LIVERPOOL VS TOTTs (2-2) Salahudeen x2(FT)

[metalalloy]

pajimoh, Tjx’s question is valid. The linesman asked the ref if loveren touched the ball, which proves he had no idea of the lovren deflection (that put Kane onside). He should have raised his flag since he didn’t see lovren touch the ball. The end result was correct, but the officials lucked their way into it.

That is why I said by design or luck the decision was correct. From another interview the ref gave he said he knew the ball was played by a Liverpool player but wanted to confirm it was Lovren

Moss gave an interview?

Oh geez, you're in an argumentative mood. He was quoted as saying In the same article he also apologized for referring to the other official if they saw anything on tv I think

Argumentative? I simply asked if he gave an interview as that would be unusual...Pls post the link to this article...

http://futnsoccer.com/2018/02/06/refere ... tottenham/

Don't mind that statement as it really doesn't say anything, but it is merely the PGMOL covering its #$%. I posted that reference yesterday, the statement simply states that the ref was "in a position to see that a Liverpool player kicked the ball", not that he actually saw it. We can confirm that he didn't see anything from the conversation Moss had with Smart.

[pajimoh]

pajimoh, Tjx’s question is valid. The linesman asked the ref if loveren touched the ball, which proves he had no idea of the lovren deflection (that put Kane onside). He should have raised his flag since he didn’t see lovren touch the ball. The end result was correct, but the officials lucked their way into it.

That is why I said by design or luck the decision was correct. From another interview the ref gave he said he knew the ball was played by a Liverpool player but wanted to confirm it was Lovren

Whether by design or luck, the linesman had a duty to raise the flag based on info available to him. That was his FIRST and PRIMARY duty.

That alone renders every other thing null...

That is why Hackett said categorically that the decision was wrong.

Wrong my son. The ref was the first to blow for a pen. The ref can also overule the linesman, flag or no flag. The ref was interested in the name of the pool player who touched the ball. He knew the ball was touched which nullified the offside rule. He had already decided Karius fouled Kane. What needed clarification was who touched the ball. The linesman was unable to provide. The ref decision stands. It seems you're ignoring the rule but stressing on the flag.

[Chief Ogbunigwe]

pajimoh, Tjx’s question is valid. The linesman asked the ref if loveren touched the ball, which proves he had no idea of the lovren deflection (that put Kane onside). He should have raised his flag since he didn’t see lovren touch the ball. The end result was correct, but the officials lucked their way into it.

That is why I said by design or luck the decision was correct. From another interview the ref gave he said he knew the ball was played by a Liverpool player but wanted to confirm it was Lovren

Moss gave an interview?

Oh geez, you're in an argumentative mood. He was quoted as saying In the same article he also apologized for referring to the other official if they saw anything on tv I think

Argumentative? I simply asked if he gave an interview as that would be unusual...Pls post the link to this article...

http://futnsoccer.com/2018/02/06/refere ... tottenham/

Don't mind that statement as it really doesn't say anything, but it is merely the PGMOL covering its #$%. I posted that reference yesterday, the statement simply states that the ref was "in a position to see that a Liverpool player kicked the ball", not that he actually saw it. We can confirm that he didn't see anything from the conversation Moss had with Smart.

This is why the rules appear to be purposely made vague...refs can obfuscate any ojoro decisions. A simple, widely-played and watched game like soccer should have straightforward offside rules. It is actually shameful that most viewers (and a number of refs) do not realize that the GK counts as a player. In an instant when the keeper is behind the passer, then 2 field players would be required for the recipient of a forward pass to be onside. Instances when this happened and goals were not given led to hot debates and arguments.

[pajimoh]

pajimoh, Tjx’s question is valid. The linesman asked the ref if loveren touched the ball, which proves he had no idea of the lovren deflection (that put Kane onside). He should have raised his flag since he didn’t see lovren touch the ball. The end result was correct, but the officials lucked their way into it.

That is why I said by design or luck the decision was correct. From another interview the ref gave he said he knew the ball was played by a Liverpool player but wanted to confirm it was Lovren

Moss gave an interview?

Oh geez, you're in an argumentative mood. He was quoted as saying In the same article he also apologized for referring to the other official if they saw anything on tv I think

Argumentative? I simply asked if he gave an interview as that would be unusual...Pls post the link to this article...

http://futnsoccer.com/2018/02/06/refere ... tottenham/

Don't mind that statement as it really doesn't say anything, but it is merely the PGMOL covering its #$%. I posted that reference yesterday, the statement simply states that the ref was "in a position to see that a Liverpool player kicked the ball", not that he actually saw it. We can confirm that he didn't see anything from the conversation Moss had with Smart.

I did not see who touched it doesn't mean " I didn't see the ball touched" Heck we've seen refs give a wrong player a yellow or even a red. It didn't mean someone did not commit an offense

[metalalloy]

Don't mind that statement as it really doesn't say anything, but it is merely the PGMOL covering its #$%. I posted that reference yesterday, the statement simply states that the ref was "in a position to see that a Liverpool player kicked the ball", not that he actually saw it. We can confirm that he didn't see anything from the conversation Moss had with Smart.

