A&H

Liverpool V Spurs

Agreed, I think it is clear and in black and white and at this point there is just nitpicking rather than making a genuine case. (Sorry lads! :p)
 
The Referee Store
This one needs its own thread but I'm not doing it...
I think there's guidance on this - if the kick is deliberate and intended for a teammate other than the GK, but the GK picks it up instead, that's an offence. So it's a deliberate kick of the ball to anywhere that the GK then touches.

Put it this way: if Kane wasn't there, and Lovren's miskick went to the GK, you wouldn't penalise the GK for picking it up. So obviously we do read "deliberately" in different ways for exactly the same action.
@bloovee Correct, because the offence in the case of the goalkeeper is touching the ball, not the kick itself.

Conversely, with the offside, it is not what the player in an offside position is doing, but the kick itself.

They are two different examples that cannot be compared at all.
Not so. The law is pretty clear cut here. It has to be a deliberate kick to the keeper. Anything other than that the keeper is able to use his hands.

Have watched this thread but haven't contributed yet..

There is so much going on. I think ultimately both penalty decisions are correct. The law issues guidance around interfering with opponent and this exact scenario is covered I believe meaning Kane is on.
The second penalty is just that, its a pen all day. I called it in real time as it looked clumsy and havent changed my mind since.

There are some serious question marks around how the decisions were reached. And some not best practise from the AR particularly for those at grassroots. Remember always follow the refs pre match instructions.

And as for the fist pumping, save that for the changing rooms once you've confirmed you're right.
 
Can we keep this on topic please, as opposed to going off about intentionally passing the ball to the keeper, which is a totally different thing.

Also I've seen posts referring to old documents and diagrams, discard those as only the current laws of the game can be referenced. If you post a supposed official document please state the source, preferably a dates source, otherwise you are potentially just confusing fellow referees.

The only possible question is whether Lovren deliberately played the ball, and for me, given he pulled his leg back and swung (badly) at it there can only be one outcome.
 
That page is from 2014, it's very out of date (there is a disclaimer on the front page warning against this).
If you check their vimeo page (https://vimeo.com/offsideexplained/videos) they have the Lovren/Kane video uploaded and listed as one of their examples for not being offside.
I am aware of the date. However while there has been changes (clarifications) on law 11, there has been nothing since 2014 regarding the definition of "deliberate play" which makes the content of that page (not the entire site) very relevant.
In fact there has been no official clarification as far as know from ifab regarding what a deliberate play means. And that seems to be the problem and the cause of the lengthy debate here.


@RustyRef While I believe a back pass is different to what happened in the game of the topic of this thread, comparing it to the Lovren incident of "deliberate play" to get a better understanding of what "deliberate play" means is not entirely off topic I guess :)
 
Last edited:
So, to summerise, Jon Moss makes an absolute Horlicks of a couple of KMI decisions in eventually getting them both correct.......maybe! :confused:
That just about sums it up for me. Wrong process and rational leading to right decision. Which may be all good for this game but doing that in the long run you end up making wrong decisions more often than not.
 

Without wishing to derail the discussion much further - one requires solely a deliberate play, the other requires a deliberate play with the added caveat of to the keeper. Happy to continue this by PM if you like
 
Without wishing to derail the discussion much further - one requires solely a deliberate play, the other requires a deliberate play with the added caveat of to the keeper. Happy to continue this by PM if you like

And without wishing to muddy the waters further - how do you distinguish a deliberate pass to the keeper? It could be an unspoken rule in a team that they pass to a defender in their area, who the leaves the ball, and the keeper runs over to collect.

I generally find, if the keeper/defence is benefiting from picking up the back pass and it's a deliberate action in the goalkeepers vincity it's generally called as an illegal back pass.
 
@NorthLondonRef Yeah I agree, the law needs clarification but being pedantic in your situation, it would still be their intention to pass to the keeper - the fact that a defender is there who dummies the ball or whatever doesn't change the fact that their intention is to pass to the keeper. But yes, I agree - it is unclear and needs clarification. The law as it stands would not penalise the second situation you describe, but I think its inference is that we very much should penalise it. Either way, could it be classified as USB I wonder?
 
