I'm sitting here thinking of the FL officials in my area saying, 'don't give unexpected decisions'. Give offside and no one questions it.
According to Alan Shearer PGMOL have confirmed otherwise.
I cant decide if he is challenging for the ball or not.
I would say not. He was simply (to use the wording of the Laws quoted by @RustyRef ) "moving towards the ball with the intention of playing the ball." At the time he was fouled, I don't think he's done anything that I would call "challenging an opponent" - all he's doing is waiting for the ball to arrive. It's the opponent that challenges him (and barges into him from behind) not the other way round, as far as I can tell.Maybe semantics, but it says challenging an opponent for the ball, was Kane not challenging an opponent, for the ball that was headed his way?
Aka match officials get it right, pundits and ex-referees say wrong. Fans universally condemn officials as awful and the tired trope "this is why there were no English referees at the world cup" is touted all over twitter. PGMOL should have come out and explained the decision.Law 11 is very clear on this ...
In situations where:
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
He was fouled before coming close to playing the ball, and can't have been challenging an opponent for the ball as it wasn't there at the time he was fouled, so penalty was correct.
Perfect analogy. Unless people want those situations disallowed, they need to accept this decision.The logic being used by Shearer and other pundits is that running in the direction of the drop zone is challenging for the ball, when you consider where the ball is at the time I don’t see how it is. I have a hypothetical example which I believe equates to a similar situation where the goal would always be given
- Free kick is taken from the same position, Son and Kane run towards the drop zone. Son offside, Kane onside. Just as the ball looks to drop to Son, Kane gets in ahead of him, heads the ball and scores. Goal is likely to be given but by Shearers Logic, goal should be disallowed
They have though, perpetuating the problem.Aka match officials get it right, pundits and ex-referees say wrong. Fans universally condemn officials as awful and the tired trope "this is why there were no English referees at the world cup" is touted all over twitter. PGMOL should have come out and explained the decision.
I'll rephrase. PGMOL should have correctly explained the decision instead of saying they were wrong - like that would help...They have though, perpetuating the problem.
Onside. Pretty easy one.
Comparison to this goal?
I’m in complete agreement but this video would be my exact example as to why I also think the penalty was correctOnside. Pretty easy one.
*Clear handball.Onside. Pretty easy one.
I'm sitting here thinking of the FL officials in my area saying, 'don't give unexpected decisions'. Give offside and no one questions it.
Maybe semantics, but it says challenging an opponent for the ball, was Kane not challenging an opponent, for the ball that was headed his way? I seriously and right down the middle here and feel it could be argued both ways.