Your decision is reasonable. However, the decision of exactly at what moment to draw the lines, which part of the body is in front of or behind the ball, the width of the lines drawn are still all subjective. As you said: Even 1 frame before or after (1/24th of a second) could change the ruling. Is it when the ball touches the player's head, or when it leaves their head? These are subjective. It is asinine to come to this point. I was a FIFA certified referee for over 15 years. "If it's too close, the tie goes to the attacker." That's what we learned. This decision kills the joy & emotion of football. Poor decision all around. If it's too close, just go with the initial decision. I respect how clear your explanation was, but it does not necessarily mean the call was correct due to the subjectivity I described.
Daniel this is a fantastic reply and great insight from an ex-FIFA referee. Thank you. Of course, you are absolutely correct in the sense the VAR lines and application of their judgement is completely subjective based on the points you mention; this is the one thing players, coaches and fans are frustrated with. It seems to have become LESS clear instead of MORE clear, which was the original intention of VAR being introduced. If it’s too close, the decision goes to the attacker. That was the approach we all understood growing up and it’s certainly better than the way it is now being interpreted. To summarize, the officials applied the LOTG correctly but the subjectivity of the application of their measurements is what seems to be the problem. Thanks again for great input.
He looks onside because of Emerson’s legs which are clearly ahead of Kane. But I guess it’s the balls positioning which makes it so close. I feel like it’s a little unfair, as if the hand of an attacker is ahead of the ‘line’ he’s off, yet no ‘credit’ is given to the assisting players furthermost body part, in this case Emerson’s feet?
Very good point Carl and well spotted; it definitely feels unfair and it's something VAR need to fix because fans everywhere are getting confused and frustrated. Everyone just wants clarity but it still seems to be subjective in terms of how everything is measured and timed with the touch of the ball.
Totally agree. How is Kane supposed to judge it? The vast majority of Emerson’s body is past him, the line is drawn from his head (contact point) yet Kane’s was drawn from his left leg but he hit it with his right which was behind. I guess I’ve missed something here but would love someone to clarify it.
And that’s the problem; no clarification or clear guidelines for what/how it gets measured. Changes likely coming for next season to make things clearer…we all hope so anyway!
And by the way - did you see the potential foul on Kane - he was pushed from behind! The offside rule is no longer in the spirit of the game as understood .
@@PaulSpacey IFAB president already stated that if the offside wasn't clear and obvious then VAR should not get involved because this level of pedantry, (like ruling someone's kneecap a millimeter offside) takes far too long. The VAR completely ignored the clear and obvious rule for us, yet for a club like Real Madrid they wouldn't have checked it. But because its Spurs they don't care, they want more viewers on Tuesday, so it suits UEFA massively.
Difficult to prove that it’s a conspiracy against Spurs or ‘smaller’ clubs but we know corruption exists in sport so anything is possible! It does feel like VAR is having way too much of an influence on some games and the effect feels negative, not positive.
@@PaulSpacey I don't think it's a conspiracy against Spurs. I think that big clubs like Barcelona and Real Madrid wouldn't have this decision go against them because the VAR can say the offisde was not 'clear and obvious' and they would be too scared to do that to them. The whole point of VAR was to get the really bad decisions cleared up, and not the fractionally offside for toe-nail/kneecap infringements. All I want to see is consitency, so if a Real Madrid or Barcelona are fractionally offside, their goals should be chalked off as well.
Not a Spurs fan, but 1. if the laws say this is offside then the laws are nonsense. 2. If it takes more than a minute to make a decision, your VAR decision is invalid. Is it a 'clear and obvious error' to award the goal. Clearly and onviously not. The goal should stand.
The laws were written a long time ago and while they are updated regularly, they are still not perfect in covering every potential scenario. You’re right; VAR shouldn’t take as long as it did and if the error is not clear and obvious, they shouldn’t intervene. While the laws were correctly followed and interpreted, the tiny margins suggest that this was perhaps a subjective decision, not a factual one. It’s definitely a problem that needs fixing in terms of VAR.
It amazes me that people still don't get the concept of viewing angle and how deceiving it can be. It amazes me how there are people out there who genuinely believe that the VAR doesn't draw the correct lines. Anyway, what we need to know in this case is two things. Where Kane was the moment Emerson connected with the ball? He was in front of the ball thus he's offside. Nothing else matters. Was there an intentional backpass from the Sporting player? No there wasn't, clear as the sun. I understand the initial confusion around the play but come on lads. Good video and explanation.
Thanks for insightful comments! For sure based on the LOTG it was the right decision; the only question seems to be confusion over lines/measurements etc.
The deflection would only change the outcome IF the player DELIBERATELY played the ball. He didn’t; the ball just bounced off him before he could react. It might seem a bit stupid but that’s how the law is currently written for Law 11; offside.
