their goal was offside

[grandad]

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.

It was actually Bill Shankley who said this. I remember the after match interview with him.

[The Cravenette]

I think its too easy for officials to hide behind the not interfering rule. He has to be interfering because the defender has to adapt his play because he is there. Pla to the whistle and all that.

Would be simple if  it was any attacking player in the 18 yard box counts as interfering. Seems the FA cannot use common sense  so this would be easy to do surely

[Craven_Chris]

For what its worth, interfering with play is defined as follows:

•preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent's line of vision or
•challenging an opponent for the ball or
•clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
•making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

I dont think, based on this, Harry Kane was interfering with play,  we all want the game to flow and to see goals so I dont have an issue with this application. The handball is another matter, clearly the rules of the game dont align with the spirit of the rules there, but not so here in my view.

[Stevieboy]

Kane wasn't interfering with play by being on Tosin's shoulder, or in front of his shoulder??
Had Tosin not diverted the ball into the net then Kane would have scored.......and been offside.

[Craven_Chris]

Kane wasn't interfering with play by being on Tosin's shoulder, or in front of his shoulder??
Had Tosin not diverted the ball into the net then Kane would have scored.......and been offside.

Correct

[Sting of the North]

For what its worth, interfering with play is defined as follows:

•preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent's line of vision or
•challenging an opponent for the ball or
•clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
•making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

I dont think, based on this, Harry Kane was interfering with play,  we all want the game to flow and to see goals so I dont have an issue with this application. The handball is another matter, clearly the rules of the game dont align with the spirit of the rules there, but not so here in my view.

Shouldn't maybe the second and the third point theoretically be applicable?

[Craven_Chris]

For what its worth, interfering with play is defined as follows:

•preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent's line of vision or
•challenging an opponent for the ball or
•clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
•making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

I dont think, based on this, Harry Kane was interfering with play,  we all want the game to flow and to see goals so I dont have an issue with this application. The handball is another matter, clearly the rules of the game dont align with the spirit of the rules there, but not so here in my view.

Shouldn't maybe the second and the third point theoretically be applicable?

So I dont see any moment in the action where Kane challenges for the ball or attempts to play it. If there is any debate, it could be around the last one, ie did Kane, simply by being present, impact Tosin's ability to play the ball? The argument for it being offside would be that Tosin immediately read that Alli's shot was off target and, unsure if Kane was offside or not, decided against leaving it to go wide and instead attempted to prevent the ball reaching Kane, but in doing so slices it into his net.

I think that is a possible interpretation, but I dont think it is correct, I think Alli's shot basically just hits Tosin, who has a bit of an attempt at a block but cant do much to get out of the way.

[Sting of the North]

For what its worth, interfering with play is defined as follows:

•preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent's line of vision or
•challenging an opponent for the ball or
•clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
•making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

I dont think, based on this, Harry Kane was interfering with play,  we all want the game to flow and to see goals so I dont have an issue with this application. The handball is another matter, clearly the rules of the game dont align with the spirit of the rules there, but not so here in my view.

Shouldn't maybe the second and the third point theoretically be applicable?

So I dont see any moment in the action where Kane challenges for the ball or attempts to play it. If there is any debate, it could be around the last one, ie did Kane, simply by being present, impact Tosin's ability to play the ball? The argument for it being offside would be that Tosin immediately read that Alli's shot was off target and, unsure if Kane was offside or not, decided against leaving it to go wide and instead attempted to prevent the ball reaching Kane, but in doing so slices it into his net.

I think that is a possible interpretation, but I dont think it is correct, I think Alli's shot basically just hits Tosin, who has a bit of an attempt at a block but cant do much to get out of the way.

I agree with your interpretation, and conclusion. My point was just that those points are wide and unclear enough to give the referee something to use.

[bobbo]

I think its too easy for officials to hide behind the not interfering rule. He has to be interfering because the defender has to adapt his play because he is there. Pla to the whistle and all that.

Would be simple if  it was any attacking player in the 18 yard box counts as interfering. Seems the FA cannot use common sense  so this would be easy to do surely

that's why they've made it part of the offside law — the not interfering bit —- so that they can manipulate it to suit their own misgivings and ineptness.