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

[pajimoh]

Again, a player standing in an offside position not making any attempt to go for the ball or not found by the initial pass foes not immediately lead to a whistle. I'm sure you've seen games with players in an offside position but ignored the ball and the game keeps flowing?
Your mistake is thinking he's offside and should be blown as such. It ought to be for clarity but the current rule doesn't support that

So why doesn't he raise his flag when Kane DOES go for the ball?

At the time Kane DOES GO FOR THE BALL, based on the information the linesman has (see transcript of his conversation with the ref), why did he not raise his flag?

Smart: "You know what I'm asking; I need to clarify, has Lovren touched the ball? If he has, it's a deliberate action and, therefore, it's a penalty. If he has not, it is offside.

My question persists:
Did Lovren's contact with the ball reset play..?
Yes it did. According to the law, if Kane receives the ball last touched by a pool player then he can't be offside.

If the ball had reached Karius and he collects the ball with his hands, would Lovren's touch be deemed a back-pass..?
The ref would have to decide that but the problem is you think Kane is active because Lovren is deemed to have made a BACKPASS. The rule is not about back-pass. It's about him touching the ball and deliberately too. The ball did not bounce of him by accident. He tried to clear it. That's a DELIBERATE attempt. Whether back, forward or sideways is irrelevant. It's the DELIBERATE act of playing the ball that is

If Lovren's contact with the ball wasn't a back-pass, how was it a deliberate action..?
So the only time a player can deliberately touch the ball is when he's making a back pass? As Robby would say - you sure say your head dey house? Just joking but he could have made a deliberate attempt to hoof the ball up field and got the contact wrong. He went for the ball.

We'd re-visit this call next time a free-kick is floated into the box and the ball deflects into the path of an attacker standing in an offside position...

[FATHER TIKO]

The ball did not bounce of him by accident. He tried to clear it. That's a DELIBERATE attempt. Whether back, forward or sideways is irrelevant. It's the DELIBERATE act of playing the ball that is

...but he could have made a deliberate attempt to hoof the ball up field and got the contact wrong. He went for the ball.[/color][/b]

That right there is the point. The next episode we're going to be debating DELIBERATE or NON-DELIBERATE attempt...
Reason I used a back-pass in this context, as a back-pass is a more compelling argument for DELIBERATE ATTEMPT...

As sure as sunset, this debate shall recur very soon...

Wetin I know...my head no dey house...

[pajimoh]

The ball did not bounce of him by accident. He tried to clear it. That's a DELIBERATE attempt. Whether back, forward or sideways is irrelevant. It's the DELIBERATE act of playing the ball that is

...but he could have made a deliberate attempt to hoof the ball up field and got the contact wrong. He went for the ball.[/color][/b]

That right there is the point. The next episode we're going to be debating DELIBERATE or NON-DELIBERATE attempt...
Reason I used a back-pass in this context, as a back-pass is a more compelling argument for DELIBERATE ATTEMPT...

As sure as sunset, this debate shall recur very soon...

Wetin I know...my head no dey house...

Olodumare I take God beg you, I'm not debating DELIBRATE or OTHERWISE. No way. My youngest is 17. I'd like to finish this debate before his wedding day

[txj]

At this point I am starting to suspect you are deliberately avoiding my question.

The linesman DID NOT KNOW that Lovren deflected the ball. WE KNOW from the conversation that he did NOT have this info.

But he had information to make a call about offsides WHEN Kane makes contact with the ball.

And my question is, why did he not raise his flag?

[pajimoh]

At this point I am starting to suspect you are deliberately avoiding my question.

The linesman DID NOT KNOW that Lovren deflected the ball. WE KNOW from the conversation that he did NOT have this info.

But he had information to make a call about offsides WHEN Kane makes contact with the ball.

And my question is, why did he not raise his flag?

I've answered you question but you either chose to ignore it or still looking for another answer.

Let me say it one last time.

