Should these Tottenham goals have been given against Southampton?

[mawspurs]

Tottenham had the ball in the net four times against Southampton but only one counted. Were they unlucky with these two incidents – an offside against Harry Kane and a foul on Fraser Forster?

Source: Sky Sports

 

[BTN1]

Yes

 

[Gassin's finest]

Yes. We won that 3-1. Load of bollocks.

 

[yid-down-under]

The Kane one defiantly. That was a ‘last season’ style var decision imo

 

[garyhopkins]

The Kane one defiantly. That was a ‘last season’ style var decision imo

Absolutely. It sucks the soul out of watching the game. Kane and the players celebrate, the fans go wild and then an age later a man in a room, a long way away, decides there is a very small chance that an armpit is offside at a point in time when the ball is at least six inches from the moment it left a boot and thus the armpit is a millisecond from the exact point of said armpit being offside. It completely spoils the game.

And it was completely clear and obvious that Forster failed to control the ball under the slightest of pressure. Goalkeepers have way too much protection and the VAR uses not 'clear and obvious' to save face when something is actually clear and obvious.

I am pretty down on those decisions, so I really feel for the fans that paid and travelled. The use of VAR remains as subjective and infuriating as ever. Those decisions really sucked and the man responsible should at least be made to explain them in a fair and objective way.

 

[Barmby Army]

The Kane one seems weird because from what I've read it was onside by this year's alteration of the rules. The Doherty one though...that is given the vast majority of the time. You can be annoyed that the rule exists, but it was the correct decision according to the rules IMO. Goalkeepers are given a ridiculous amount of protection and challenges like Doherty's are invariably going to be punished.

 

[Barmby Army]

Those decisions really sucked and the man responsible should at least be made to explain them in a fair and objective way.

What would this realistically achieve, beyond putting someone in the stocks for their perceived wrongs? You already know why those decisions were made. Kane was considered to be marginally offside (his head was beyond the last defender's foot) and Doherty was considered to have unfairly impeded Forster.

 

[Col_M]

Step away from the computer. You’ve had enough internet for the day.

 

[Freddie]

What would this realistically achieve, beyond putting someone in the stocks for their perceived wrongs? You already know why those decisions were made. Kane was considered to be marginally offside (his head was beyond the last defender's foot) and Doherty was considered to have unfairly impeded Forster.

I'm not usually one to demand for officials explaining all of their decisions but in this instance people need to be held accountable. The VAR has paused the video too late AND the line was drawn in the wrong place. His head is clearly on so not sure where youv'e got that from. The line seems to be drawn where his bicep is. The guy has one job. I guess he could justify the Doherty one (which clearly should have stood as well) but not the offside one.

 

[FibreOpticJesus]

The Kane one seems weird because from what I've read it was onside by this year's alteration of the rules. The Doherty one though...that is given the vast majority of the time. You can be annoyed that the rule exists, but it was the correct decision according to the rules IMO. Goalkeepers are given a ridiculous amount of protection and challenges like Doherty's are invariably going to be punished.

Doherty did not challenge the goalkeeper. The goalkeeper fell into Doherty and he lost the ball. It was an atrocious decision by the ref.

 

[TheTanguy]

All I can say is that VAR Martin Atkinson had an absolute mare.

 

[theShiznit]

Those "thicker lines" that they promised for offsides were a real game changer...

And if incorrectly disallowing a goal isn't a clear and obvious error I don't know what is.

 

[Chedozie]

None of our goals should be disallowed, ever.

 

[14/04/91]

The Kane one seems weird because from what I've read it was onside by this year's alteration of the rules. The Doherty one though...that is given the vast majority of the time. You can be annoyed that the rule exists, but it was the correct decision according to the rules IMO. Goalkeepers are given a ridiculous amount of protection and challenges like Doherty's are invariably going to be punished.

But this season there has been a notable shift in gk protection. There have been numerous examples of refs waving play on when a keeper is fairly challenged. In previous seasons players couldn’t go near the keeper but that’s not the case any more. Well, it wasn’t until 2 days ago.