KopTalk

Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 2 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Flames #594245 04/02/18 10:28 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 9,605
V
1st Team Squad
1st Team Squad
V Offline
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 9,605
Bad defending from Ox made it easy for Wanyama to reach the ball for the kick of his life!

Ox just stood there and did nothing. If that had been at the other end of the pitch he would have reached the ball first (since he is an attack minded player).

ecnirp98 #594260 04/02/18 10:59 PM
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 7,291
C
1st Team Squad
1st Team Squad
C Offline
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 7,291
Originally Posted By ecnirp98
I thought the first pen was onside as it came off Lovren as the final touch before Kane ran on,


I don't understand this, Kane gained an advantage by being in an offside position. When the ball was played to him he's clearly offside, the deflection off Lovren is irrelevant as he's offside in the first place.

Flames #594261 04/02/18 11:01 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 9,605
V
1st Team Squad
1st Team Squad
V Offline
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 9,605
The new rule says it's a new situation when Lovren steps in and misses the ball (it deflected from his foot). Therefore it's not an offside position that lead up to the penalty. It's almost as when Dier passed the ball to Salah for our first goal. Salah was offside there, but since it was a back pass from a Spuds player, it was ruled off.

That Kane dived and the penalty maybe shouldn't have been awarded is another issue..

Last edited by van Gogh; 04/02/18 11:03 PM.
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 6,054
E
1st Team Squad
1st Team Squad
E Offline
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 6,054
Originally Posted By Chris2402
Originally Posted By ecnirp98
I thought the first pen was onside as it came off Lovren as the final touch before Kane ran on,


I don't understand this, Kane gained an advantage by being in an offside position. When the ball was played to him he's clearly offside, the deflection off Lovren is irrelevant as he's offside in the first place.


As Van Gogh says, It's like a striker intercepting a backpass from a defender to the GK, if the opposition player plays the ball to the attacker, he is not offside, even if he was not playing the ball intentionally, it came off Lovren last.

van Gogh #594270 04/02/18 11:43 PM
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 6,054
E
1st Team Squad
1st Team Squad
E Offline
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 6,054
Originally Posted By van Gogh
The new rule says it's a new situation when Lovren steps in and misses the ball (it deflected from his foot). Therefore it's not an offside position that lead up to the penalty. It's almost as when Dier passed the ball to Salah for our first goal. Salah was offside there, but since it was a back pass from a Spuds player, it was ruled off.

That Kane dived and the penalty maybe shouldn't have been awarded is another issue..


Whether Kane dives or not, he played the ball before Karius slid into him, and his foot hit Karius, Kane dived and made the most of it, but there was contact, so it was a penalty IMO.

Flames #594271 04/02/18 11:45 PM
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 4,077
M
Under 23 Player
Under 23 Player
M Offline
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 4,077
I've seen referee's celebrate when they decide to 'play on' and that leads to a goal which in turn makes it a good decision. But I've never seen something like that.

Bullshi7

Flames #594276 05/02/18 02:42 AM
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 269
A
Under 16 Player
Under 16 Player
A Offline
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 269
I thought first penalty was justified but not the second.

ecnirp98 #594277 05/02/18 03:14 AM
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 462
L
Under 16 Player
Under 16 Player
L Offline
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 462
Originally Posted By ecnirp98
Originally Posted By Chris2402
Originally Posted By ecnirp98
I thought the first pen was onside as it came off Lovren as the final touch before Kane ran on,


I don't understand this, Kane gained an advantage by being in an offside position. When the ball was played to him he's clearly offside, the deflection off Lovren is irrelevant as he's offside in the first place.


As Van Gogh says, It's like a striker intercepting a backpass from a defender to the GK, if the opposition player plays the ball to the attacker, he is not offside, even if he was not playing the ball intentionally, it came off Lovren last.


No
the rule said that unless the defenders deliberately play the ball, it is an offside.

Check this out:-

"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:

...

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 a ball which is going into or very close to the goal with any part of the body except the hands (unless the goalkeeper within the penalty area)"

It is a clear offside.

Kane is originally in an offside position that affecting Lovern's decision and Lovern didnt deliberately play the ball backwards.

If this case is not an offside, then I would ask all my strikers stay in the offside position and ask my midfielders to find the opponents bodies/legs for a deflection forward pass.

Flames #594280 05/02/18 05:19 AM
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 462
L
Under 16 Player
Under 16 Player
L Offline
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 462
Look back the playback again,

It seems like Lovern even didnt touch the ball.

It is a deflection from Gini the deflected the pass.

Again, clearly offside when you follow the rule.

#594281 05/02/18 05:21 AM
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 462
L
Under 16 Player
Under 16 Player
L Offline
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 462
Originally Posted By TheKopProphet
Originally Posted By AmateurHour
Thought Kane was pretty starved of the ball today and or centre half had it pretty easy and were never really stretched especialy first half however the only real time they had to deal with a bit of sustained pressure they buckled...
I think VVD is looking more and more like a liability, he has been poor since he arrived and the Penalty he gave away was terrible judgement.
I also think Klopp was shown up to be very poor tactical wise as although we were under a bit of pressure before he made the change, we completely folded when we went to a back three...this man is an imposter with more and more people getting wise to him...the Jerry League is completely different to this one and he's struggling big time...


I can't agree with this hasty assessment. VvD is playing himself in after missing quite a few games for Southampton. You can't dismiss a player based of 3-4 games - that's foolish. The defence kept Kane quiet for much of the match and dealt with things fairly well. I thought our midfield was poor, which put our defence under more pressure. Spurs scored a worldy and a controversial penalty, remembers. They did outplay us in the middle - but I don't think it was our defence that let us down today.


VVD made Kane quiet all day. Kane can only able to get on the scoresheet by doing a few attempts for diving (some come from his teammates tho). I think VVD has a solid game and ppls said that VVD is a liability is just bullshyte.

Page 2 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Moderated by  KopTalk Team 

Link Copied to Clipboard
ShoutChat
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
Advertisements
Liverpool FC Discussion