THE FLAG DOESN'T HAVE TO COME UP AS LONG AS KANE DID NOT MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO CONNECT WITH DELE'S PASS. STAYING IN AN OFFSIDE POSITION IS NOT AN AUTOMATIC FLAG. RECEIVING THE BALL FROM YOUR TEAM MATE WHILE OFFSIDE IS AN AUTOMATIC FLAG

KANE MAKES CONTACT WITH THE BALL AFTER LOVREN IN EFFECT PLAYS KANE ONSIDE. OFFSIDE RULE ASSUMES A PASS IS FROM ONE TEAM MATE TO ANOTHER AND I'M SURE LOVREN IS NOT A SPURS PLAYER

[txj]

At this point I am starting to suspect you are deliberately avoiding my question.

The linesman DID NOT KNOW that Lovren deflected the ball. WE KNOW from the conversation that he did NOT have this info.

But he had information to make a call about offsides WHEN Kane makes contact with the ball.

And my question is, why did he not raise his flag?

I've answered you question but you either chose to ignore it or still looking for another answer.

Let me say it one last time.

THE FLAG DOESN'T HAVE TO COME UP AS LONG AS KANE DID NOT MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO CONNECT WITH DELE'S PASS. STAYING IN AN OFFSIDE POSITION IS NOT AN AUTOMATIC FLAG. RECEIVING THE BALL FROM YOUR TEAM MATE WHILE OFFSIDE IS AN AUTOMATIC FLAG

But Kane DOES connect with the pass, albeit from a deflection. And the linesman DOES NOT KNOW about this deflection. So why did he not raise his flag?

KANE MAKES CONTACT WITH THE BALL AFTER LOVREN IN EFFECT PLAYS KANE ONSIDE. OFFSIDE RULE ASSUMES A PASS IS FROM ONE TEAM MATE TO ANOTHER AND I'M SURE LOVREN IS NOT A SPURS PLAYER

[pajimoh]

At this point I am starting to suspect you are deliberately avoiding my question.

The linesman DID NOT KNOW that Lovren deflected the ball. WE KNOW from the conversation that he did NOT have this info.

But he had information to make a call about offsides WHEN Kane makes contact with the ball.

And my question is, why did he not raise his flag?

I've answered you question but you either chose to ignore it or still looking for another answer.

Let me say it one last time.

THE FLAG DOESN'T HAVE TO COME UP AS LONG AS KANE DID NOT MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO CONNECT WITH DELE'S PASS. STAYING IN AN OFFSIDE POSITION IS NOT AN AUTOMATIC FLAG. RECEIVING THE BALL FROM YOUR TEAM MATE WHILE OFFSIDE IS AN AUTOMATIC FLAG

But Kane DOES connect with the pass, albeit from a deflection. And the linesman DOES NOT KNOW about this deflection. So why did he not raise his flag?

KANE MAKES CONTACT WITH THE BALL AFTER LOVREN IN EFFECT PLAYS KANE ONSIDE. OFFSIDE RULE ASSUMES A PASS IS FROM ONE TEAM MATE TO ANOTHER AND I'M SURE LOVREN IS NOT A SPURS PLAYER

You are saying it's a deflection. Lovren tried to clear the ball. If he had sliced the ball into his own net, regardless of Knaes position it would still be a goal.
But sticking to the onside/offside rule, Kane did not attempt to get on the end of Alli pass. Loveren, whether you consider it a deflection or not, DELIBERATELY attempted to clear the ball and end up playing it to Kane.

It is no different to what Dier did. Salah was offside. Dier DELIBERATELY kicked the ball and Salah was now in play. Don't forget, Liverpool were attacking before Dier intercepted. Tottenham were attacking before Lovren intervened.

I can't speak for the linesman. The question you should be concerned about is the rule and has it been applied? The ref gave it because he saw it was touched by a pool player.

The bottom-line is the correct decision by design or luck was applied in this case.

[kastro11]

I think you are the one creating your own rules. The linesman flag should go up if Kane makes a move towards the ball whilst in an offside position, Kane waited for the ball to come to him via Lovren's miskick and was therefore onside.

How do you not understand the offside rule? It's not hard to look up the fifa laws of the game manual. It was 100% offside. It doesn't matter that it touched Lovren in this instance as he was never in controlled possession of the ball.

