Erm... Harry Kane's goal?

[SuperSonicBlade89]

If McGoldricks "goal" against Spurs last time out didn't count due to an offside from Lundstrums big toe, which happened on a previous move from the actual "goal".

Then why was Kane's actual goal today counted? He was stood CLEARLY offside when the first ball gets crossed initially. You didn't see them reel the footage to that like they did for Lundstrum earlier in season! Surely he is "Interfering with play" by occupying that space in front of the defenders initially when the kick came in?

 

[Snowflake]

Exactly.
I shouted at the tv but the ref did not here !

 

[RealMcCoy]

I thought the same. I’d like to see stills with the fuzzy lines, but at the time I thought he looked off. Same phase of play.
Not that it matters too much, but would have been nice to see a clean sheet.

 

[Brian Deane]

It was tha same against Manure too. Offside in the build up to the eventual goal. UTMB

 

[HighfieldBlade]

Taken with my mobile, not great, but it's better than VAR.

 

[BigBed]

We won, fuck em, who cares now.

 

[Niceguyeddie]

I didn't see it I was on the vinegar stroke by this point

 

[blade67]

Number 32 playing everyone on I think. Kane also not active in that phase,? or whatever its called

3-1

 

[Jon Bon II]

Exactly.
I shouted at the tv but the ref did not here !

Where?

 

[stringer]

If McGoldricks "goal" against Spurs last time out didn't count due to an offside from Lundstrums big toe, which happened on a previous move from the actual "goal".

Then why was Kane's actual goal today counted? He was stood CLEARLY offside when the first ball gets crossed initially. You didn't see them reel the footage to that like they did for Lundstrum earlier in season! Surely he is "Interfering with play" by occupying that space in front of the defenders initially when the kick came in?

Lundstram was offside when he actually touched the ball. Was Kane offside before Son’s cross? If not, it doesn’t matter.

 

[stringer]

Number 32 playing everyone on I think. Kane also not active in that phase,? or whatever its called

3-1

Sander Berge. The kid who scored, assisted and was man of the match

 

[Seth Rollins]

He put the ball in the net 4 times,let him have that one!!

 

[blade67]

Sander Berge. The kid who scored, assisted and was man of the match

Yes. He was really good, wasn't he? I think he'll be good for us

But the fact is that he was playing them onside, so it's a good goal

 

[SuperSonicBlade89]

Meh... If we are going on the "Lundstrum toe precedent" then the lines on the grass make it obvious he's offside imo, Berge's body language in the image suggests he is already moving towards Kane's direction as the ball is kicked. I suspect now VAR is trying to cut down time not working out the angles and them pretty lines they like drawing from the cameras available. Who wants to be waiting 4 minutes again at the end of the match eh?

 

[dazzlingblade]

Cost me 50 euros that fecking goal

 

[MoSF94]

Kane being offside for the ball to Son is irrelevant because he isn't active in that phase of play, under the current rules. There are goals scored reasonably frequently where a player is a yard or two offside (but inactive) in one phase and finishing the move in the next

 

[8lade]

I can accept Berge playing him onside but talk of him being inactive in that stage of play (he receives the ball next pass!) Is utter nonsense.

 

[Beans]

I can accept Berge playing him onside but talk of him being inactive in that stage of play (he receives the ball next pass!) Is utter nonsense.

It’s right though - next pass = next phase.

 

[8lade]

It’s right though - next pass = next phase.

Have you got a link to the definition of phases because that is absolutely mental.

 

[Ted Danson]

Cost me 50 euros that fecking goal

Cost me £250

 

[Tony]

If McGoldricks "goal" against Spurs last time out didn't count due to an offside from Lundstrums big toe, which happened on a previous move from the actual "goal".

Then why was Kane's actual goal today counted? He was stood CLEARLY offside when the first ball gets crossed initially. You didn't see them reel the footage to that like they did for Lundstrum earlier in season! Surely he is "Interfering with play" by occupying that space in front of the defenders initially when the kick came in?

But he's a Cockney wanker and gets favoured over the dumb low life Northerners.

 

[SuperSonicBlade89]

But if Kane is not in an active phase or whatever. Then he has just circumnavigated the whole point of the offside law and got an advantage by already being in front of our team when the 2nd ball comes in. So begs the question why even bother playing offside trap in that situation.

Just frustrates me as a fan I've seen countless strange offsides given or not given as a result of VAR. Not just the United matches I've watched but other Premier League fixtures too. I'm sure it's the same for a lot of fans too. It's become infuriating to watch sometimes.

 

[dazzlingblade]

Cost me £250

Not good, I'm lucky I did 3-0 and 3-1 so I still won a decent amount anyway

 

[Ted Danson]

Not good, I'm lucky I did 3-0 and 3-1 so I still won a decent amount anyway

Yeah I should have cashed out but my stream was about 5 mins behind the game so didn't get chance

 

[mablethorpe utd]

If McGoldricks "goal" against Spurs last time out didn't count due to an offside from Lundstrums big toe, which happened on a previous move from the actual "goal".

Then why was Kane's actual goal today counted? He was stood CLEARLY offside when the first ball gets crossed initially. You didn't see them reel the footage to that like they did for Lundstrum earlier in season! Surely he is "Interfering with play" by occupying that space in front of the defenders initially when the kick came in?

Onside due his short tongue.

 

[Bergen Blade]

The man on the ball manages to work some space for himself and picks his pass without much pressure. In such scenarios I think it's risky to push up and would have liked the defence to drop a bit deeper to prevent space in behind.

Imagine Berge and Son being removed from the situation and the pass had been perfectly weighted in behind for Alli. Would Baldock have been able to stop him?

 

[bladesmanluke]

It doesn't matter if he was offside when the ball is passed out to the wing

 

[stringer]

It doesn't matter if he was offside when the ball is passed out to the wing

This.

 

[XM657]

Exactly.
I shouted at the tv but the ref did not here !

Sad, I am a big believer that we all should be patched into the ref's ear piece in these present times. One, it would give more 'authenticity' to the whole event and secondly, your spot on he was offside, but you know what, recon it was given so he wouldn't sulk, poor lad.

 

[8lade]

It doesn't matter if he was offside when the ball is passed out to the wing

because..? Is it this business of phases again because until United get a foot in or it goes out of play or something of that nature I'm calling it the same phase-unless somebody can direct me to guidance on phases in the game of football.