their goal was offside

[Enfield]

Two players offside, one gets a touch before Tosin.

[South Coast White]

Exactly what I thought when you watch the slow mo replay.

[Ronnief]

Alli was not offside but Kane was. Alli would not have scored with his touch and Tosin inadvertantly touch it in because Kane was there.

[Caedal]

Kane was CLEARLY offside and interfering with play. No mention of it in commentary or the studio

[ChesterTheTabby]

Alli was not offside but Kane was. Alli would not have scored with his touch and Tosin inadvertantly touch it in because Kane was there.

But they're in "the big six"... so we can't rule against them.

[Jim©]

If tosin jumped over the ball and kane put it in, no goal. He's only playing it as kane is there. The rules at the moment are ******g pointless.

[ALG01]

i have said elsewhere tonioght handballs and offsides are a joke the way the rules are now constructed. the rule makeers are moronic in their desire to destroy football.

[Bill2]

It sounds like with the current offside and handball laws we were screwed tonight.  I have not seen any of the incidents, I will have that pleasure on MOTD tonight and will watch the full 90 tomorrow. With the handball law as is as stated it has to be disallowed but had the ball had hit a defender the same way it would be classed as an accident and nothing awarded. With the own goal the official doing the line only flags when the attacker plays the ball. My arguement is that as the ball was played for Kane he was offside but of course Tosin would know that and had to play the ball, this by the way is a snap of the Anderson situation on Sunday, Benteke was offside but can the defender take the risk and leave it. Of course the answer is no and would have been pilloried for it. The law is an ass.

[Pluto]

I thought the same and was surprised no one mentioned it. Kane was miles off and clearly interferring with play.

[LittleErn]

Regarding the "handball", there was a representative of the law making body on BT sports saying that an accidental handball is a foul if it results in an immediate goal. It wasn't immediate tonight as Maja had to move the ball into space before shooting. So what does immediate mean?

[scotto2000]

we need answers

[junior white]

While I agree with this, we have seen it before as the ball didn't get to him he is therefore not considered active., it is a load of you know what but that's what we have these days can't get noted at it now just fed up

Didnt we ourselves experience this with Joa  earlier this season in that he had to go for a header which he missed or led to a goal because someone was offside behind him?

[scotto2000]

While I agree with this, we have seen it before as the ball didn't get to him he is therefore not considered active., it is a load of you know what but that's what we have these days can't get noted at it now just fed up

Didnt we ourselves experience this with Joa  earlier this season in that he had to go for a header which he missed or led to a goal because someone was offside behind him?

West Ham

[Whitesideup]

While I agree with this, we have seen it before as the ball didn't get to him he is therefore not considered active., it is a load of you know what but that's what we have these days can't get noted at it now just fed up

Didnt we ourselves experience this with Joa  earlier this season in that he had to go for a header which he missed or led to a goal because someone was offside behind him?

Yes, that was West Ham. But it's all in the interpretation of interfering with play. For me it's clear that if a ball is heading to a player and a defender intervenes thereby preventing the ball reaching that player, then the player is clearly interfering with play. To say he is "not active" is just misuse of language. And the goal this evening was exactly that. The ball was going wide .. it was heading straight for Kane. If not the case then re-write the rule and have another ridiculous rule like the accidental handball when the player has done nothing wrong whatsoever, and make it an offence depending on which way he is kicking.

[Bill2]

we need answers

I have more chance of winning the lottery tonight than getting any answers.

[filham]

Yes I thought an attacker was a meter or so offside when that ball was crossed that lead to the goal, Also thought the same in another similar attack they made.
However it seems that we were victims of this current interpretation of "not interfering with play"

[bencher]

As someone wise once said, if you are not interfering with play, what are you doing on the pitch...

[filham]

As someone wise once said, if you are not interfering with play, what are you doing on the pitch...

That was the lovely Irish whit of Danny Blanchflower in action, so accurate.

[SouthIslandWhite]

What do you mean not interfering?  He was right there in the play, totally visual to everyone involved and a big focus on what was happening in the box. Total BS!

[Stoneleigh Loyalist]

As someone wise once said, if you are not interfering with play, what are you doing on the pitch...

That was the lovely Irish whit of Danny Blanchflower in action, so accurate.

On another occasion when his player punched the ball over the bar against Fulham and to the amazement of everyone a penalty was no given he said 'I have always said that two goalkeepers are better than one'