Today's Football 2017-18 Season

[Saint Domingo]

I'm still confused over the first pen and if it was offside.

According to the pundits, the ref and the linesman were discussing whether Lovren touched the ball. The lino says Kane was in an offside position (ie closer to the goal then 2 opponents or the ball) but couldn't see if Lovren touched it or not. The lino then said if Lovren didn't touch it Kane was offside and afoul should be given, if Lovren did touch it than Kane is onside.

Moss said Lovren touched it so no offside, and Dermot Gallagher seemed to back that up saying that Lovrens touch means Kane was onside.

Yet this :
The shot by a team-mate (A) rebounds off or is deflected by an opponent
to attacker (B) who is penalised for playing or touching the ball having
previously been in an offside position.

View attachment 43978

Kane was offside when the ball was played to him by a team mate. It was touched by Lovren on its way through to Kane who was still in an offside position so i don't see how offside wasn't given.

Offsides don’t count if a player deserves a goal though. BT cleared that up with Aubemayang yesterday. If you’re the top 6 and it means more goals for your big money players then offsides don’t count.

 

[Stutheblue]

Klopp saying Van Dijk touched him but Lamela is 'looking' for the penalty. Hmmmm. A bit like Lallana against us then? Just saying.
Oh, and he said they 'always' have to suffer these decisions!! Omg!!

 

[tommytowne]

Jesus, only just saw Wanyama's goal ffs

Nearly as good as Jag's effort a few years back.

 

[Big_nev]

Despite the fact that it's given me some easy ammunition to wind my lad up for the rest of the night I'm coming away from that match thinking how on earth are we one of the few sides to get punished for supposed simulation when Spurs are at it all over the place?

 

[N.S.N.O.]

I'm still confused over the first pen and if it was offside.

According to the pundits, the ref and the linesman were discussing whether Lovren touched the ball. The lino says Kane was in an offside position (ie closer to the goal then 2 opponents or the ball) but couldn't see if Lovren touched it or not. The lino then said if Lovren didn't touch it Kane was offside and afoul should be given, if Lovren did touch it than Kane is onside.

Moss said Lovren touched it so no offside, and Dermot Gallagher seemed to back that up saying that Lovrens touch means Kane was onside.

Yet this :
The shot by a team-mate (A) rebounds off or is deflected by an opponent
to attacker (B) who is penalised for playing or touching the ball having
previously been in an offside position.

View attachment 43978

Kane was offside when the ball was played to him by a team mate. It was touched by Lovren on its way through to Kane who was still in an offside position so i don't see how offside wasn't given.

I suppose the ball didn't rebound or deflect off louvren... Louvren tried to clear the ball and completely sliced it, in doing so he played Kane back into the game and the offside rule no longer applied...

 

[Seamus Colemole]

Nice to see that cleared up. I think.

Thinking about it, i think the reason why it was allowed rather than being dissalowed due to the pic i posted is that Lovren was deemed to have "played" the ball rather than it rebounding or deflecting off him.

Just like N.S.N.O pointed out

 

[Lee Smith]

I'm still confused over the first pen and if it was offside.

According to the pundits, the ref and the linesman were discussing whether Lovren touched the ball. The lino says Kane was in an offside position (ie closer to the goal then 2 opponents or the ball) but couldn't see if Lovren touched it or not. The lino then said if Lovren didn't touch it Kane was offside and afoul should be given, if Lovren did touch it than Kane is onside.

Moss said Lovren touched it so no offside, and Dermot Gallagher seemed to back that up saying that Lovrens touch means Kane was onside.

Yet this :
The shot by a team-mate (A) rebounds off or is deflected by an opponent
to attacker (B) who is penalised for playing or touching the ball having
previously been in an offside position.

View attachment 43978

Kane was offside when the ball was played to him by a team mate. It was touched by Lovren on its way through to Kane who was still in an offside position so i don't see how offside wasn't given.

Yeah I'm the same, only seen a few grainy replays on YouTube but to me, Kane was offside when the first ball was played forward to him, so whether Lovren touched it or not is irrelevant in my opinion, he was offside. I could have understood if the first pass wasn't meant for / passed towards Kane, and had then ricocheted off Lovren to him, but as it was I think it was deffo offside. Just a shame the plonker missed the pen!!

 

[PITA]

Wish we'd have thrown all the monies at Zaha when we went to buy a Palace player

I don't like his attitude. It's always someone else's fault when things don't work out for him.

 

[Yid4life]

Still basking in the afterglow and looking forward to seeing the three RS fans at work tomorrow.
Salty tears will be flowing. Love it.

 

[summerisle]

 

[PITA]

Spurs have won 6 times at Anfield in 74 attempts, a lot worse record than ours (42 in 149)

Really? That means that at some point we had a really good record at the pit.

 

[Blues Harp]

Despite the fact that it's given me some easy ammunition to wind my lad up for the rest of the night I'm coming away from that match thinking how on earth are we one of the few sides to get punished for supposed simulation when Spurs are at it all over the place?

Indeed Alli is the worst diving cheat in the prem...the rs would love him

 

[Lee Smith]

Really? That means that at some point we had a really good record at the pit.

Them 42 wins at Anfield probably include when we used to play our home games there lol

 

[daza_1973]

Really? That means that at some point we had a really good record at the pit.

Pre 1965 it was like Barca vs Espanyol us being Barca - sadly since then and more so in the last 20 years its gone the other way

 

[verreauxi]

(text from my friend today...we are both Americans...)

"Mo Salah's goal should have been disallowed for illegal Sujud. I thought they were looking into this type of stuff via VAR to stop attacks on our Freedom."