- Mar 4, 2021
- 15,289
- 71,163
It’s the ball - not Royal - that is relevant.Interesting that it’s taken the part of the body that Emerson connected with the ball as opposed to the rest of his body that has ahead of Kane
It’s the ball - not Royal - that is relevant.Interesting that it’s taken the part of the body that Emerson connected with the ball as opposed to the rest of his body that has ahead of Kane
Sods law we will drop points against Marseille and get knocked out by that lousy decision.Such a gutting way to end the game.
Let’s hope we can still top this shit group.
You can unfortunately. But still think this goal was good.You can't.
he had a lot more control over what he was doing. Think Conte will have liked his performanceRegardless of VAR, we’re not great are we?
Another disappointing game but in the plus side I’d start Gill over Moura every time. Guy clearly wants to get on the ball and make things happen - like him a lot.
I don't know. @cwy21 will have the answers.Since when
I believe it isSo is that a touchline ban for Conte against Marseille?
Banned to Christmas. Mason will have to step in againSo is that a touchline ban for Conte against Marseille?
Yea I’m starting to think this is why I feel differently about football the last few years not just because of the 3 managers we’ve hired and their styles of play but VAR and the way football is now you can’t celebrate goals it’s ridiculous. You wait 90 mins for a goal sometimes and then when it comes you can’t even celebrate it, the game is dieing like thisIt's a correct call from VAR based on the unbelievably stupid rules that have been put in place
And that's why football feels hollow at the moment...regardless of how boring our manager is
I think that we must be the only team that doesn't have ex players with a bias towards their old club.Hoddle trying too hard to be unbiased. It's honestly weird at this stage he never calls it properly for us
lol that ending has done meIt's where the ball is
you're going to have to explain that one.
I stand corrected- apparently the ball doesn’t have to be played forward to be offside. What matters is the ”intention” of the defender deflecting it to the receiver. Very strange, if you ask me. What does any intention have to do with it, and how is it determined?
It wasn't clear that Kane was ahead of the ball imo.I am pretty sure, by the letter of the law, it was offside.
It looked like Var measured Kane with the ball and when it was played Kane was ahead of the ball. That is the definition of offside. The contact with the defender is irrelevant since he did not intentionally play it, and the direction of the ball from Royal is also irrelevant. It where Kane was when the ball was played.
Bastard VAR. Takes the joy out of football.