1.) 05 Feb 2018
05 Feb 2018 12:36:48
i thought that about the offside, 100% interfering with play in my opinion.

2.) 05 Feb 2018
05 Feb 2018 13:15:41
Not for a minute suggesting that the linesman was corrupt but he actually did a fist pump when Spurs were awarded a penalty, just watch it back. He actually celebrates awardeding a penalty. He should never officiate a top flight game ever again. Disgraceful stuff.

3.) 05 Feb 2018
05 Feb 2018 13:20:45
I agree - overall perhaps not a bad score given the play, but the penalties were extremely soft and/ or misleading.

My take is that while the first could conceivably be debated under the letter of the law, however it most certainly wasnt the spirit of the law. The second was just pure deception. True, both had some element of touch about them but if we start awarding penalties like that every game, it’ll become a farce with attackers more interested in looking for the slightest bit of contact then collapsing like they’re shot rather than playing the game.

In the first one, you can clearly see Kane was benefiting from being in an offside position. He clearly moved for the ball, clearly influenced Lovren, it took a deflection (not a deliberate back pass which is something different) and he continued to play. A deflection doesn’t play someone onside. Even if that wasn’t questionable, the way Kane deliberately dragged his leg to initiate contact was 100% unnatural. If you think the sole judge of a penalty is a touch, even if he’s making an unnatural movement to initiate it then that’s ridiculous. I have to agree with VVD on this, Kane moved in an unnatural way to created contact and the penalty when Karius pulled out. it’s a dive as he could clearly have continued to run unobstructed if he’d chosen to.

As for the second that deserves for someone to get hauled over the coals. Lamela clearly jumps in front of VVD mid swing of the boot, he pulls out, and Lamela having initiated the faintest of brushes goes down like he’s shot. He’s clutching his calf which hasn’t even been touched. It’s was simulation 100%, and again if the excuse is that there was a touch and that makes it Ok, then the game is headed to a very poor place. The referee clearly saw it as it was, so how he defers to his linesman who’s twice as far and looking through a packed box at a split second piece of deception is beyond me.

VAR and the second goal absolutely wouldn’t have stood.