@@PaulSpacey I was told that the indeliberate deflection works the same as a rebound off the post. If the ball comes off the post and meets you in an offside position then you are offside. If the ball deflects off a defender by accident, then the deflection is considered as a second pass.
That’s only the case if the defender deliberately attempts to play the ball. See this update from IFAB who basically write the laws of the game. www.theifab.com/news/law-11-offside-deliberate-play-guidelines-clarified/
VAR definitely needs to be clearer about how they measure these situations and exactly where the lines are drawn. Then there’s the issue of timing and frames in terms of the ball touching/leaving the player. It’s causing confusion and frustration week after week.
Exactly. Kane was NOT ahead of the ball when Royal initially headed it as evidenced by the video where-by you can see the ball rebounded off of Royal's head by roughly 12 inches, meaning, Kane had not yet progressed to the point where VAR ELECTED to snapshot the incident! Then...only THEN did it take 4 minutes for VAR to botch this!! They researched a biased angle to defend their decision - that's what took time. As poor as VAR has historically been in general, at least they are consistent. Sporting was under consistent siege in the last 1/2 of this game! Lucky for Sporting....and they know it! I'm not blaming Sporting for VAR's ineptitude but I hope Tottenham are not eliminated this egregious way.
Very good point and you are spot on. While the decision was correct in accordance with the laws of the game, the problem is with the VAR lines/margins and the process of how things are measured via a snapshot. It should be objective but it seems in this case it was subjective. In fact, we’ve seen quite a few incidents where the decision is subjective based on how the VAR official measures and interprets the situation. VAR has to be improved and the process has to be clearer and more definitive for everyone. If a decision takes multiple minutes and it’s too close to call, there should be no change to the original decision at the time by the on-field referee.
The law didn't change but it was clarified this past summer (2022) to clear up any confusion over what 'deliberate play' means. See here: theathletic.com/3454447/2022/07/27/ifab-offside-law-rule/
@@PaulSpacey And point of view on the Ecuador offside ~i think it's not offside ~VAR ignore the build up play because all Ecuador players were onside when the free kick was taken 😉
Based purely on the LOTG and applying them correctly, the Ecuador offside decision was correct. The player who touched the ball next AFTER the goalkeeper challenged for it was offside at that time. It seems crazy because of the situation but the decision was definitely correct. 🤓
It was correctly interpreted, but I'd like to see this level of pedantic use of VAR for all teams now, not just Spurs. Pedantic decisions have to be consistent. Ifab stated that offsides shouldn't be given if they aren't clear and obvious, this was definitely not clear and obvious, so it should have stood.. the level of consistency is so bad, just look at the west ham Bournemouth game were soucek clearly handled the ball. Or sakas goal vs liverpool where he was clearly offside. These marginal offsides happen to Spurs so much.
Great perspective and completely agree; if it’s not clear and obvious, don’t use VAR. In cricket, if the decision is marginal and the VAR check can’t quickly resolve it, the decision stays with the on-field umpire; that’s a better approach.
Transparency is what everyone wants. Show us the same angles the VAR official is looking at. Angles/timing/measurements, it doesn’t seem to be working.
@@PaulSpacey Well it is counter-intuitive, and the 4-5 minute delay is an absurdity, ball was not traveling forward, ball hit defender who made a significant deflection, it's a nightmare for the game, rule needs redesigning, whereby if the ball originates in opponets quarter it's a always a fair ball. Thanks for the vid anyway, I am subscribed.
Thanks for making good points. The defender made a significant deflection but it wasn’t deliberate, that’s the key according to the LOTG. It does seem that the laws may need to be adjusted so we’ll see if that happens after this incident. IFAB review them regularly and while they don’t make major changes often, they do offer clarification and minor changes each year. A 4 minute delay is unacceptable; if they can’t figure it out in a minute or so, the original on-field decision should stand.
Your decision is reasonable. However, the decision of exactly at what moment to draw the lines, which part of the body is in front of or behind the ball, the width of the lines drawn are still all subjective. As you said: Even 1 frame before or after (1/24th of a second) could change the ruling. Is it when the ball touches the player's head, or when it leaves their head? These are subjective. It is asinine to come to this point. I was a FIFA certified referee for over 15 years. "If it's too close, the tie goes to the attacker." That's what we learned. This decision kills the joy & emotion of football. Poor decision all around. If it's too close, just go with the initial decision. I respect how clear your explanation was, but it does not necessarily mean the call was correct due to the subjectivity I described.
Daniel this is a fantastic reply and great insight from an ex-FIFA referee. Thank you. Of course, you are absolutely correct in the sense the VAR lines and application of their judgement is completely subjective based on the points you mention; this is the one thing players, coaches and fans are frustrated with. It seems to have become LESS clear instead of MORE clear, which was the original intention of VAR being introduced.
