santa sangria
RefChat Addict
TBH on first replay I thought this but the 2nd replay changed my mind.
Liverpool V Spurs
- Thread starter Sheffields Finest
- Start date
Lamela was on his way down before any contact, I thought he got kicked in the calf but the slight contact was way higher.
Superb match and terrific refereeing for me; let's give credit to the officials where it is due. This was the tipping point in terms of wilful ignorance; for the average fan down the pub, it's an interesting talking point and understandable. For certain paid pundits not to know Kane was played onside, and so shamelessly to assume the higher ground, was galling (even as an Arsenal fan).
That's correct, an email was recently circulated making it very clear that referees up to and including Level 2B, must follow the correct cautioning procedure.
EDIT - just realised Brian has said the exact same thing in a different thread! Point still stands however!
NorthLondonRef
Active Member
I knew straight away what that conversation meant between the AR and Moss and why the offside wasn't given. Because Lovren played the ball. There is an element of truth in that Lovren had to play it because Kane was behind him therefore affecting him because he can't risk the ball running through to Kane however I believe that isn't considered. A lot of Liverpool fans seem to think the AR was telling Moss it was offside and Moss ignored him...complete bias towards their team and a lack of understanding of the current rules. Kane didn't go down naturally and did exaggerate the fall but a pen in real time.
Second one, I thought the contact was minimal. I can see why Moss denied it...he probably thought Lamela made a meal of it, but the AR would have seen the kick from further away. I'm not sure how much contact was made. On one angle it looks like the defender had just brushed Lamela, like a gentle touch of his leg hairs but on another it looks like the contact was a kick.
Finally, I'm quite happy for referees to let the game flow like Moss did today. Nothing worse in my opinion than an official trying to "control a game"or use game management excessively when it's not required, especially at the top level.
Second one, I thought the contact was minimal. I can see why Moss denied it...he probably thought Lamela made a meal of it, but the AR would have seen the kick from further away. I'm not sure how much contact was made. On one angle it looks like the defender had just brushed Lamela, like a gentle touch of his leg hairs but on another it looks like the contact was a kick.
Finally, I'm quite happy for referees to let the game flow like Moss did today. Nothing worse in my opinion than an official trying to "control a game"or use game management excessively when it's not required, especially at the top level.
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
I just found a new angle on the second pen and now I think it was really harsh. VVD sets up to kick the ball, pulls out of the kick when he sees/senses Lamela - it is not conclusive that the original kicking action makes any contact - Lamela acts like he has been shot at the point VVD would have kicked him, and then VVD's knee does make contact with Lamela as part of some kind of follow through.
What can you call here? See it as the original has connected and call PK? Call no initial contact and penalise the dive? Call no initial contact, no dive and penalise the knee - which is what I think Smart has done? What would a VAR have done? With a replay you can can see Lamela clearly simulate before the knee - so would VAR give YC/IDFK?
Given all this I think Moss made the initial decision that football expects. VVD looked like he did very well to avoid connecting with the kick and pulls out of the clearance, Lamela dives, there is some contact - Moss says not enough, waves play on... that is what we are used to. I now think the AR has got this wrong, because a VAR would not have reversed Moss' no call. But then I am a Liverpool fan with far too many "knowledgable Spurs fans" as mates!
What can you call here? See it as the original has connected and call PK? Call no initial contact and penalise the dive? Call no initial contact, no dive and penalise the knee - which is what I think Smart has done? What would a VAR have done? With a replay you can can see Lamela clearly simulate before the knee - so would VAR give YC/IDFK?
Given all this I think Moss made the initial decision that football expects. VVD looked like he did very well to avoid connecting with the kick and pulls out of the clearance, Lamela dives, there is some contact - Moss says not enough, waves play on... that is what we are used to. I now think the AR has got this wrong, because a VAR would not have reversed Moss' no call. But then I am a Liverpool fan with far too many "knowledgable Spurs fans" as mates!
YorkieRef
New Member
Since VAR is supposed to be used for clear and obvious errors surely there is no argument for it to be used here as there has been a massive discussion with people saying PK/No PK and definitely not a clear and obvious error...
