Liverpool V Spurs

[A Freethinker]

I know this sounds strange, but I actually think the assistant and/or Moss DID see that touch. Otherwise it's simply not feasible to me that deliberate action would even be in the conversation. At one point, the assistant says, "if he has touched the ball, it's a deliberate action." Why is he so sure about that? Shouldn't he be thinking about a deflection if he hasn't seen the touch? The clues are there. It's almost as if, in front of the players, the assistant was trying to avoid conveying the impression that it was his call. I admit it's a weird exchange, but I am very much against fans/media being able to hear what referees are saying anyway. I know I have said some ridiculous things on the pitch because I couldn't find the words in a moment of stress, but I didn't doubt the decision.
Did the Liverpool players engineer that discussion or were they responding to a flag? If it was the former, the penalty decision makes more sense on an evidence basis.

I don't think in today's EPL with camera and mics everywhere you engineer or rather should engineer conversations. When you look at the positioning of the AR there is no way if he can tell if Lovren played the ball therefore his flag has to go up! Then if Moss overrules him and says Lovren deliberately ouches the ball then it s a penalty, but the first action by the AR mst be to raise the flag for offside not wait and see if it's a penalty or not. We get enough criticism without manufacturing our own.

Moss didn't see the touch, the AR didn't see a touch therefore the call must be offside rightly or wrongly. Now it appears we get decisions right by quess work!

 

[SLI39]

Just throwing this into the debate - the laws give absolutely no help in differentiating between a deliberate play and a deflection but both FIFA and UEFA have in the past, published the following definitions:
View attachment 1692
It seems to me the touch by Lovren is much closer to the FIFA definition of a deflection than that of a deliberate play.

Interesting, thanks; my confusion arises from the fact that the earliest approved decisions for this law (albeit abroad) did include Lovren's type of touch, whatever might be the consensus now. I think perhaps the definition of a save should be extended, or deliberate 'pass' replace 'action' (if that isn't redundant?). A few months ago I was asked about a scenario in which a defender makes a deliberate play onto another defender, which then deflects into the path of a striker in an offside position. Is it fair that Lovren's touch can reset offside and the latter wouldn't?

 

[GraemeS]

Just throwing this into the debate - the laws give absolutely no help in differentiating between a deliberate play and a deflection but both FIFA and UEFA have in the past, published the following definitions:
View attachment 1692
It seems to me the touch by Lovren is much closer to the FIFA definition of a deflection than that of a deliberate play.

If that's an official document, I see no way Lovren can be judged to have deliberately played the ball. It's an instinctive attempt to play, with limited time and from a player who's clearly off balance, and it's certainly not properly player or it would have gone the other way!

 

[Ciley Myrus]

Am still taking Kane out the initial equation. Does he impact, influence, impede, interfere or any other buzz word with Lovern? I cant even make the age old case of Lovern appealing with one arm in air for offside whilst trying to clear. Other than the non offence of being in an offside position, Kane for me is a bystander here

Until Lovern tries to kick, totally miscues, no fault of Kanes, then Kane becomes onside again phase 2 etc

Kinda ironic Loverns attempt to kick a football cost him here, he would have been better off had he missed the ball completely

Throw in the needless foul for the 2nd pk and for me you have two ridiculous acts of defending on show

 

[bloovee]

Am still taking Kane out the initial equation. Does he impact, influence, impede, interfere or any other buzz word with Lovern? I cant even make the age old case of Lovern appealing with one arm in air for offside whilst trying to clear. Other than the non offence of being in an offside position, Kane for me is a bystander here

Until Lovern tries to kick, totally miscues, no fault of Kanes, then Kane becomes onside again phase 2 etc

Kinda ironic Loverns attempt to kick a football cost him here, he would have been better off had he missed the ball completely

Throw in the needless foul for the 2nd pk and for me you have two ridiculous acts of defending on show

But that's one of the issues. A player is in an offside position. If the defender knew, that he might not attempt to clear. Because of the tighter (looser?) definition of interfering with an opponent, a defender may try to clear a ball (or head out for a corner) only because of the player in an offside position (if said player was not there, the defender could let the ball go out for a goal kick). The player in an offside position has gained an advantage by being in that position (though the law now says he hasn't). The defender might even be sure his opponent is in an offside position, but he can't rely on the officials getting it right, so he tries to clear. Now we want to punish the defender for what (by those definitions above) might be a fraction of a second (or being slightly off balance) between a good clearance, a bad clearance, or a deflection.