The fact that he fluffed his clearance doesn't negate the offside. The only way for that play to remain active - Lovren intentionally plays the ball backwards. The controlled action of playing the ball backwards thus keeps Kane onside.

This exact play happened a 2-3 seasons ago with Arsenal at against Chelsea. A throughball was played and I think it was Mertesacker who tried to clear it but inadvertently played it back (exactly like Lovren) to Costa who was flagged for offside - and rightfully so.

[kastro11]

You are saying it's a deflection. Lovren tried to clear the ball. If he had sliced the ball into his own net, regardless of Knaes position it would still be a goal.
But sticking to the onside/offside rule, Kane did not attempt to get on the end of Alli pass. Loveren, whether you consider it a deflection or not, DELIBERATELY attempted to clear the ball and end up playing it to Kane.

This is false. It's 100% offside. The own goal situation is irrelevant. Had it went straight in then yea it would stand but if Kane plays for the ball like he did - offside. It's a very simple rule. The ball if touched backwards by a defender has to be 100% controlled and deliberate. Lover's attempt was neither.

[pajimoh]

You are saying it's a deflection. Lovren tried to clear the ball. If he had sliced the ball into his own net, regardless of Knaes position it would still be a goal.
But sticking to the onside/offside rule, Kane did not attempt to get on the end of Alli pass. Loveren, whether you consider it a deflection or not, DELIBERATELY attempted to clear the ball and end up playing it to Kane.

This is false. It's 100% offside. The own goal situation is irrelevant. Had it went straight in then yea it would stand but if Kane plays for the ball like he did - offside. It's a very simple rule. The ball if touched backwards by a defender has to be 100% controlled and deliberate. Lover's attempt was neither.

So all the rule in the thread is not for you. Because you me too FIFA makes you right? Carry go abeg. We are explaining a rule, not feelings

[metalalloy]

You are saying it's a deflection. Lovren tried to clear the ball. If he had sliced the ball into his own net, regardless of Knaes position it would still be a goal.
But sticking to the onside/offside rule, Kane did not attempt to get on the end of Alli pass. Loveren, whether you consider it a deflection or not, DELIBERATELY attempted to clear the ball and end up playing it to Kane.

This is false. It's 100% offside. The own goal situation is irrelevant. Had it went straight in then yea it would stand but if Kane plays for the ball like he did - offside. It's a very simple rule. The ball if touched backwards by a defender has to be 100% controlled and deliberate. Lover's attempt was neither.

Please feel free to post a link to the rule that states the highlighted

[pajimoh]

You are saying it's a deflection. Lovren tried to clear the ball. If he had sliced the ball into his own net, regardless of Knaes position it would still be a goal.
But sticking to the onside/offside rule, Kane did not attempt to get on the end of Alli pass. Loveren, whether you consider it a deflection or not, DELIBERATELY attempted to clear the ball and end up playing it to Kane.

This is false. It's 100% offside. The own goal situation is irrelevant. Had it went straight in then yea it would stand but if Kane plays for the ball like he did - offside. It's a very simple rule. The ball if touched backwards by a defender has to be 100% controlled and deliberate. Lover's attempt was neither.

By the way which part of the rule says it must be "100% controlled and deliberate"? What is 200% controlled? You see how you people make things up?

[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.

[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

[FATHER TIKO]

I think you are the one creating your own rules. The linesman flag should go up if Kane makes a move towards the ball whilst in an offside position, Kane waited for the ball to come to him via Lovren's miskick and was therefore onside.

How do you not understand the offside rule? It's not hard to look up the fifa laws of the game manual. It was 100% offside. It doesn't matter that it touched Lovren in this instance as he was never in controlled possession of the ball.

The fact that he fluffed his clearance doesn't negate the offside. The only way for that play to remain active - Lovren intentionally plays the ball backwards. The controlled action of playing the ball backwards thus keeps Kane onside.

This exact play happened a 2-3 seasons ago with Arsenal at against Chelsea. A throughball was played and I think it was Mertesacker who tried to clear it but inadvertently played it back (exactly like Lovren) to Costa who was flagged for offside - and rightfully so.

