Which is why I said the law is horses do-do's. How many times have we had goals denied when the same thing has happened? It was because the Official in question saw it differently.
It's still horse ****. It doesn't matter what the law says, that's the point. Of course, there is an argument that you should play to the whistle, but the point is the element of distraction, even momentary, which has to amount to interfering with play. Maybe the law should revert to what it used to be, so that if a player is in an offside position you get flagged, regardless of the ref's opinion of interference. Either that, or stiffen up what interference means. Surely a player who is in the keeper's eyeline when he's watching the ball played through is interfering in a real sense?
Got to stick up for Tom here. There are no excuses for Forster in this occasion and i'm sure he would acknowledge it. Kane made no attempt to latch on to that pass, but Forster still had several yards on Son. He should have slid out and took the ball and do the very first thing we're all taught and play to the whistle. I understand it's hard for the players, because for the vast majority of their playing days that's a nailed on offside, but that was all about concentration and focus
If Kane wasn't offside by the laws of the game the law needs to be changed. He wasn't passive, he was making a positive run, and in doing so distracted the defenders and the goalkeeper. And yes they should have played to the whistle but that doesn't change the fact that it should not be legit for Kane to do that.
Also I always remember that when caught offside Ricky would fold has arms and stroll in the most over exaggerated casual manner you can imagine. I used to love it when he did that, he even did not-interfering with more class and style than everyone else.
Talking about pushing, did Long get a push in the back, when missing the headed chance from Tadic's gem of a cross.? Or did he just plain miss it.?
What else could he have done though.? Incidentally, if it's the incident with their goal, he was walking.
He could have not made an off the ball movement towards the path of the ball whilst in an offside position ... Indeed he actually changed direction after the ball had been played too late for his initial run. It was virtually a dummy. And incidentally he definitely wasn't walking, I just watched it again to double check.
Kane knew he was offside and made no attempt to get involved with play...I have no problem with that. The problem was that Forster should have won the ball....he looked favourite to get there. Forster was caught in two minds...he should have come out and claimed the ball or stayed where he was and defended his goal...he did neither. It was a mistake, but he also made good saves. Players make mistakes all the time....the problem for goalies is that their mistakes are magnified.
I agree with Tom...our defenders made a mistake. They should have carried on playing....not presume offside would be given. Kane wasn't right in front of goal, blocking the view....he can't be blamed for the hesitation on the part of our defence.
Forster wasn't to know that both our centre backs were going to fall on their arses. I can't hold him responsible for their goal.
Just looked again myself. Absolutely right. I was wrong. He wasn't walking. There was little intent in his little trot, is all I can say in my defence. But yes it could be argued that he was interfering with play. Certainly it could be suggested that it was interfering with the mindset of the both Fonte and VVD. Anyway, we won.!
Another spin on it is that he was in the line of sight of Forster and his move outwards distracted him. Also from behind the ball, it may not be as easy to see if you someone is offside or in line with the defenders. Looking at it again all our defenders are distracted by Kane and he is in Forster's line of sight. But, without going one down, we couldn't have come from behind to win, so the ref did us a favour
Forster was at fault in my opinion. I'm just taking the piss at Tom's matter of fact approach on the "law" and, as a ref, being blinkered )) by the written word and therefore having his view interfered with. Tom/any ref can't tell me they know when a play is affected by the position of another player or not. For example, what if our RB had been a yard further back? Fraser wouldn't be able to tell if he's played Kane onside or not. Just shows it's another law that is up for misinterpretation. Sorry Tom - just pulling your leg on it. I never said it was offside and I do think Fraser should have dealt with it, but your stance is the same stance most officials would take and that is what is wrong with that law.
Just looked at the photo gallery from Sunday. Absolutely dreadful the way Harry Kane pushed his shirt into Fonte's hand. Luckily Jose's magic invisibility cloak was working.
I have looked at Spurs goal several times......There is an argument for Kane to be interfering with play. However as an ex goalkeeper I question Forsters judgement on this occasion. He should have known that he was the last line of the defence and should have spotted the possibility of a player chasing the ball down. Had he been two-steps nearer he would have made it easy. Having said that the goalie more than made up for his error in my view as most goalkeepers do over the length of a match.
Fair enough. It's just a natural thing for me to see it from a referees point of view and that's where most of the arguments on here come from.