If it’s too close, the decision goes to the attacker. That was the approach we all understood growing up and it’s certainly better than the way it is now being interpreted.
To summarize, the officials applied the LOTG correctly but the subjectivity of the application of their measurements is what seems to be the problem. Thanks again for great input.
He looks onside because of Emerson’s legs which are clearly ahead of Kane. But I guess it’s the balls positioning which makes it so close.
I feel like it’s a little unfair, as if the hand of an attacker is ahead of the ‘line’ he’s off, yet no ‘credit’ is given to the assisting players furthermost body part, in this case Emerson’s feet?
Very good point Carl and well spotted; it definitely feels unfair and it's something VAR need to fix because fans everywhere are getting confused and frustrated. Everyone just wants clarity but it still seems to be subjective in terms of how everything is measured and timed with the touch of the ball.
Totally agree. How is Kane supposed to judge it? The vast majority of Emerson’s body is past him, the line is drawn from his head (contact point) yet Kane’s was drawn from his left leg but he hit it with his right which was behind. I guess I’ve missed something here but would love someone to clarify it.
And thanks for the video!
And that’s the problem; no clarification or clear guidelines for what/how it gets measured. Changes likely coming for next season to make things clearer…we all hope so anyway!
And by the way - did you see the potential foul on Kane - he was pushed from behind!
The offside rule is no longer in the spirit of the game as understood .
This incident may spur discussion for IFAB to reconsider some of the offside rule and its application.
@@PaulSpacey IFAB president already stated that if the offside wasn't clear and obvious then VAR should not get involved because this level of pedantry, (like ruling someone's kneecap a millimeter offside) takes far too long. The VAR completely ignored the clear and obvious rule for us, yet for a club like Real Madrid they wouldn't have checked it. But because its Spurs they don't care, they want more viewers on Tuesday, so it suits UEFA massively.
Difficult to prove that it’s a conspiracy against Spurs or ‘smaller’ clubs but we know corruption exists in sport so anything is possible! It does feel like VAR is having way too much of an influence on some games and the effect feels negative, not positive.
@@PaulSpacey Yes.
@@PaulSpacey I don't think it's a conspiracy against Spurs. I think that big clubs like Barcelona and Real Madrid wouldn't have this decision go against them because the VAR can say the offisde was not 'clear and obvious' and they would be too scared to do that to them. The whole point of VAR was to get the really bad decisions cleared up, and not the fractionally offside for toe-nail/kneecap infringements. All I want to see is consitency, so if a Real Madrid or Barcelona are fractionally offside, their goals should be chalked off as well.
Not a Spurs fan, but 1. if the laws say this is offside then the laws are nonsense. 2. If it takes more than a minute to make a decision, your VAR decision is invalid. Is it a 'clear and obvious error' to award the goal. Clearly and onviously not. The goal should stand.
The laws were written a long time ago and while they are updated regularly, they are still not perfect in covering every potential scenario. You’re right; VAR shouldn’t take as long as it did and if the error is not clear and obvious, they shouldn’t intervene. While the laws were correctly followed and interpreted, the tiny margins suggest that this was perhaps a subjective decision, not a factual one. It’s definitely a problem that needs fixing in terms of VAR.
It amazes me that people still don't get the concept of viewing angle and how deceiving it can be. It amazes me how there are people out there who genuinely believe that the VAR doesn't draw the correct lines.
Anyway, what we need to know in this case is two things. Where Kane was the moment Emerson connected with the ball? He was in front of the ball thus he's offside. Nothing else matters. Was there an intentional backpass from the Sporting player? No there wasn't, clear as the sun.
I understand the initial confusion around the play but come on lads.
Good video and explanation.
Thanks for insightful comments! For sure based on the LOTG it was the right decision; the only question seems to be confusion over lines/measurements etc.
He was offside after the ball deflected off the defender. He was onside for the pass.
The deflection doesn’t change anything.
@@PaulSpacey It must. There's no conceivable way that Kane is offside otherwise. Unless the ball and turf have microchips.
The deflection would only change the outcome IF the player DELIBERATELY played the ball. He didn’t; the ball just bounced off him before he could react. It might seem a bit stupid but that’s how the law is currently written for Law 11; offside.
@@PaulSpacey
I was told that the indeliberate deflection works the same as a rebound off the post. If the ball comes off the post and meets you in an offside position then you are offside. If the ball deflects off a defender by accident, then the deflection is considered as a second pass.
That’s only the case if the defender deliberately attempts to play the ball. See this update from IFAB who basically write the laws of the game. www.theifab.com/news/law-11-offside-deliberate-play-guidelines-clarified/
"But he was behind the ball". Wasn't even level, guys.
