Greg

Quinoa in the away end! Fucking hell.

I agree.

He was in an offside position, but it wasn't an offside offence.

Confused me massively this has. I thought it was offside, but Sky and Dermot seem to think that because Lovren touched the ball, this is then a new phase of play meaning that Kane is onside. But Lovren only had to touch the ball because he was aware that Kane was behind him, so he was interfering with play in the first phase. I don’t understand why that isn’t the case. Which is utter crap, and completely mental to even think it was onside. In the future we should just stand Gayle on the edge of the oppo's box and hope a defender try to touch the ball as we smash it up to him, nonsense from Sky and Dermot that like. It's not nonsense, it's the laws of the game. They might well be nonsense mind. I ref and that's not how to interpret that law in this instance imo, it's not worded right for the incident we've just seen. You take into account where the players are in relation to the ball travelling forward, ie : are they active, is it meant for them, not that it matters on a Sunday morning as you get the most biased fat sub or some parent doing the line for you anyhoo. As a law reads doesn't always implement in any given situation al that well, that's where the ref and linos step in, wrongly as it was today imo. The law is quite clear imo. "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". If it had just hit Lovren and been deflected off him (so he hasn't deliberately played the ball) or gone through to Kane without a touch then yes he is offside. I think this law is wrong and needs to be changed to reflect situations like this as Kane clearly gained a massive advantage. That doesn't refer to where the initial ball came from, which is the crux of the matter in this case. Like i say your interpreting it wrongly as that isn't quite covering it all which isn't helping you. As we can't post footy vids i can't show you exactly where that law fits in, but in this case that law doesn't come into it as the ball was traveling forward at all times from the initial attacking players pass, it hasn't come to him from an opponent as in a tackle that from a defender that plays it backwards to an apparently offside striker. The deflection in this case isn't as your seeing it in that law, well imo like. Dermot Gallagher agrees with me. You are saying that Lovren didn't deliberately play the ball? I disagree.

Confused me massively this has. I thought it was offside, but Sky and Dermot seem to think that because Lovren touched the ball, this is then a new phase of play meaning that Kane is onside. But Lovren only had to touch the ball because he was aware that Kane was behind him, so he was interfering with play in the first phase. I don’t understand why that isn’t the case. Which is utter crap, and completely mental to even think it was onside. In the future we should just stand Gayle on the edge of the oppo's box and hope a defender try to touch the ball as we smash it up to him, nonsense from Sky and Dermot that like. It's not nonsense, it's the laws of the game. They might well be nonsense mind. I ref and that's not how to interpret that law in this instance imo, it's not worded right for the incident we've just seen. You take into account where the players are in relation to the ball travelling forward, ie : are they active, is it meant for them, not that it matters on a Sunday morning as you get the most biased fat sub or some parent doing the line for you anyhoo. As a law reads doesn't always implement in any given situation al that well, that's where the ref and linos step in, wrongly as it was today imo. The law is quite clear imo. "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". If it had just hit Lovren and been deflected off him (so he hasn't deliberately played the ball) or gone through to Kane without a touch then yes he is offside. I think this law is wrong and needs to be changed to reflect situations like this as Kane clearly gained a massive advantage. Aye Greg, but that rule is talking about where a player has received a ball directly from the opposition player (ie, Lovren tackled someone and the ball came through to Kane, he wouldn’t be offside). The issue here is that a Tottenham player played a pass to Kane when he was in an offside position and interfering with play - he’s offside. The next ‘phase’ shouldn’t exist, because he’s already offside. I guess that's the point, according to the laws of the game that's not the case. It would have been if he had received the ball directly, it had been deflected off Lovren, if he been challenging for the ball etc. But he wasn't.

No. That's different but if he had stayed in an offside position and not challenged Clark / Lascelles and Clark / Lascelles played the ball deliberately but it had gone to Benteke - then he wouldn't be offside.

Confused me massively this has. I thought it was offside, but Sky and Dermot seem to think that because Lovren touched the ball, this is then a new phase of play meaning that Kane is onside. But Lovren only had to touch the ball because he was aware that Kane was behind him, so he was interfering with play in the first phase. I don’t understand why that isn’t the case. Which is utter crap, and completely mental to even think it was onside. In the future we should just stand Gayle on the edge of the oppo's box and hope a defender try to touch the ball as we smash it up to him, nonsense from Sky and Dermot that like. It's not nonsense, it's the laws of the game. They might well be nonsense mind. I ref and that's not how to interpret that law in this instance imo, it's not worded right for the incident we've just seen. You take into account where the players are in relation to the ball travelling forward, ie : are they active, is it meant for them, not that it matters on a Sunday morning as you get the most biased fat sub or some parent doing the line for you anyhoo. As a law reads doesn't always implement in any given situation al that well, that's where the ref and linos step in, wrongly as it was today imo. The law is quite clear imo. "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". If it had just hit Lovren and been deflected off him (so he hasn't deliberately played the ball) or gone through to Kane without a touch then yes he is offside. I think this law is wrong and needs to be changed to reflect situations like this as Kane clearly gained a massive advantage.

To me he's offside whether Lovren touches it or not. He was offside for the whole of that period from the original through ball. Correct, Lovren's touch is irrelevant as the ball went forward toward Kane who was offside from that initial ball. There were no other phases of play for Kane to be onside, which he never was at any time anyhoo. Wrong. If it had deflected off Lovren it would have been offside but because he played the ball (badly) it is offside. See the laws of the game: "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." That is offside every single time. The ball is played toward Kane, he's offside from the initial pass, and stays so no matter how it gets to him, and who it touches. If there was a second phase of pay then fine, where the ball goes back toward the Tottenham goal and back toward Kane off a Liverpool maybe, you could argue, which i would argue is still offside but there wasn't. It's interpretation of the laws and they're interpreting them wrong, any person with eyes can see that. Wrong. I'm not saying I agree with the laws. But they are what they are.

Confused me massively this has. I thought it was offside, but Sky and Dermot seem to think that because Lovren touched the ball, this is then a new phase of play meaning that Kane is onside. But Lovren only had to touch the ball because he was aware that Kane was behind him, so he was interfering with play in the first phase. I don’t understand why that isn’t the case. Which is utter crap, and completely mental to even think it was onside. In the future we should just stand Gayle on the edge of the oppo's box and hope a defender try to touch the ball as we smash it up to him, nonsense from Sky and Dermot that like. It's not nonsense, it's the laws of the game. They might well be nonsense mind.

To me he's offside whether Lovren touches it or not. He was offside for the whole of that period from the original through ball. Correct, Lovren's touch is irrelevant as the ball went forward toward Kane who was offside from that initial ball. There were no other phases of play for Kane to be onside, which he never was at any time anyhoo. Wrong. If it had deflected off Lovren it would have been offside but because he played the ball (badly) it is offside. See the laws of the game: "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."

Very common name in Brazil. Creedence Clearwater is a common name in Brazil? Crazy f***ers.

Not really.

Wow.

Yes, but as bad as some of the hammerings Pardew served up. No.

Probably because he isn't match fit. The lad has played fewer than 10 games in two years. Was running in treacle.

He's hardly played in 2 seasons, clearly not fit enough yet but he's got quality.

It's a pen but it's very hard to take because we just don't get those decisions.

What did he say the miserable auld c***? Just that it's better for the players to play away from home as there's less pressure. It's true tbh.

It's almost as if Diame has been on PEDs for the last few weeks.

Fucking yeS!!

Howay United!

Josh King would be my guess. Was a tribunal so not that high.

Tore Andre Flo.