The laws are an ass
Hello once again.
The laws are an ass.
Tottenham Hotspur Blog News (THBN) today discusses the inconsistencies and contradictions in the laws of the game.
But first, the funeral is on 4 November, 6 weeks after her death and my two-year eight-month-year-old grandson is a rejuvenating influence.
His Mum, my daughter, says; "who's that, is that Grandpa?"
Then I appear at the door and he excitedly jumps up and down waving his arms with a beaming smile.
He immediately gets his trucks out to show me and lines them up side by side as he tells me what they are and then it is to the toys and some plastic you join together into a train track.
"Grandpa do it" and he puts a bit together and lets me do the rest.
"Grandpa sit."
So there I am lying on the floor building a train line and things he calls roller rollers, before he gets a plastic train to push up and down this straight piece of track.
He is happy, I am happy.
The little lad is adorable. He is very good, he is fun and he brings joy, which is great at this sad time for me.
I'll be seeing him before the late afternoon funeral.
Onto football.
Firstly, let me say that the blue line drawn is, in my opinion, the foot of the defender and NOT the left-hand side of the ball.
If a ball hangs over a line it is still in play, it is not out of play.
It has to actually cross the goal line.
It has to actually cross the by-line, the touchline, the corner circle.
Therefore that should apply to all aspects of the game.
For Harry Kane to be in an offside position, using this logic, then he must be past the ball, but he was behind the ball and I do not believe his knee was a centimeter ahead of the left-hand side of the ball.
But even if it were, that means most of the ball was ahead of him so using the aforementioned logic, he ought to be onside.
The rules are wrong, they are not consistent.
Take an offside when it is player versus player.
Using the logic of the whole of the ball having to cross a line, then any striker should be onside if any part of his body is level with or behind the defender.
I don't see a difference, why should there be a difference?
If a part of a ball is over the line, it doesn't matter, so why should it matter if part of a player is ahead of another?
Someone, please explain to me the physical difference.
The rules are wrong aren't they?
Here is another point.
The ball was headed backward, so Kane can't be offside but it hits a defender accidentally, which apparently, therefore, does not count as it wasn't deliberate!
That's nuts.
If a player is accidentally offside then, using this logic, then he shouldn't be offside, only if it is deliberate.
The laws are not consistent and wouldn't stand up in a court of law.
This decision could cost Spurs tens of millions, it could make a difference to our next two transfer windows and stunt our growth.
One day, because of the money involved now and the effect it can have on a club's future, someone is going to challenge such inconsistencies in court.
586 words
COYS
FURTHER READING
Spurs Chat with THBN after the Everton game
A few thoughts on a few players, post Brighton game
A discussion on zones helps you to understand each player's role & Conte's system better.
An article that talks about Lloris, Sánchez, Conte and talks about xT (expected Threat), expected crossing threat and figures showing the expected threat from each player.
This article asks Is VAR just a marketing tool and looks at the tactics of Marseilles head coach Igor Tudor.
8 comments
I agree with A1. I had to review the laws to realise that passing backwards has essentially no effect on the offside law :-( I also interpret the picture to be showing the blue line as the part of the ball nearest to the goal line and the red one as the part of HK nearest to it (Knee). As such, much as I hate to say so, the VAR official probably got it right in the end. How four+ minutes can be allowed to pass before a decision is made is unclear to me, and seems to be against the concept of non-invasive technology that was highly touted for VAR. I understand the offside law is not subject to requiring the "clear and obvious error" category, but nevertheless something very wrong there. Whether that means the goal should have stood or not is not for me to say, but certainly the vic…
While I'm inclined to agree with A3 about recent performances being both below par & below expectations, I have to differ with their approach from there. Focusing merely on selected facts, even if they aren't contested, and ignoring others that don't fit your narrative, is still liable to leave you far adrift from a reasonable understanding of what's going on. A4 points out a couple of the ignored facts that do tend to make A3's contention come across as a little adolescent.
As I say, teenagers will moan & complain when things go wrong, but adults will always ask questions to discern what and why. It's clear we aren't a disaster ATM in spite of a number of recent poor performances. What is happening at this time that might explain this recent run of form and, more importantly, what is there that can be done about it?
We've seen a start to the season where, quite extraordinarily, we've had fixture after fix…
The management are continuing to try to improve players, some of whom were bought with their future improvements in mind, but it's very difficult to do that under such a heavy match schedule. Players can't train properly when they have another game to be ready for in 3 or 4 days. Even if they could, the mental toll on players playing that frequently is large, and grows as the number of quick games does. It's extremely hard for players to reset mentally when under such constant pressure. The management understand that such pressure will be something we will have to deal with more & more as we progress and challenge more regularly & reliably.
When a member of the coaching staff (Gian Piero Ventrone RIP) dies on the job, and he's so heavily relied on as part of a well-oiled machine, it's hard to appreciate just how disruptive that can be. Not only for the coaching staff he's worked with for years, but also for young men who are likely to b…
Maybe it's more of a general question about offside rulings than anything else.
Do they consider "advantage" when looking at a marginal offside?
I don't recall who was playing but it happens in any given match, where the attacking player has well and truly skinned the last defender and scored a goal that's disallowed because a kneecap is marginally offside. The attacking player in that situation would have beaten the defender even if he'd been half a yard onside as he was faster, facing the right way and the defender was completely wrong-footed and caught out by an overhead ball. In my opinion the…