In disbelief about the BBC's decision to put subtitles on Jon Moss for the first penalty decision. Surely that's a form of defamation, as it doesn't look great for him. Decision was right, but he seemed not to be sure about Lovren's touch. If nobody can verify that touch, should the offside stand? Also, was the Karius red card forgotten in the chaos?? I thought the managers' responses to the officials at full time were exemplary, especially Pochettino's; that's heartening when we are so accustomed to misconduct. Edit: Karius' yellow card
Last edited:
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
That's what I mean. If there had been VAR and Moss had waived this away with no AR intervention, would the VAR have gone back for a penalty at the next break in play? I don't think so.
Quoting you, since this is now rising on the subreddit:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football...assistants-par-anfield-spurs-did-not-deserve/
And I suspect, might play a part in continuing the misinformation going around.
I've just seen another angle of the second penalty and its the biggest dive ever, it looked all the world a penalty in the game but when you see this one you will change your mind! I smell a retro ban for simulation...
Skip to 6'-48'', hes not touched him!!!
Skip to 6'-48'', hes not touched him!!!
Last edited:
Please don't say you can't see a difference. The ball is clearly deliberately played by a Spurs defender to Salah. Lovren deflects the ball to Kane. I'm with Hackett. Otherwise you're having to judge when a ball hits a defender's leg, whether he meant to put his leg there? (Would that make it a deliberate play?)
In any case, neither official knew if Lovren had touched the ball. How can you give a penalty when the attacker was in an offside position and you don't know if a defender had touched it (whether you call it deliberate or deflection)? If you don't know if he touched the ball at all, it really doesn't sound like you saw him deliberately play it. Daft decision.
one
RefChat Addict
Here is another vid
https://ok.ru/video/712436025958
Just about everything in the two pen decisions could have gone either way and it would have not been an error and just an ITOOTR decision.
Pen 1: it’s at 5.45 on my vid with a telling replay at 6.50. Firstly, is it offside (play or rebound – or as the way its taught now, was it an action or reaction). At first look it’s a play (action) but on replays there is a slight deflection by red #5 (Wijnaldum) after the pass is made which made Lovren’s touch more of a re-action. I would lean offside but if the referee on the day says no offside I am ok with it an wouldn’t call it an error.
Kane was not fouled in my opinion. He went down on his own will. Replay at 7.05 supports this. However, the fact that there was a slight contact, again the referee decision was not a clear error.
Pen 2: At 8.45 on vid. No doubt there was contact. Was it enough to make it careless. I would say yes after replays but not a clear cut one. And that’s why the AR should have kept his flag down. My instructions to my AR is don’t over rule me unless you are absolutely sure I have dropped obvious howler. This was not a obvious howler but more of an opinion. Either decision could have been supported with a pen given being a more likely one.
https://ok.ru/video/712436025958
Just about everything in the two pen decisions could have gone either way and it would have not been an error and just an ITOOTR decision.
Pen 1: it’s at 5.45 on my vid with a telling replay at 6.50. Firstly, is it offside (play or rebound – or as the way its taught now, was it an action or reaction). At first look it’s a play (action) but on replays there is a slight deflection by red #5 (Wijnaldum) after the pass is made which made Lovren’s touch more of a re-action. I would lean offside but if the referee on the day says no offside I am ok with it an wouldn’t call it an error.
Kane was not fouled in my opinion. He went down on his own will. Replay at 7.05 supports this. However, the fact that there was a slight contact, again the referee decision was not a clear error.
Pen 2: At 8.45 on vid. No doubt there was contact. Was it enough to make it careless. I would say yes after replays but not a clear cut one. And that’s why the AR should have kept his flag down. My instructions to my AR is don’t over rule me unless you are absolutely sure I have dropped obvious howler. This was not a obvious howler but more of an opinion. Either decision could have been supported with a pen given being a more likely one.
one
RefChat Addict
This is the moment of contact
I don't see how he is simulating before that. Yes he goes down like a sack of potatoes after but there was contact made beforehand.
Well he didn't deliberately play the ball to Salah himself, he deliberately played the ball and Salah intercepted. It falls under the same line of definition.
Lovren meets this criteria as soon as he makes a delebrate attempt to play the ball, his technical limitations in regards to control and execution are irrelevant to the LOG.
Its black and white, you cant have one without the other.
It's amazing; I disagree quite literally with every point Keith Hackett makes in that Telegraph article (besides the Lamela incident) despite watching the same match. The decisions, the way they came to them, the public handshakes. It proves again that interpretation is everything in this game.