A&H

Liverpool V Spurs

cwyeary said:
Kane barely moves between the ball being passed by his teammate and the ball being played by Lovren. He in no way made an obvious action that impacted Lovren's ability to play the ball. How can you say this clearly impacted Lovren? Can you read his mind? Do you know for certain that if Kane was to simply vanish that he wouldn't have misplayed the ball? I for one am thrilled that the offside law doesn't require me to read the mind of the defender. Lovren deliberately played the ball (very poorly...) and Kane did not interfere with his ability to do so.
Click to expand...
I was making the point that Kane made an obvious action to move into an offside position, between Lovren and the goal... ...and that has obviously impacted Lovren as he has to play the ball...
 
The Referee Store
one said:
I think you made my response much easier in your next post :). Surly the definition was save was not for that context with so many players between the goal and the defender the the kick was not a shot on goal. Lets say (in an extreme case) the opposing goal keeper punts the ball form his own PA towards goal and it is deliberately played at by striker on the PA line 85 yards out. That can't be a save.
I am sure the AR did not consider that a save (IFAB defined save after this game was played) but even if it was a save, my point still stands with a more accurate example where the action is intended but contact with the ball can only be classified as a deflection.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Ball is hit towards goal or close to the goal, defender in the box deliberately plays the ball, it's a save as defined in the LotG. How far does the defender have to be from the goal before it's not a save? We can debate that. But in the box... it doesn't matter how many players are behind you or between you and the goal... the laws don't mention that AFAIK.
 
santa sangria said:
I was making the point that Kane made an obvious action to move into an offside position, between Lovren and the goal... ...and that has obviously impacted Lovren as he has to play the ball...
Click to expand...
Thats a convolution.
See my earlier post showing where the lotg deems this not offside.
I understand your logic, and yes it does make sense, but its not correct in law as per the practical guidelines.
 
santa sangria said:
I was making the point that Kane made an obvious action to move into an offside position, between Lovren and the goal... ...and that has obviously impacted Lovren as he has to play the ball...
Click to expand...

But did he ...

make an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

No he didn't. He may well have forced Lovren into playing the ball, and I would personally say that the laws should be rewritten to say that this should be an offside offence, but as it stands they don't say that. What he absolutely didn't do was affect Lovren's ability to play the ball.
 
RustyRef said:
But did he ...

make an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

No he didn't. He may well have forced Lovren into playing the ball, and I would personally say that the laws should be rewritten to say that this should be an offside offence, but as it stands they don't say that. What he absolutely didn't do was affect Lovren's ability to play the ball.
Click to expand...

"He may well have forced Lovren into playing the ball"

How can a referee know this? How can this standard be applied consistently? Fans/refs/players/pundits can dislike the current interpretations, but at least they force the referee/AR to judge offside based on the players physical actions and not try to judge what they were thinking.
 
Last edited:
RustyRef said:
But did he ...

make an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

No he didn't. He may well have forced Lovren into playing the ball, and I would personally say that the laws should be rewritten to say that this should be an offside offence, but as it stands they don't say that. What he absolutely didn't do was affect Lovren's ability to play the ball.
Click to expand...

I'm with @RustyRef on this one! Sorry @santa sangria ;)
 
Nalbi said:
I'm with @RustyRef on this one! Sorry @santa sangria ;)
Click to expand...
Me too... I understand the LotG and guidance as it is. I am trying to highlight that it is not satisfactory as it stands. LotG on offside is incomplete. Deflection is not explained. And the line about "obvious action" should state about the importance of the timing of said action but even then, it is vague. There's is far too much missing. I still think it's far too open.

I just looked at the clip again
When the ball is played by the attacker, Kane is moving, he is a yard from Lovren, while the ball is in motion and muffed, Kane shuffles his feet.
I'll pedantically say again I think Kane's motion is distracting, obvious to Lovren, and Lovren has to play the ball... does it affect his ability to play the ball... would it have been easier to play the ball if Kane hadn't been there?
 
cwyeary said:
"He may well have forced Lovren into playing the ball"

How can a referee know this? How can this standard be applied consistently? Fans/refs/players/pundits can dislike the current interpretations, but at least they force the referee/AR to judge offside based on the players physical actions and not try to judge what they were thinking.
Click to expand...

That was just my words, he probably did force Lovren into playing the ball, but under the current laws that isn't even a consideration that the referee can make.

All you can ask is did Kane ...

make an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

If the answer is no, and for me it definitely was no, you have to view it as onside.
 
"He may well have forced ...", "he probably forced ..."... 'may' and 'probably' don't satisfy the law which requires 'clearly' impacts, so for me that bit is solved. The only question for me is if Lovren's touch is deliberate play or deflection? And the law does not answer this so its open to a wide range of interpretation.

One question I would ask is why would a player who plays at the highest possible level of the game and is paid more money I can make in my lifetime for his skills has missed the ball so badly? Would the answer to that question justify the touch being a deflection? Still not convinced either way.
 
Ciley Myrus said:
The reason this is a drama, is Lovern not being able to kick a ball.
Click to expand...
I'm afraid you missed my point altogether.
So you are telling me Liverpool FC paid £20mil for a guy who is unable to kick a ball?

Forget about the fact that he plays for his national team.
 
one said:
I'm afraid you missed my point altogether.
So you are telling me Liverpool FC paid £20mil for a guy who is unable to kick a ball?

Forget about the fact that he plays for his national team.
Click to expand...



The Kane is he is he or not only comes into play when Lovern makes a mess of it
Clearly he can kick a ball. Thats not in doubt.whats also not in doubt is Kane had no part in Lovern being unable to, on this occasion, make reasonable contact with a slow ball that was rolling towards his foot. Lovern boots that clear, we have no next incident to talk of
Lovern fresh air bar a shoe lace skiffs that ball, we now have phase 2
Which is no doing of Kanes, therefore we cant, or should not, penalise him
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top