Oh you mean when it's an Ozil
-
The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
In my view running towards a cross is 'challenging for the ball' - thereby active, thereby offside. Are you saying it only became a challenge when Mustafi touched him?
Kane never got to challenge anyone, Mustafi fouling Kane was the first action relevant to the rules.
If your interpretation is correct, that running for the ball makes you active, then why is there a section of the rules saying you're not offside if you're running towards the ball?
Not so. The ball has to move forward from Eriksen's foot. Play it back towards your own goal and there's no offside.
The instant that happened Kane was closer to the goal than the last defender (plus the keeper), he was running towards the cross (in my view challenging for it) so was offside.
Surely running into the box with a couple of defenders around you, trying to get your head to the ball constitutes 'challenging' The law says "challenging the opponent for the ball". This didn't happen?
Because you could be running towards the ball from the touchline or 30m away. In this instance, you're not active.
I looked at it as if Kane was fouled before he could actually challenge for the ball.
There's no law that says you can't stand in an offside position. I look at it in the scenario that Kane could be offside during a phase of play where Trippier has the ball outside. Instead of crossing it in, he plays a disguised ball to someone down the line, in the mean time Kane is taken down in the box. He was offside but it doesn't matter.
There's no law that says you can't stand in an offside position. I look at it in the scenario that Kane could be offside during a phase of play where Trippier has the ball outside. Instead of crossing it in, he plays a disguised ball to someone down the line, in the mean time Kane is taken down in the box. He was offside but it doesn't matter.
So you are saying that he only became 'active' when Mustafi took him out?
Agreed. However the disagreement appears to centre on "what is a challenge", thereby making the player active.
It's important to know as we might be on the wrong end of a disputed decision in future, i.e. VAR next season.
No he was never active because active is defined as touching the ball.
Like I said, you don't get to choose what active means, otherwise you could argue anyone who isn't literally dead is active.
Active is defined as touching the ball, Kane didn't touch the ball, so he wasn't offside.
He didn't challenge anyone for anything he literally was running in a straight line not touching anyone when he was shoved in the back, the ball was 5 yards away still so he wasn't touching that either, it was a foul and a penalty the end
I'm out chaps, I'm only repeating myself now, anyone who's read what I've written and still thinks Kane as offisde isn't changing their minds ever, cheers all
ochbye:
I'm out chaps, I'm only repeating myself now, anyone who's read what I've written and still thinks Kane as offisde isn't changing their minds ever, cheers all
ochbye:
Where is it defined as "touching the ball"? It may be buried away in the Law but I can't find it.
If it's true (and if you can verify this definition) then I'll change my view back to "he wasn't offside".
Sounds a bit strange. "only active when you touch the ball". You can't be offside otherwise? So two players standing 50 cm apart, only the one that touches the ball is offside? Surely they're both active and both offside?
Jeez Kane was offside thus it shouldn't have been a pen. It's ok to say that you know...We don't have to be all Liverpool like and delve into all sorts of nonsense to justify a bad call going our way. It's sort of cringeworthy reading it tbh.
Yep saw that. I'm not sure the FA were likely to say that the officials dropped a goolie.
All the press, pundits, my eyes, say he was offside.
Not complaining about the penalty and goal, it got us a result yesterday.
I agree with you completely. We just need to understand the Law and its interpretation, so when we're on the end of a bad call... (VAR and all that).
The call went our way - and we got a point from it. I can only imagine the storm on these forums if it wasn't awarded.
Last edited:
Who gives a fuck. Crushing Woolwich hopes with moody decisions just makes it even sweeter.
So why is it so difficult to understand? the pundits may have said it was offside but they clearly don't know the rules. How can you argue with the facts????
xG is a very useful statistic over the course of many matches (10+). Teams generally will regress to their expected points total (derived from xGF and xGA) or within a certain range, so it can be good at identify underlying issues that are counter to a run of results.
The problem is that it can be very deceiving or misleading on a game by game basis. This of course leads people to use it in ways that it really shouldn’t be. Often times it just confirms how a match “felt” in terms of the balance of play, but it really needs to be given context for it to be useful.
But the rules say it was a pen and the lino clearly saw he was offside and they still gave a pen. I didn't know that this was how the rule works but now I do. I do find it strange that commentators don't know the rules though, this seems like a pretty common spot.
Here is Kieth Hackett's explanation:
a player in an offside position is moving towards the ball with the intention of playing the ball and is fouled before playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the foul is penalised as it has occurred before the offside offence