Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
Spurs goal disallowed for a totally imaginary offside offence by Harry Kane?
PSV vs Spurs
- Thread starter Peter Grove
- Start date
Could be either - and either way, it's on the harsh side but justifiable.
Not SFP, lead foot was studs down, contact made with knee against shin.
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
That is two absolutely shocking decisions IMO. Never offside for Kane and neither DOGSO nor SFP for Lloris
Abeverley
Well-Known Member
If not SFP (agree it shouldn’t have been) then DOGSO? That’s a huge decision and wrong in my opinion.
For me it’s a yellow SPA
In an isolated incident (ie, a video test), this is a caution. Not SFP (as noted above), and DOGSO? Well, the ball is, for all intents and purposes, on the defender's foot when the offence occurs.
In the game? The game expects a red card here, and I think that, in context, it's actually the correct decision. In this game, at this time.
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
What on earth are you on about Alex? A correct decision needs to be justifiable in law and this one patently isn't, either on the basis of SFP or DOGSO. Much of 'football expects' a red card for GK handling outside the area ... they are often wrong about that too ....
Hi
Two clear incorrect decisions.
The offside decision did not meet any of the criteria set out in Law11. Only justification I can see is an error in depth perception by the AR
On the Lloris red card the goal chance had already gone plus the attacker had no hope of retrieving the ball due to covering defenders. It was not SFP as it was just momentum carrying both players into each other. Referee made up his mind quickly as by the time he got there he was reaching for the hip pocket.
Now the only defence I can see is that the referee may have thought that Lloris took the player down as he went to go past him rather than the goal scoring opportunity being taken. In a split second from behind the chance taking can be missed.
Two clear incorrect decisions.
The offside decision did not meet any of the criteria set out in Law11. Only justification I can see is an error in depth perception by the AR
On the Lloris red card the goal chance had already gone plus the attacker had no hope of retrieving the ball due to covering defenders. It was not SFP as it was just momentum carrying both players into each other. Referee made up his mind quickly as by the time he got there he was reaching for the hip pocket.
Now the only defence I can see is that the referee may have thought that Lloris took the player down as he went to go past him rather than the goal scoring opportunity being taken. In a split second from behind the chance taking can be missed.
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
Curious as to why because I'm on the fence here. Struggling to see an argument to DOGSO (not in control of the ball nor likely to get it with two covering defenders) but the force of the challenge might convince me that it's SFP.
Even so, he jumped specifically to not interfere, didn't prevent a defender from playing and was behind the goalkeeper so no argument for line of sight.
Lloris red - in real time and on one look that’s serious foul play. High speed and can’t play the ball.
The Kane offside - great example of penalised for interfering with an opponent, other than the goalkeeper which is the usual one. By standing there he prevents the last defender being able to attempt a block on that shot. Doesn’t mean the block would have been successful, but he’s been prevented from attempting to do so.
The Kane offside - great example of penalised for interfering with an opponent, other than the goalkeeper which is the usual one. By standing there he prevents the last defender being able to attempt a block on that shot. Doesn’t mean the block would have been successful, but he’s been prevented from attempting to do so.
Hasn't prevented anything for me. Defender is even moving AWAY from the ball as it goes in. I could understand this logic if the defender had stretched a leg out and Kane blocked it with his body.