I did not see who touched it doesn't mean " I didn't see the ball touched" Heck we've seen refs give a wrong player a yellow or even a red. It didn't mean someone did not commit an offense

I agree. However, I question whether he truly saw a touch due to the transcript of the discussion between Moss and Smart. The first thing Smart asked was whether Loveren touched the ball, Moss said "i don't know" Not i saw someone touch it but I'm not sure it was Loveren, he said "i don't know" And later repeated "i have no idea whether Lovren touched the ball to be honest with you"

Not once did Moss state that he saw the ball touched by a Liverpool player. The identity of the liverpool player is irrelevant, if Moss truly knew the ball was last touched by a Liverpool player, that by itself was enough to keep Kane onside, and not question whether to let the penalty stand or not. The touch didn't need to specifically come from Lovren.

[pajimoh]

pajimoh, Tjx’s question is valid. The linesman asked the ref if loveren touched the ball, which proves he had no idea of the lovren deflection (that put Kane onside). He should have raised his flag since he didn’t see lovren touch the ball. The end result was correct, but the officials lucked their way into it.

That is why I said by design or luck the decision was correct. From another interview the ref gave he said he knew the ball was played by a Liverpool player but wanted to confirm it was Lovren

Moss gave an interview?

Oh geez, you're in an argumentative mood. He was quoted as saying In the same article he also apologized for referring to the other official if they saw anything on tv I think

Argumentative? I simply asked if he gave an interview as that would be unusual...Pls post the link to this article...

http://futnsoccer.com/2018/02/06/refere ... tottenham/

Don't mind that statement as it really doesn't say anything, but it is merely the PGMOL covering its #$%. I posted that reference yesterday, the statement simply states that the ref was "in a position to see that a Liverpool player kicked the ball", not that he actually saw it. We can confirm that he didn't see anything from the conversation Moss had with Smart.

This is why the rules appear to be purposely made vague...refs can obfuscate any ojoro decisions. A simple, widely-played and watched game like soccer should have straightforward offside rules. It is actually shameful that most viewers (and a number of refs) do not realize that the GK counts as a player. In an instant when the keeper is behind the passer, then 2 field players would be required for the recipient of a forward pass to be onside. Instances when this happened and goals were not given led to hot debates and arguments.[/quote]
The same straight forward rule of penalty if someone touches the ball in the box. Then we have was it deliberate or not. Ball to hand or hand to ball. One would think it's should be a simple question of ball and hand just as it should be a simple question of offside or not, right sheik?

[pajimoh]

Don't mind that statement as it really doesn't say anything, but it is merely the PGMOL covering its #$%. I posted that reference yesterday, the statement simply states that the ref was "in a position to see that a Liverpool player kicked the ball", not that he actually saw it. We can confirm that he didn't see anything from the conversation Moss had with Smart.

I did not see who touched it doesn't mean " I didn't see the ball touched" Heck we've seen refs give a wrong player a yellow or even a red. It didn't mean someone did not commit an offense

I agree. However, I question whether he truly saw a touch due to the transcript of the discussion between Moss and Smart. The first thing Smart asked was whether Loveren touched the ball, Moss said "i don't know" Not i saw someone touch it but I'm not sure it was Loveren, he said "i don't know" And later repeated "i have no idea whether Lovren touched the ball to be honest with you"

Not once did Moss state that he saw the ball touched by a Liverpool player. The identity of the liverpool player is irrelevant, if Moss truly knew the ball was last touched by a Liverpool player, that by itself was enough to keep Kane onside, and not question whether to let the penalty stand or not. The touch didn't need to specifically come from Lovren.

I don't know is not the same as I didn't see anyone touch the ball, going by your argument. The question wasn't" did anyone touch the ball"? It was " did LOVREN touch the ball? And the response was "I don't know. He could be saying I don't know if it was Lovren who touched the ball. Had the question been " Did anyone touch the ball"? Then your submission would have been valid

[metalalloy]

XXXX

[metalalloy]

pajimoh, Tjx’s question is valid. The linesman asked the ref if loveren touched the ball, which proves he had no idea of the lovren deflection (that put Kane onside). He should have raised his flag since he didn’t see lovren touch the ball. The end result was correct, but the officials lucked their way into it.

That is why I said by design or luck the decision was correct. From another interview the ref gave he said he knew the ball was played by a Liverpool player but wanted to confirm it was Lovren

Whether by design or luck, the linesman had a duty to raise the flag based on info available to him. That was his FIRST and PRIMARY duty.

That alone renders every other thing null...

That is why Hackett said categorically that the decision was wrong.

Wrong my son. The ref was the first to blow for a pen. The ref can also overule the linesman, flag or no flag. The ref was interested in the name of the pool player who touched the ball. He knew the ball was touched which nullified the offside rule. He had already decided Karius fouled Kane. What needed clarification was who touched the ball. The linesman was unable to provide. The ref decision stands. It seems you're ignoring the rule but stressing on the flag.