I agree and have always applied it as NLR suggests. I think a more a sensible interpretation of the law is that a deliberate pass that ends up being touched by the keeper's hands is punishable. This allows us to focus on empirical results rather than thorny questions of intent. It needn't even be reworded. I think the tendency to cite intent is a way of minimising game-changing decisions and corresponds with the wider benefit of the doubt keepers receive in their penalty area.
 
Last edited:
I agree and have always applied it as NLR suggests. I think a more a sensible interpretation of the law is that a deliberate kick that ends up being touched by the keeper's hands is punishable. This allows us to focus on empirical results rather than thorny questions of intent. It needn't even be reworded. I think the tendency to cite intent is a way of minimising game-changing decisions and corresponds with the wider benefit of the doubt keepers receive in their penalty area.
You may well be right that enforcing the law in this way would be simpler and more straightforward (though the level of debate about the deliberateness of Lovren's kick suggests otherwise!). However this is absolutely not the intent of the law as it is currently written ... it was brought in solely to stop GKs picking up balls deliberately kicked to them by their team. Expanding it to any deliberately kicked ball at all would be at odds with this ...
 
I agree and have always applied it as NLR suggests. I think a more a sensible interpretation of the law is that a deliberate kick that ends up being touched by the keeper's hands is punishable. This allows us to focus on empirical results rather than thorny questions of intent. It needn't even be reworded. I think the tendency to cite intent is a way of minimising game-changing decisions and corresponds with the wider benefit of the doubt keepers receive in their penalty area.
No! That's just wrong.......you're second guessing that a team have a set ploy to pass back to the keeper.......you may suspect it but you cannot 'know' it.
Simply wrong in law.
 
No! That's just wrong.......you're second guessing that a team have a set ploy to pass back to the keeper.......you may suspect it but you cannot 'know' it.
Simply wrong in law.

I agree with Minty on this one, however in such a hypothetical situation, I would personally have a word with the captain and keeper after the 2nd or 3rd incident in the game. Sth along the lines of "gents, once or twice could be a coincidence but this is bordering on you attempting to circumvent the law and so I've given you a final warning: Any further similar tricks will be punished by an IFK and YC for the defender who passes the ball."
 
Can i apologise to all employers and partners out there who treasure you all so dearly for the dereliction of attention your referee partner has afforded you this week on this thread.....regards SF :angel::angel::angel:
 
Obviously I appreciate the feedback of other referees, and always try to react to the nuances within law. Interestingly, the USSF has been more in line with my 'result-based' interpretation since at least 2011. I'll leave it there, as I think this thread has had enough tangents!
 

Attachments

  • wp_ss_20180207_0001.png
    wp_ss_20180207_0001.png
    86.5 KB · Views: 13
The USSF were given a slap on the wrist about making up their own interpretations and I believe they subsequently withdraw that advice.
 
Come to think of it if both the incidents under dicussion here (offside and pen) been decided the other way it would have created just as much cortraversy and discussion. Some situation are just not black and white. You just have to got with the decision of the referee on the day.
 
Come to think of it if both the incidents under dicussion here (offside and pen) been decided the other way it would have created just as much cortraversy and discussion. Some situation are just not black and white. You just have to got with the decision of the referee on the day.

Not so sure, if the flag had been shown for Kane think most people would have accepted it. Lamela one probably, however in both cases I think the ref got it wrong (whether he got the decisions right or not) the process and thinking behind it were appalling and only managed to get it right through guess work and we aren't suppose to guess.
 
Surely the purpose of the Law is not to "cancel out existing offside situations", but to ensure a player cannot be offside when receiving the ball from an opponent deliberate playing the ball. Otherwise defenders would be able to catch opponents offside rather easily. (Just pass the ball to them!)
But Harry Kane was in an offside position, and obviously seeking to gain an advantage, at the instant the ball was played through to him by a colleague. Therefore, offside and no penalty.
Whether or not Lovren played the ball only becomes relevant if:
a) Kane was onside when the original pass was made, and
b) Kane was in an offside position at the instant Lovren played the ball.
 
Back
Top