Uk News Laws explained as Allardyce bemoans 'complete blunder' in West Brom's defeat to Liverpool United Kingdom news
PremierLeague-News.Com - The Baggies had complaints about Mo Salah's opener and Kyle Bartley's disallowed goal as they were beaten 2-1 at the Hawthorns
PremierLeague-News.Com - Breaking Sport Transfer News ! Liverpool came from behind to beat West Brom in extraordinary fashion as goalkeeper Alisson Becker scored a header in the fifth minute of injury time to seal a 2-1 win on Sunday.Mo Salah cancelled out Hal Robson-Kanu’s well-taken opener for the Baggies with a fine effort from the edge of the box, before Alisson became the first ‘keeper to score a Premier League goal in eight years.However, West Brom, who were relegated to the Championship last weekend, felt aggrieved at the manner in which they were beaten at the Hawthorns.Get expert FPL tips, delivered straight to your inboxEmail address is invalidThank you for subscribing!Sorry, there was a problem with your subscription.“It’s hard to take, obviously,” Sam Allardyce said to Sky Sports. “Of course, we didn’t want a decision snatched away from us, not by Liverpool, but by the decisions made today. Read More Who will be Premier League top scorer? Golden boot race explained with Harry Kane and Mo Salah tied in lead “Unfortunately, there are two decisions that are causing us a problem in terms of both Liverpool’s goals. Obviously, the referee should give a drop ball, not a free-kick for the first goal. That’s a complete blunder as far as the rules go. Liverpool score from that free-kick so that’s number one.“And then obviously the goal we scored, the VAR is there to let a player whose onside score a goal. Don’t give us any rubbish that he’s in the goalies eyeline, he’s about two-and-a-half metres off him. That’s just an absolutely, outrageous, ridiculous decision when you’ve got VAR.“I said before the game we needed a bit of luck, a great performance and we didn’t need VAR or the officials to go against us and they have on two occasions and it’s the main reason why we’ve lost this game.”Here are how both incidents played out.Incident one: Should Liverpool have been awarded a free-kick?In a word, no. Liverpool were looking to build up some momentum as they sought to get back into the game and were in the middle of a swift break upfield when Mike Dean got in Fabinho’s way by the halfway line.Fabinho had looked to pass the ball out wide to Andy Robertson but after evading Dean he gave the ball away to a covering West Brom midfielder – and he made his displeasure at the referee’s positioning abundantly clear by flailing his arms theatrically in the air.Dean responded by awarding Liverpool free-kick and from the resulting move, Salah fired in the equaliser from the edge of the box after being set up by Sadio Mane.West Brom felt aggrieved at Liverpool’s opening goal scored by Mo Salah (Photo: Getty)According to law 9.1 of the International Football Association Board’s [IFAB] Laws of the Game, Dean should have given a drop ball rather than a free-kick. IFAB Law 9.1 – The ball in and out of play The ball is out of play when: it has wholly passed over the goal line or touchline on the ground or in the airplay has been stopped by the refereeit touches a match official, remains on the field of play and:a team starts a promising attack orthe ball goes directly into the goal orthe team in possession of the ball changes In all these cases, play is restarted with a dropped ball. “Sam will be fuming,” Sky Sports pundit Graeme Souness said at half-time. “He has to be, that goal shouldn’t happen that way, I don’t know what the referee is thinking.
News source = PremierLeague-News.Com
.”Incident two: Was Matt Phillips interfering in play?This incident is less clear-cut than the first which was quite clearly an error from the officials.Conor Gallagher’s corner found Semi Ajayi and his downward header bounced the way of his central defensive partner Kyle Bartley to finish from close range.Although Bartley was clearly onside when he converted the chance, his teammate Matt Phillips was ruled to be in an offside position and interfering with Alisson’s line of vision.
Carragher: "I would be really unhappy if that was against me."Kyle Bartley sweeps home for West Brom but VAR rules the goal out for offside ❌???? Watch on Sky Sports PL???? Download the @SkySports app!???? Follow #WBALIV: https://t.co/4Ko9z3MRwQ pic.twitter.com/ZD1qsye6tz— Sky Sports Premier League (@SkySportsPL) May 16, 2021
“If that went against me, I’d be very unhappy,” admitted former Liverpool defender Jamie Carragher on Sky Sports. “There’s no doubt that there was someone in front of the goalkeeper. But I would be really unhappy if that was against me.”Although Phillips could be interpreted to be interfering with play from Ajayi’s header, West Brom may argue that there was a second phase of play when the goal was scored in which he wasn’t in Alisson’s way.According to ESPNFC editor Dale Johnson, though, that doesn’t matter as Phillips’ position impacted Alisson’s ability to play the ball in the first instance, before Bartley knocked the ball in.“Matt Phillips is stood in front of Alisson in an offside position blocking his line of vision to the ball,” he tweeted. “Nothing else is relevant. If this were allowed, teams would do it all the time.”
This is the key angle which confirmed the offside decision on West Brom's second "goal".Matt Phillips is stood in front of Alisson in an offside position blocking his line of vision to the ball. Nothing else is relevant.If this were allowed, teams would do it all the time. pic.twitter.com/ClmxpEHyUd— Dale Johnson (@DaleJohnsonESPN) May 16, 2021
IFAB’s laws relating to offside state that a player is in an offside position if they are ‘preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision’.
IFAB Law 12.2 – Offside 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 orinterfering 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 *The first point of contact of the ‘play’ or ‘touch’ of the ball should be used
Although West Brom may feel hard done by over the second incident, Dean and VAR official Kevin Friend could argue that they applied the letter of the law when making their decision.More on the Premier League‘I want Burnley to be the UK’s favourite underdog’Deeney: ‘Middle-class white people are outraged about racism now – that’s what stokes change’ The making of Everton’s versatile defender whose rise surprised even his own managerHall: Martial is running out of chances to prove he is part of the future at Man UtdThe Czech ‘warriors’ who rose from obscurity to fire West Ham into European contention
Source = PremierLeague-News.Com