The on topic thread

[Art Vandelay_]

Posted the side on vision in their team thread and was told that was less of a reality than the other videos

I know. It made me chuckle

 

[glenferry23]

Never really understood the fascination with checking other team’s forums/threads. Maybe it’s just me.

 

[hawkman]

Never really understood the fascination with checking other team’s forums/threads. Maybe it’s just me.

I like to see what the other point of view of the game is. The Liverpool reaction to the weekend has been funny though

 

[Zidane98]

Strange from Lallana, must have been priors during the game I think.

Very unlike him. Club will penalise him internally, there must have been something else going in for him to react like that. Normally a very placid footballer.

 

[Fryer Tuck]

Never really understood the fascination with checking other team’s forums/threads. Maybe it’s just me.

I like to see what the other point of view of the game is. The Liverpool reaction to the weekend has been funny though

Pretty much this. Interested in hearing what the opposition thinks about us before and after a game. Don't care for the circus above, (MD36 is important from a Leicester point of view). It's only the opinion of us that matters.

 

[Zidane98]

Yeah I hate it when the ref gets every major decision 100% correct too.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but the second penalty was 100% incorrect. Firstly, the player that won the penalty was offside, making the penalty call irrelevant.

Secondly, Law 6(Assistant Referee) duties states that assistant referees can only rule on incidents that:

- when misconduct or any other incident has occurred out of sight of the referee (Moss saw the incident and waved it away)
- when offences that have been commited whenever the assistants are closer to the action than the referee (in particular circumstances and offences committed in the penalty area).

Moss is much closer to the incident than the linesman rendering his opinion invalid. Referees are trained on this so once Moss made a call on it the linesman had zero authority to flag at all by the letter of the law.


Also on the first offside I have discovered the guidelines given to referees on what is a deliberate and non deliberate action:

http://www.law-11.com/delib-play--deflection


Two out of the 3 considerations for a deflection apply to Lovren's incident:

1. Ball was moving to the player
2. An instinctive attempt to play the ball

The 3rd consideration for a deflection was does the player find the ball coming against the player which did not happen in this scenario.

Out of the 3 deliberate actions the only one that really applies in this case is that the ball was expected.


Based on the guidelines above the incident is much more likely to be ruled as a rebound/deflection although it is still possible to interpret it as a deliberate pass. A further consideration to deliberate actions is whether the ball was properly played; obviously that did not happen.



So in summary the 2nd penalty call was 100% incorrect as 1) the player was offside and 2) the linesman had no authority to actually make a call on it. The call for a foul (which was there) could only be made by Moss and in any case should have been rendered irrelevant if offside had been correctly called.

The first offside call could have gone either way with offside being the favoured call going off the laws of the game.

Neither decision was 100% correct. Furthermore Moss is unsure himself about the decision but goes to give it anyway - that is appalling refereeing. Only make a decision if you are sure of it.

 

[Zidane98]

I only just found out today that Shankly offered to lend Utd 5 players after the Munich tragedy and pay all their wages. Incredible gesture.

 

[kangaspurs]

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but the second penalty was 100% incorrect. Firstly, the player that won the penalty was offside, making the penalty call irrelevant.

Secondly, Law 6(Assistant Referee) duties states that assistant referees can only rule on incidents that:

- when misconduct or any other incident has occurred out of sight of the referee (Moss saw the incident and waved it away)
- when offences that have been commited whenever the assistants are closer to the action than the referee (in particular circumstances and offences committed in the penalty area).

Moss is much closer to the incident than the linesman rendering his opinion invalid. Referees are trained on this so once Moss made a call on it the linesman had zero authority to flag at all by the letter of the law.


Also on the first offside I have discovered the guidelines given to referees on what is a deliberate and non deliberate action:

http://www.law-11.com/delib-play--deflection


Two out of the 3 considerations for a deflection apply to Lovren's incident:

1. Ball was moving to the player
2. An instinctive attempt to play the ball

The 3rd consideration for a deflection was does the player find the ball coming against the player which did not happen in this scenario.

Out of the 3 deliberate actions the only one that really applies in this case is that the ball was expected.


Based on the guidelines above the incident is much more likely to be ruled as a rebound/deflection although it is still possible to interpret it as a deliberate pass. A further consideration to deliberate actions is whether the ball was properly played; obviously that did not happen.



So in summary the 2nd penalty call was 100% incorrect as 1) the player was offside and 2) the linesman had no authority to actually make a call on it. The call for a foul (which was there) could only be made by Moss and in any case should have been rendered irrelevant if offside had been correctly called.

The first offside call could have gone either way with offside being the favoured call going off the laws of the game.

Neither decision was 100% correct. Furthermore Moss is unsure himself about the decision but goes to give it anyway - that is appalling refereeing. Only make a decision if you are sure of it.

Yeah, regarding the second half of your post I'm going to go with the rules I posted from the FA website (which you conveniently ignored of course because it prove you categorically wrong) rather than a website called 'Offside Explained.'

As for the Lamela offside, sure he definitely was. But it was his little toe that was off and that was only picked up by technology after the fact. That one falls within an acceptable margin of error imo. But sure, he was offside.

As for the lino calling it, I think it's reasonable for the lino to assume that Moss didn't have a clear line of vision to the obvious foul, which the lino did. It was that obvious that I think it's reasonable for the linesman to think "Ok, Moss obviously didn't see that one so I'll flag." Moss accepted that he didn't see the clear contact either by siding with his assistant and giving the penalty. So that covers the first half of your post.

