Unlike the "They live" film, you don't need to wear special glasses to see a Mouser or the messages their media organisation pumps out.
Your post starts off poorly, deteriorates in the middle and the less said about the ending the better. Apart from that ...top post mate
I've been reading back through this thread in the cool light of a Monday morning, lying in bed and still recovering (post-op, not post-match!). Some random thoughts about that whole game and issues raised. First, about refereeing, etc. There was a lot of anxiety around in advance when it was revealed that Moss would be the ref - but I thought he did remarkably well under a lot of pressure from the crowd and the players. So did the assistant ref (I'm not referring to Milner). All brave and fully justified decision-making. But let's admit that all the issues surrounding the penalties were very borderline, so Liverpool anger/ frustration is understandable, although ultimately misplaced. Second, reading the comments posted during the game, I was horrified by the degree of negativity shown. Some exceptions (Smithy, for example). I don't feel comfortable with that level of anger and abuse. After all, we conceded a tame early goal, but didn't cave in. The team believe in themselves and Poch's approach, so we kept at it. I was actually impressed by our first half performance in the circumstances. We were second best; our turn would come; we'd not conceded any more; we were still very much in the match. And I think everyone's been harsh on our defenders, especially Sanchez. We were playing against a very good, fast, attacking team, so guess what! we had a tough time of it. And mistakes were made from time to time. But the score was still only 1-0. Second half we carried on playing our way, they tired very quickly, and we eventually bossed it. Just couldn't get the ball in the net...... until Poch made a canny substitution, with Dembele (I was surprised he started, but didn't he play well!) tiring understandably. Not Sissoko (yay!!!) but Wanyama. Great decision. And he was playing well before his Golden Shot: (e.g. his pass out to Eriksen was pin-point accurate, and led to the goal). And I haven't spotted any comments on the other substitutions: the part played by both Lamela and Llorente in earning the draw was also crucial. And hats off to Poch, who clearly reckoned Liverpool would tire themselves out running about trying to close us down for 45 minutes, so long as we kept moving the ball about, and didn't concede a second. Finally, a rare word of praise from me for Mr Souness, whose praise for Spurs' and the officials' performances was spot on. In direct contrast to that moaning, whining, sneering sound of Gary Barlow (is that his name?!!!) which really wound me up throughout. I don't think we were perfect. But I do think we played as if we meant it for the full 95(?) minutes. That's what really cheered me up! Now then...... let's see who are we playing next weekend..... I expect us to steamroller them after these last two games........ who is it? ........... !!!!!!!! Ps I predicted we'd win 4-0. So I got the goal total right, anyway! There! I think I've said enough for now!
The Law covering offside is completely unambiguous that Kane wasn't offside. I happen to agree with what Jenas said on MotD which was that the Law isn't sensible but that is irrelevant. Interestingly the Offside law also explicitly covers the Lamela situation too. It says that if a player in an offside position is moving towards the ball and is fouled before attempting to play the ball then the foul is penalised. Of course none of the pundits knew any of this.
Spot on. I don't agree with some of the laws but they are what they are, until they're altered. I get pissed off that we're served up punditry that's just plain wrong on MOTD and other football on the BBC. If you watch cricket or rugby union or golf or any other sport, the pundits actually understand the game and respect it I expect sensationalist rubbish from Sky or BT and I can choose whether to purchase their product from them but the BBC is supposed to be a public service broadcaster. If the pundits don't understand the rules, what is the point of them?
Well that did wonders for my dodgy blood pressure Thought we didn't make enough of the positions we were in during the first half when we really should have carved out at least 2 more decent chances which hopefully you take 1 of. Thought we sat back too much second half and ended up unable to get out at all and knew we were going to have problems the moment a 3rd CB came on guaranteeing you would have total control of the ball. Mo Salah scores the the bloody lino equalises honestly my initial views on the pens was 1.Dive 2.Pen - so really glad we got away with it until the lino decides to be the first one in months to actually help the ref Overall thought draw was right result but will feel better for you than us with grabbing it in last seconds.
He basically said that the Law is silly because it puts the defender in the position of being penalised for trying to clear the ball. If he misses it, then Kane is Offside but if he deflects it into Kane's path then he isn't. Wording of the Law: "A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by: interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or interfering with an opponent by: preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or challenging an opponent for the ball or clearly attempting to play a ball which is close to him when this action impacts on an opponent or making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball or gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when it has: rebounded or been deflected off the goalpost, crossbar or an opponent been deliberately saved by any opponent A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save by any opponent) is not considered to have gained an advantage. A ‘save’ is when a player stops, or attempts to stop, a ball which is going into or very close to the goal with any part of the body except the hands/arms (unless the goalkeeper within the penalty area)." Kane did none of the things that are to be penalised before Lovren deliberately touched the ball so the last bullet point applies and he isn't penalised for being offside. The Lamela situation is covered by a further clarifying paragraph later 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". I would say that is pretty daft too but it in the case yesterday it doesn't matter whether Lamela was in an Offside position before he was kicked.
One hell of a game, eh? Typically, the light gets lost in the heat. I heard Roy Hodgson talking [re the Palace v Newcastle game] about how sad it is that the actual game is now far less important than the controversy.......for once I agreed with him.
I doubt this situation comes up often but that says that if a defender handles the ball to prevent a goal and a player who was in an Offside position then scores the rebound he won't be penalised for the Offside so the goal must stand. That is slightly weird......
Draw was a fair result. Glad the penalty that was scored was for the incident that made sense rather than one that caused the law-ignorant "pundits" to suffer collective nosebleed.
honestly i tend not to watch the post match guff so miss quite a bit of it . We just see too much these days and you can "prove" entirely opposite decisions if you get enough angles and freeze frames .
I need to watch again, but I thought JJ and, to be fair, Lawrenson acknowledged that the law meant he was onside, just that they don't agree with the law. It's not an unreasonable position. I assume you saw it differently?
Oh great, Clattenberk has an opinion and has decided to share it with The Times... please log in to view this image
