Spurs Goal/No Goal

For those of you that are watching the Spurs game, what is your take on the goal they got disallowed?

As a neutral I thought it was the correct decision but I could see why Spurs fans would be upset.

If there was a case for a defender being 'inactive' then it would have been then.

Also I thought it was a foul on the defender, anywhere else on the pitch and it's a late tackle and a yellow card.

 

I agree. I even want Tottenham to get something from this match, but not by a snide goal. And how much did the commentators whine about it...

 

Right decision to rule out the goal although they seem to have reached it for the wrong reason, i.e. offside. Justice done though!

 

I'm over the moon with that decision. I hate Spurs!

 

Just seen the penalty incident as well, and that seemed very harsh. Great result for them though.

 

correct decision. wanted spurs to stay in the uefa cup for as long as poss tho in case it affected their league form. oh well, that's top 4 for them me thinks

 

I agree in a way but I am also glad they are out (and don't get top 4) as they obviously think that they are too good for Europa League.

 

Was a clear foul on the defender so no goal was the right descision. Spurs were very poor the whole game i thought and lacked any real creativeness. Their goal was a penalty which was correctly given (never a red card mind) and their defending was dreadful for the 2 goals they conceeded. I hope for their sake they don't play like this in the league as i'd lke them in the top 4

 

I thought it was a goal tbh. They both went for the ball, the player was on the pitch still and the ref didn't blow the whistle untill after the goal..

 

It was a foul on the defender imo...But the the ref, linesman and assistant behind the goal didn't wave a flag or give any indication that it was a foul meaning the goal should of stood

 

If an attacker can be 'inactive' by simply not going for the ball, then surely a defender is inactive if he is injured and not even facing the game play.

Also, they showed it after the game that the assistant ref behind the goal walked to the goal as soon as Defoe made the challenge, therefore stating he thought it was a free kick.

 

I'm pretty sure for 99.9% of tackles, the players go for the ball.

 

no but defoe was only onside because of the injured player so the injured player was very much active in that sense

 

In the review segment they clarified that the extra official stood behind the goal (do they have a title?) shouted instantly that there was a foul on the defender and later communicated that to the ref hence the goal being disallowed. Strange that he didn't just use his flag though!

Re the penalty, I think it was a penalty for an accidental handball denying a goal but that the kid shouldn't have been sent off. Glad they went through though!

 

It was a 50/50 challenge and one or both the players can come out of it injured.

 

It wasn't a 50/50 as Defoe got 0 of the ball and the PAOK player got 100% of the ball, therefore it was 100/0, not 50/50. I know where you are coming from, but any other place on the pitch and its a reckless challenge and a yellow card for Defoe.

 

How was he active? He wasn't even moving or even looking at the play.

 

The ball was there to be won and they both commited to the challenge, maybes the referee should have been quicker with his decision though.

 

The ball may have been there to win...but Defoe didn't win it, resulting in what should have (and eventually was) a freekick. Maybe we should agree to disagree with this one haha.

 

because he was playing everone onside. if he wasnt there defoe was offside. ergo, he was active.