 

[Zidane98]

Yeah, regarding the second half of your post I'm going to go with the rules I posted from the FA website (which you conveniently ignored of course because it prove you categorically wrong) rather than a website called 'Offside Explained.'

As for the Lamela offside, sure he definitely was. But it was his little toe that was off and that was only picked up by technology after the fact. That one falls within an acceptable margin of error imo. But sure, he was offside.

As for the lino calling it, I think it's reasonable for the lino to assume that Moss didn't have a clear line of vision to the obvious foul, which the lino did. It was that obvious that I think it's reasonable for the linesman to think "Ok, Moss obviously didn't see that one so I'll flag." Moss accepted that he didn't see the clear contact either by siding with his assistant and giving the penalty. So that covers the first half of your post.

There is zero doubt that Moss seen the incident. He waved it away himself and called play on. Once the referee indicates he has seen the incident (he waved away the appeal and shook his head) the linesman can no longer make a call and are trained to accept the referee's call if they are closer to the incident than themselves.

The website I have quoted is the official UEFA guidelines used so good luck trying to dismiss it. The suggestions that either decision was 100% correct is absolutely not true.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Let’s not lose sight of the fact Van Shite kicked a player. You can argue rule technicalities all day long. He kicked a player. Pen.

 

[RossFC]

Never really understood the fascination with checking other team’s forums/threads. Maybe it’s just me.

That's supposed to be my happy place. I feel violated.

 

[RossFC]

Let’s not lose sight of the fact Van Shite kicked a player. You can argue rule technicalities all day long. He kicked a player. Pen.

If Lolmela comes from an offside position beforehand to interfere in play then it's not a pen but a free kick to us.

 

[Zidane98]

Let’s not lose sight of the fact Van Shite kicked a player. You can argue rule technicalities all day long. He kicked a player. Pen.

No worries, let's ignore the offside leading up to it. Great logic.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

If Lolmela comes from an offside position beforehand to interfere in play then it's not a pen but a free kick to us.

Yet it was stated by one of those many former referees that agreed with the decision that VAR likely wouldn’t overturn that due to how marginal the offside was.

 

[RossFC]

Yet it was stated by one of those many former referees that agreed with the decision that VAR likely wouldn’t overturn that due to how marginal the offside was.

It's a shame that linesman was busy looking for pens instead of offsides might as well throw his flag away and go home.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

It's a shame that linesman was busy looking for pens instead of offsides might as well throw his flag away and go home.

Hey if you want to play the victims go right ahead. Offended by everything, embarrassed by nothing.

 

[RossFC]

Hey if you want to play the victims go right ahead. Offended by everything, embarrassed by nothing.

I recall Arsenal getting a marginal offside goal against your mob earlier in the season and I defended Spurs because that's the way I saw the situation.

Just calling it how I see it.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

I recall Arsenal getting a marginal offside goal against your mob earlier in the season and I defended Spurs because that's the way I saw the situation.

Two years in a row at the shithole and one was this new interpretation that saw Kane onside.
You can argue it was offside all day long but when it’s stated as being so marginal it likely isn’t overturned then let’s not pretend it was a plain as day egregious error. Moss not signalling penalty in the first place was an egregious error.

 

[RossFC]

Two years in a row at the shithole and one was this new interpretation that saw Kane onside.
You can argue it was offside all day long but when it’s stated as being so marginal it likely isn’t overturned then let’s not pretend it was a plain as day egregious error. Moss not signalling penalty in the first place was an egregious error.

If a kid with a printscreen button on his computer while watching the game can solve all these problems straight away then I hope VAR in the future can do that too and save us all the debating. Then again there was a bit of debate when VAR was used in the Liverpool/West Brom FA Cup game but that was due to the time it took to make the decisions.

 

[Zidane98]

Two years in a row at the shithole and one was this new interpretation that saw Kane onside.
You can argue it was offside all day long but when it’s stated as being so marginal it likely isn’t overturned then let’s not pretend it was a plain as day egregious error. Moss not signalling penalty in the first place was an egregious error.

It's not an egregious error at all, there was minimal contact from Van Dijk on Lamela. It could have gone either way and also was a marginal call.

 

[FAITH]

WealstoneRaider Deli Ali quiting football for a pr0n career is the talk in the UK?

 

[Zidane98]

If a kid with a printscreen button on his computer while watching the game can solve all these problems straight away then I hope VAR in the future can do that too and save us all the debating. Then again there was a bit of debate when VAR was used in the Liverpool/West Brom FA Cup game but that was due to the time it took to make the decisions.

VAR got involved unnecessarily with the penalty where Salah was pulled back (pretty blatant) and offside for the 3rd goal (it was pretty clear that it was onside as soon as viewing the replay).

 

[Art Vandelay_]

It's not an egregious error at all, there was minimal contact from Van Dijk on Lamela. It could have gone either way and also was a marginal call.

You've gone full Dylan8 on us. Minimal contact LOL.
and you're a referee. Blimey.

 

[Zidane98]

You've gone full Dylan8 on us. Minimal contact LOL.
and you're a referee. Blimey.

You make it sound like he swept his legs from underneath him. What happened was Van Dijk pulling out of a challenge and clipping the back of Lamela's leg.
Some referees will give it, some won't. And that's not forgetting that the linesman in this case had zero authority to award a penalty under FIFA rules.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

You make it sound like he swept his legs from underneath him. What happened was Van Dijk pulling out of a challenge and clipping the back of Lamela's leg.
Some referees will give it, some won't. And that's not forgetting that the linesman in this case had zero authority to award a penalty under FIFA rules.

You and your eternal mission to find any loophole is mildly amusing. He kicked him, anywhere else and that's called a foul.