Your interpretation of the offside rule is how I've always understood it has been applied...

Like I commented earlier on this thread, this misapplication of the rule at Anfield on Sunday shall be revisited sooner than we blink; because a similar situation shall inevitably arise...

[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

Moss gave an interview?

[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

[kastro11]

Please feel free to post a link to the rule that states the highlighted

I just went through the pdf and they've taken that part out that was clearly there before. I remember looking it up after the Arsenal/Chelsea match that season. Even though it's not mentioned (unless they moved it to another part of the manual), the law still stands

Found an article from 2013 regarding the EPL taking into effect a change in the law 11 which mentions it despite the main focus being on players standing offside impeding the view of keepers:
GAINING AN ADVANTAGE - what the law now says

“Gaining an advantage by being in that position” means playing a ball…

-That rebounds or is deflected to him off the goal post, crossbar or an opponent having been in an offside position.
-That rebounds, is deflected or is played to him from a deliberate save by an opponent having been in an offside position.
-A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent, who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save), is not considered to have gained an advantage.

So in the article they're saying the same thing albeit a little less clear. For it to be played deliberately back to the opponent - it has to be a controlled action of playing the ball backwards not a sliced clearance. The key word is receiving the ball and deliberate. Kane received the ball from Lovern but it wasn't deliberate.

[pajimoh]

Please feel free to post a link to the rule that states the highlighted

I just went through the pdf and they've taken that part out that was clearly there before. I remember looking it up after the Arsenal/Chelsea match that season. Even though it's not mentioned (unless they moved it to another part of the manual), the law still stands

Found an article from 2013 regarding the EPL taking into effect a change in the law 11 which mentions it despite the main focus being on players standing offside impeding the view of keepers:
GAINING AN ADVANTAGE - what the law now says

“Gaining an advantage by being in that position” means playing a ball…

-That rebounds or is deflected to him off the goal post, crossbar or an opponent having been in an offside position.
-That rebounds, is deflected or is played to him from a deliberate save by an opponent having been in an offside position.
-A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent, who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save), is not considered to have gained an advantage.

So in the article they're saying the same thing albeit a little less clear. For it to be played deliberately back to the opponent - it has to be a controlled action of playing the ball backwards not a sliced clearance. The key word is receiving the ball and deliberate. Kane received the ball from Lovern but it wasn't deliberate.

Chief, the states ".... he's not considered to have gained an advantage" means Kane was not offside. Please stop spinning yarns. Deliberately playing the ball doesn't equate to a backpass PLEASE. If he had sliced the ball badly end scored an own goal it would stand. If he sliced the ball badly and it falls to Kane then that one is offside? Please enough. Deliberate means intentionally kicking the ball. Forward or backwards is irrelevant. Slicing or full contact is also irrelevant. He intentionally swing at the ball = deliberate

[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

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...

[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.

[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/

[metalalloy]

Please feel free to post a link to the rule that states the highlighted

I just went through the pdf and they've taken that part out that was clearly there before. I remember looking it up after the Arsenal/Chelsea match that season. Even though it's not mentioned (unless they moved it to another part of the manual), the law still stands

Found an article from 2013 regarding the EPL taking into effect a change in the law 11 which mentions it despite the main focus being on players standing offside impeding the view of keepers:
GAINING AN ADVANTAGE - what the law now says

“Gaining an advantage by being in that position” means playing a ball…

-That rebounds or is deflected to him off the goal post, crossbar or an opponent having been in an offside position.
-That rebounds, is deflected or is played to him from a deliberate save by an opponent having been in an offside position.
-A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent, who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save), is not considered to have gained an advantage.

So in the article they're saying the same thing albeit a little less clear. For it to be played deliberately back to the opponent - it has to be a controlled action of playing the ball backwards not a sliced clearance. The key word is receiving the ball and deliberate. Kane received the ball from Lovern but it wasn't deliberate.

The plain text of the rule you posted does not contain the additional elements of "control" and "backwards". It simply has to be a deliberate act (i.e. did the player act deliberately to make contact with the ball). Where the ball ends up afterwards is irrelevant.