I just don't think the law should be drafted on such fine subjective margins - "did he touch it at all, did he have time to react, was it 0.3 seconds or longer...?" I think it would be simpler if "deliberately played" meant doing what the player intended to do.

What's the distinction between a deliberate play and a deliberate save? GK out of goal so defender is last man; sticks out a leg and the ball goes to an offside position attacker further from goal - a save? and offside? - or the ball rebounds to an attacker closer to goal (and further "offside") and it's a deliberate play and not offside...

 

[alexgr]

If that's an official document, I see no way Lovren can be judged to have deliberately played the ball. It's an instinctive attempt to play, with limited time and from a player who's clearly off balance, and it's certainly not properly player or it would have gone the other way!

Have to disagree - the guidelines there by that document indicate anything under .3 seconds is a definite deflection, over .6 is a deliberate play. Lovren has a good couple of seconds there, I fail to see how this is a deflection. If anything it's a really, really badly timed kick.

 

[halter42]

Yes you can - and the criteria for deciding if you should award the foul or the offside offence are spelled out in the law:

"In situations where: [...]

• a player in an offside position is moving towards the ball with the intention of playing the ball and is fouled before playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the foul is penalised as it has occurred before the offside offence
• an offence is committed against a player in an offside position who is already playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the offside offence is penalised as it has occurred before the foul challenge"

Sooo... is Lamela attempting to play the ball and is fouled after? Looks like it to me. He's deffinitely challenging for the ball.

 

[Sheffields Finest]

Anyone else starting to pandiculate on this subject?

 

[PinnerPaul]

But they have made the officials look bad!

Those who think Lovren's action was "deliberate" - if the ball had missed Kane and gone through to the GK, would you think it had been deliberately kicked to the goalkeeper by a team-mate?

That's nonsense - offside has to be a deliberate kick FULL STOP, 'back pass' has to be a deliberate kick TO THE GOALKEEPER - its basic stuff really.

 

[GraemeS]

That's nonsense - offside has to be a deliberate kick FULL STOP, 'back pass' has to be a deliberate kick TO THE GOALKEEPER - its basic stuff really.

So to clarify, the player's intent matters when judging a "back pass", but it doesn't when judging if it resets a phase of play for offside?

 

[SLI39]

Maybe a good rule of thumb is whether it would be deemed an own goal if the ball went directly into the goal. In this instance, that's hardly going to be the Spurs' player's goal, is it? We could also apply the handball logic: the pass travels at least 8 yards before reaching the defender. Plus, I don't really like how that FIFA document attempts to redefine deflection.

 

[PinnerPaul]

So to clarify, the player's intent matters when judging a "back pass", but it doesn't when judging if it resets a phase of play for offside?

Not being rude but I thought it was pretty clear and simple. The offence by the GK is handling the ball after it is kicked TO HIM by a teammate, so of course the kick has to be a) deliberate and b) to the GK. For offside kick only has the be deliberate - that's obvious surely, he could be kicking the ball anywhere - where/who to isn't relevant.

 

[bloovee]

Not being rude but I thought it was pretty clear and simple. The offence by the GK is handling the ball after it is kicked TO HIM by a teammate, so of course the kick has to be a) deliberate and b) to the GK. For offside kick only has the be deliberate - that's obvious surely, he could be kicking the ball anywhere - where/who to isn't relevant.

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.

 

[Nalbi]

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.