VAR definitely needs to be clearer about how they measure these situations and exactly where the lines are drawn. Then there’s the issue of timing and frames in terms of the ball touching/leaving the player. It’s causing confusion and frustration week after week.
Is it offside if the ball is played backwards with the player that receives it is in front of the ball?
Yes. The laws of the game don’t require the ball to be passed forward to be offside.
Well described. I'm still not sure though. 🤦
Exactly. Kane was NOT ahead of the ball when Royal initially headed it as evidenced by the video where-by you can see the ball rebounded off of Royal's head by roughly 12 inches, meaning, Kane had not yet progressed to the point where VAR ELECTED to snapshot the incident! Then...only THEN did it take 4 minutes for VAR to botch this!! They researched a biased angle to defend their decision - that's what took time. As poor as VAR has historically been in general, at least they are consistent. Sporting was under consistent siege in the last 1/2 of this game! Lucky for Sporting....and they know it! I'm not blaming Sporting for VAR's ineptitude but I hope Tottenham are not eliminated this egregious way.
Very good point and you are spot on. While the decision was correct in accordance with the laws of the game, the problem is with the VAR lines/margins and the process of how things are measured via a snapshot. It should be objective but it seems in this case it was subjective. In fact, we’ve seen quite a few incidents where the decision is subjective based on how the VAR official measures and interprets the situation.
VAR has to be improved and the process has to be clearer and more definitive for everyone. If a decision takes multiple minutes and it’s too close to call, there should be no change to the original decision at the time by the on-field referee.
@@PaulSpacey VERY good point. Taking that long says, "Stay with the officials decision because OBVIOUSLY, it isn't clear to VAR!
Exactly. “Clear and obvious” was supposed to be the reason for VAR intervening.
Thanks. Good explanation.
Glad it was helpful!
Since when the defender has to deliberately play the ball for offside to be reset?
The law didn't change but it was clarified this past summer (2022) to clear up any confusion over what 'deliberate play' means. See here: theathletic.com/3454447/2022/07/27/ifab-offside-law-rule/
@@PaulSpacey that is just stupid
Which part is stupid?
@@PaulSpacey that the defender has to play the ball deliberately, they should not change the rules every 5 years.
The IFAB who make these decisions are like politicians; they don’t always make decisions in the best interests of the people 😉
If it must be a deliberate pass ~explain mbappe's goal vs spain in national league ~where garcia made a slide tackle 🤔
That’s the interesting (and frustrating) thing about VAR and referee consistency; at times the laws of the game are not applied correctly!
@@PaulSpacey And point of view on the Ecuador offside ~i think it's not offside ~VAR ignore the build up play because all Ecuador players were onside when the free kick was taken 😉
Based purely on the LOTG and applying them correctly, the Ecuador offside decision was correct. The player who touched the ball next AFTER the goalkeeper challenged for it was offside at that time. It seems crazy because of the situation but the decision was definitely correct. 🤓
It was correctly interpreted, but I'd like to see this level of pedantic use of VAR for all teams now, not just Spurs. Pedantic decisions have to be consistent. Ifab stated that offsides shouldn't be given if they aren't clear and obvious, this was definitely not clear and obvious, so it should have stood.. the level of consistency is so bad, just look at the west ham Bournemouth game were soucek clearly handled the ball. Or sakas goal vs liverpool where he was clearly offside. These marginal offsides happen to Spurs so much.
Great perspective and completely agree; if it’s not clear and obvious, don’t use VAR. In cricket, if the decision is marginal and the VAR check can’t quickly resolve it, the decision stays with the on-field umpire; that’s a better approach.
Yes, I always deliberately pass the ball to my favourite opponent player. Lol 😅😆
Its not easy to understand 😕
Kane is not offside
According to the Laws Of The Game, Kane is OFFSIDE. Whether or not VAR is measuring accurately with the lines and timing is another issue.
@@PaulSpacey why do they broadcast camera angles though?
These VAR guys are clever
Transparency is what everyone wants. Show us the same angles the VAR official is looking at. Angles/timing/measurements, it doesn’t seem to be working.
Conte should watch this video
😉
Wrong!
Explain?
@@PaulSpacey Well it is counter-intuitive, and the 4-5 minute delay is an absurdity, ball was not traveling forward, ball hit defender who made a significant deflection, it's a nightmare for the game, rule needs redesigning, whereby if the ball originates in opponets quarter it's a always a fair ball.
Thanks for the vid anyway, I am subscribed.
Thanks for making good points. The defender made a significant deflection but it wasn’t deliberate, that’s the key according to the LOTG. It does seem that the laws may need to be adjusted so we’ll see if that happens after this incident. IFAB review them regularly and while they don’t make major changes often, they do offer clarification and minor changes each year.
A 4 minute delay is unacceptable; if they can’t figure it out in a minute or so, the original on-field decision should stand.
Tut