Sorry i didnt see this post before my response. Why is this important? Its not like Loveren was receiving a yellow or red card. Why was the identity of the player important if Moss truly knew? It was the linesman that was explaining the offside rule to the ref. Watch and listen to the tape again.

[metalalloy]

This is why the rules appear to be purposely made vague...refs can obfuscate any ojoro decisions. A simple, widely-played and watched game like soccer should have straightforward offside rules. It is actually shameful that most viewers (and a number of refs) do not realize that the GK counts as a player. In an instant when the keeper is behind the passer, then 2 field players would be required for the recipient of a forward pass to be onside. Instances when this happened and goals were not given led to hot debates and arguments.

Bros, offside rules appear to be made up as they go along, and they keep revising them. To be honest, i wasn't aware of the various nuances in the deliberate play/deflection rule until the controversy in this game.

[pajimoh]

pajimoh, Tjx’s question is valid. The linesman asked the ref if loveren touched the ball, which proves he had no idea of the lovren deflection (that put Kane onside). He should have raised his flag since he didn’t see lovren touch the ball. The end result was correct, but the officials lucked their way into it.

That is why I said by design or luck the decision was correct. From another interview the ref gave he said he knew the ball was played by a Liverpool player but wanted to confirm it was Lovren

Whether by design or luck, the linesman had a duty to raise the flag based on info available to him. That was his FIRST and PRIMARY duty.

That alone renders every other thing null...

That is why Hackett said categorically that the decision was wrong.

Wrong my son. The ref was the first to blow for a pen. The ref can also overule the linesman, flag or no flag. The ref was interested in the name of the pool player who touched the ball. He knew the ball was touched which nullified the offside rule. He had already decided Karius fouled Kane. What needed clarification was who touched the ball. The linesman was unable to provide. The ref decision stands. It seems you're ignoring the rule but stressing on the flag.

Sorry i didnt see this post before my response. Why is this important? It was the linesman that was explaining the offside rule to the ref. Watch and listen to the tape again.

Well it might not be important but we both agreed Tha the conversation wasn't about Kane being offside. Trying to find out who touched the ball is actually saying Kane has a right to go for the ball and if that is the case and Karius fouled him then it's a pen. The question now is I know a pool player touched the ball but which one? If the ref knew a pool player touched the ball and the linesman could not clarity, is it enough for him to cancel the pen on the strength Tha he doesn't know which player?

[pajimoh]

This is why the rules appear to be purposely made vague...refs can obfuscate any ojoro decisions. A simple, widely-played and watched game like soccer should have straightforward offside rules. It is actually shameful that most viewers (and a number of refs) do not realize that the GK counts as a player. In an instant when the keeper is behind the passer, then 2 field players would be required for the recipient of a forward pass to be onside. Instances when this happened and goals were not given led to hot debates and arguments.

Bros, offside rules appear to be made up as they go along, and they keep revising them. To be honest, i wasn't aware of the various nuances in the deliberate play/deflection rule until the controversy in this game.

I totally agree with you. Simplicity is best. My submission is that since the rule exist, even though we didn't know about it or don't like it, the pen is legit.

[Coach]

Nevertheless, @Chief Oga Tx, nno! Clean sheet ogini?

[txj]

pajimoh, Tjx’s question is valid. The linesman asked the ref if loveren touched the ball, which proves he had no idea of the lovren deflection (that put Kane onside). He should have raised his flag since he didn’t see lovren touch the ball. The end result was correct, but the officials lucked their way into it.

That is why I said by design or luck the decision was correct. From another interview the ref gave he said he knew the ball was played by a Liverpool player but wanted to confirm it was Lovren

Whether by design or luck, the linesman had a duty to raise the flag based on info available to him. That was his FIRST and PRIMARY duty.

That alone renders every other thing null...

That is why Hackett said categorically that the decision was wrong.

Wrong my son. The ref was the first to blow for a pen. The ref can also overule the linesman, flag or no flag. The ref was interested in the name of the pool player who touched the ball. He knew the ball was touched which nullified the offside rule. He had already decided Karius fouled Kane. What needed clarification was who touched the ball. The linesman was unable to provide. The ref decision stands. It seems you're ignoring the rule but stressing on the flag.

Sorry i didnt see this post before my response. Why is this important? It was the linesman that was explaining the offside rule to the ref. Watch and listen to the tape again.

Well it might not be important but we both agreed Tha the conversation wasn't about Kane being offside. Trying to find out who touched the ball is actually saying Kane has a right to go for the ball and if that is the case and Karius fouled him then it's a pen. The question now is I know a pool player touched the ball but which one? If the ref knew a pool player touched the ball and the linesman could not clarity, is it enough for him to cancel the pen on the strength Tha he doesn't know which player?

Its simple really. The linesman DID NOT raise his flag. His job was to make the call on offsides. It would now be the ref's job to overrule or confirm. But he never raised his flag, even though he had the information to make the decision...

You are right, the conversation wasn't about Kane being offsides, because the linesman had taken that out of consideration by not raising his flag!

[danfo driver]

Chief, we were right! Their cheating coach is the brains behind their cheating
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... g-row.html