Without risking derailing the original intent/topic of this thread; the same word is used ie deliberate but in 2 completely different contexts. To penalise the GK for a handballing offence, you are judging whether the player deliberately PASSED the ball back to the keeper, a player deliberately kicking the ball but miscuing it and the GK picks up is fine as far as I'm concerned. Meanwhile for an offside you are judging whether the defender made a deliberate attempt (successful or not) to kick the ball (regardless of the intended direction/ target, etc)

 

[alexgr]

@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.

 

[Nalbi]

Am i the only thinking here we should be cutting the officials on the day some slack by now? We've been sat here 2 days after the event, well into 7 pages of back and fro discussions, a multitude of reviews of clips/ different angels and we can't reach an common decision albeit by a majority rather than a unanimous one!

They had to make such decisions in a matter of seconds; this is by no means an attempt to shy away from constructively assessing and critiquing their performance/ communication and thinking process on the night.

 

[GraemeS]

Not being rude but I thought it was pretty clear and simple. The offence by the GK is handling the ball after it is kicked TO HIM by a teammate, so of course the kick has to be a) deliberate and b) to the GK. For offside kick only has the be deliberate - that's obvious surely, he could be kicking the ball anywhere - where/who to isn't relevant.

I understand entirely what you're saying, I just don't buy that your interpretation is backed up by the laws.

In both cases the law uses simply the word "deliberate" - but in one case we're expected to infer that we judge intent in both action and result, while in the other case we're expected to infer that the intended result is irrelevant? That makes no sense to me. Surely it's much more straightforward to apply the same logic to both situations and say that for a touch to fully be considered deliberate (in any context), both the action and the result must be somewhere in the vicinity of the intended action and result?

 

[bloovee]

Without risking derailing the original intent/topic of this thread; the same word is used ie deliberate but in 2 completely different contexts. To penalise the GK for a handballing offence, you are judging whether the player deliberately PASSED the ball back to the keeper, a player deliberately kicking the ball but miscuing it and the GK picks up is fine as far as I'm concerned. Meanwhile for an offside you are judging whether the defender made a deliberate attempt (successful or not) to kick the ball (regardless of the intended direction/ target, etc)

I know that. I'm asking why we make a distinction.

@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.

Why not?

 

[Russell Jones]

I understand entirely what you're saying, I just don't buy that your interpretation is backed up by the laws.

In both cases the law uses simply the word "deliberate" - but in one case we're expected to infer that we judge intent in both action and result, while in the other case we're expected to infer that the intended result is irrelevant? That makes no sense to me. Surely it's much more straightforward to apply the same logic to both situations and say that for a touch to fully be considered deliberate (in any context), both the action and the result must be somewhere in the vicinity of the intended action and result?

Worth bearing in mind the other fundamental difference in the two scenarios ... with the "pass back" it needs to be picked up by the GK after being deliberately kicked to him. In the case of a defender resetting the offside, it simply needs to be a deliberate play of the ball by any part of the body (including the hand I believe!). And Graeme, intuitive as your logic sounds, it's simply not correct .. I've witnessed plenty of scenarios where offside has been reset by defenders deliberately playing the ball really badly ... most usually a miscued header

 

[PinnerPaul]

I understand entirely what you're saying, I just don't buy that your interpretation is backed up by the laws.

In both cases the law uses simply the word "deliberate" - but in one case we're expected to infer that we judge intent in both action and result, while in the other case we're expected to infer that the intended result is irrelevant? That makes no sense to me. Surely it's much more straightforward to apply the same logic to both situations and say that for a touch to fully be considered deliberate (in any context), both the action and the result must be somewhere in the vicinity of the intended action and result?

I'm going to have respectfully disagree with you and Blovee. Law says 'deliberately kicked to the goalkeeper' - now I know we love to pull the laws apart on here but that is unambigious to me - the kick has to be TO the GK to be penalised. Otherwise surely law would say that that GK is penalised after the ball has been deliberately played or touched by a teammate - the words 'to the goalkeeper' make the law clear - to me at least!