Dave Kidd: Liverpool vs Tottenham penalty farce shows the offside law is a dog’s dinner… logic no longer applies
In the course of one penalty decision at Anfield two uncomfortable truths were laid bare for referees
IN the course of one penalty decision at Anfield on Sunday, two uncomfortable truths were laid bare for the refereeing fraternity.
Firstly, that the offside law is a dog’s dinner. Secondly, that while refs may condemn players for dishonesty, they’re no paragons of virtue themselves.
Long gone are the days when you could get away with the tired old gag about women not understanding the offside law, especially in an age when NOBODY comprehends the current version.
Former World Cup refs Graham Poll and Mark Clattenburg had differing views as to whether Jon Moss was correct to award Harry Kane the first of Spurs’ two late penalties in the 2-2 draw with Liverpool.
So how are the rest of us supposed to have a clue?
The issue was whether Kane should have been judged offside, given that Dejan Lovren had miscued a clearance into his path.
Age-old logic dictates that Kane must have been interfering with play, given that Lovren acted rashly in the knowledge that the hottest goalscorer on the planet was lurking behind him.
But apparently that logic no longer applies.
ARM OF THE LAW Fans fury as assistant referee seems to celebrate controversial Tottenham penalty against Liverpool
And to properly decipher the current version of the law would take a PhD in advanced code-cracking.
But the second aspect is even more troubling for Premier League refs — the fact that when Moss consulted with linesman Eddie Smart, he clearly asked, through his microphone, whether fourth official Martin Atkinson had seen anything on TV as to whether Lovren had touched the ball.
OFFSIDE Q&A
WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY?
Law 11 states a player in an offside position receiving possession from an opponent — who DELIBERATELY plays the ball — is not considered to have gained an advantage.
WHEN DID THE LAW CHANGE?
The law was changed by the International Football Association Board (IFAB) in the summer of 2015. It stated then…
A player in an offside position is penalised if — at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team — he is, in the opinion of the ref, involved in active play by
- Interfering with play
- Interfering with an opponent
- Gaining an advantage by being in that position
WHY DID THE LAW CHANGE?
Lawmakers wanted to give the advantage to the attackers in situations where the ball is deliberately played by an opponent or when the opponent makes a deliberate block.
MARK HALSEY’S VIEW ON THE LAW…
The offside law at present is unsatisfactory and an ass for refs, players, managers and fans. It’s a grey area and there is too much interpretation.
HALSEY’S VIEW ON SUNDAY — DID HARRY KANE IMPACT ON DEJAN LOVREN? WAS KANE INVOLVED IN ACTIVE PLAY?
I think Kane has impacted on Lovren and therefore he is interfering with an opponent — that would have definitely meant offside was given under the previous law but I still feel there is room for that interpretation to be given as offside now.
Having spoken to officials past and present, many agree with me but this was an incident that has divided people.
The IFAB need an independent review of this incident and the offside law needs to be refined because it is too confusing for everybody.
Now, this practice is not allowed — although everyone has long suspected the refs were at it, asking help from a fourth official within sight of a replay screen.
When Moss was caught by the eavesdropping TV coverage, the referees’ body PGMOL issued a statement claiming he had been ‘misguided’ in this but that Atkinson, conveniently, had not answered him.
So we’re expected to believe Moss instantly awarded a penalty on the basis of Atkinson blanking him? In a court of law, it wouldn’t need Rumpole of the Bailey to cross-examine the heck out of that story.
The incident seems even more ridiculous at present, with the VAR system being trialled in certain cup games but not in the Premier League.
While Moss was clearly breaking the rules, this made it seem more of a grey area as to whether he was really doing anything seriously wrong.
And whether you agree with VAR or not, it was refreshing to be able to hear the officials communicate with one another — even if only to realise what we always expected: that they’re pretty much making it up as they go along.
Still, at least Kane had the decency to produce a poor penalty which was saved, making the whole argument irrelevant anyway…