a deliberate play on the ball. I don't see that as meeting the definition of a save (and it's not a rebound/deflection either) so there's no offside offence as far as I'm concerned.
 
es1 said:
I'm genuinely unsure what the right answer is here, either can be justified

Need an official explanation
Click to expand...
Agree with this, I’m unsure too. Maybe the backpass law is relevant as a precedent for a tackle not being a deliberate act - but of course he clearly is onside if Valverde doesn’t touch the ball.
 
David F said:
Agree with this, I’m unsure too. Maybe the backpass law is relevant as a precedent for a tackle not being a deliberate act - but of course he clearly is onside if Valverde doesn’t touch the ball.
Click to expand...

Thats one thing to throw into the mix
Had the gk handled that in isolation, , that would have been awarded as idfk
Which takes us to determining that the defenders actions were a deliberste play
 
With the current interpretation of the law, inclined to think it wouldn’t have been given as a backpass - so potentially a reason to call it offside. Like I said though, genuinely not sure.

Interesting implication of this is that an attacker can play the ball backwards, then have it blocked/tackled forwards into the path of a striker, who would then be given offside.
 
David F said:
With the current interpretation of the law, inclined to think it wouldn’t have been given as a backpass - so potentially a reason to call it offside. Like I said though, genuinely not sure.

Interesting implication of this is that an attacker can play the ball backwards, then have it blocked/tackled forwards into the path of a striker, who would then be given offside.
Click to expand...

Its a clear " backpass"

so clear even the gk knew it thus the melee that follows
 
socal lurker said:
No, no, no, a thousand times NO!!! That’s not how VAR works. The VAR only recommends the R review if the VAR concludes the re was a clear and obvious error.
Click to expand...
And I believed there was a clear and obvious error therefore the ref should have been sent over to the monitor. Let’s calm down with bolding things lmao
 
Duh. I know exactly what you wrote. And it isn’t remotely the same thing as saying it was a C&O error, which is why I wrote what I did. Totally done with this.
 
socal lurker said:
Duh. I know exactly what you wrote. And it isn’t remotely the same thing as saying it was a C&O error, which is why I wrote what I did. Totally done with this.
Click to expand...
If I’m suggesting the ref needs to look at the monitor surely that means I believe it’s a C and O error. Won’t devolve this any further into an argument, just wasn’t sure your post was neccesary as there wasn’t much other way to interpret my post in my opinion
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top