Spurs home build up (inc Spurs Utd)

[chadrtc]

Okay, cool. Supposing we believe that pile of ****e, what about the second one?

[Buzzo]

Those accounts don’t bare out what we saw and heard though. He clearly doesn’t get the assurances he requires so just gives it anyway, despite admitting he didn’t see anything.

[Red_Polo]

Those accounts don’t bare out what we saw and heard though. He clearly doesn’t get the assurances he requires so just gives it anyway, despite admitting he didn’t see anything.

[Kenneth]

That explanation makes no sense. Must try harder.

[Exiled_red]

Can someone please explain the offside rule to me please?

Because I have read so many different views on the incidents including opposing views from referees/former referees. For me the rule should be that Kane is offside whether Lovren touches the ball or not, the ball is intended for Kane who is offside, Lovren only goes to play the ball because of the position that Kane is in. If by attempting to play the ball he 'overrides' the offside then there is no point in having an offside rule at all, because the best thing he could have done is nothing and let Kane get flagged offside, but it's a tight one so doing so is a huge risk.

[Red_Polo]

"Jon knew that a Liverpool player, now identified as Lovren, had played the ball and that no offside offence had occurred. Which is why when the assistant referee asked him whether Lovren had touched it he looked confused and frightened, glumly admitted he just didn't know, and got on the phone to his mother who advised him it would all be okay and that he should just award a penalty and come home for his tea as it was cottage pie night and that was his favourite"

[Kenneth]

Ball was intended for Kane but he never became active because it didn't get near enough to him (utter bull**** rule as he is clearly interfering with the play in numerous ways), Lovren deliberately played the ball so it's taken as being a Lovren pass to Kane, and Kane obviously can't be offside from that. An accidental deflection off Lovren wouldn't have counted and it would have been offsode once Kane received it.

[Red_Polo]

Ball was intended for Kane but he never became active because it didn't get near enough to him (utter bull**** rule as he is clearly interfering with the play in numerous ways), Lovren deliberately played the ball so it's taken as being a Lovren pass to Kane, and Kane obviously can't be offside from that. An accidental deflection off Lovren wouldn't have counted and it would have been offsode once Kane received it.

As you suggest, the real problem here is that the interpretation of active/interfering is complete bollocks.

[marcus50bucks]

That explanation makes no sense. Must try harder.

It absolutely makes no sense. The PGMOL are talking bollocks. Moss had no idea whatsoever whether a Liverpool player had touched it. The idea that he did know, but that he wasn't sure which player it was is pure rubbish. And like I said before what does it matter which Liverpool player had touched the ball. If it had been Robertson the outcome wouldn't be any different. The offside rule would still be the same. They must think we are thick fcukers.

[Leyton388]

**** it it's done let's move on.

[labourRed]

That's some revisionist bull**** by the PGMOL. I'm looking forward to the second instalment when they clarify that if an attacker throws himself into a defender and the defender then touches him, it is a foul.

[Exiled_red]

Ball was intended for Kane but he never became active because it didn't get near enough to him (utter bull**** rule as he is clearly interfering with the play in numerous ways), Lovren deliberately played the ball so it's taken as being a Lovren pass to Kane, and Kane obviously can't be offside from that. An accidental deflection off Lovren wouldn't have counted and it would have been offsode once Kane received it.

Ok thanks

As you suggest, the real problem here is that the interpretation of active/interfering is complete bollocks.

So had Lovren just stood there with his hand in the air then Kane should have been given offside, but because he knew that Kane was behind him, didn't know if he was on or off so tried to do something about it (clear the ball) he puts him back onside. That's stupid.

[Kenneth]

Yes it is

[BobTheCharmer]

It is what it is. Time to move on. We have had plenty of dodgy pens over the years, think Owen going down time and again.

We were **** second half and let them back into the game.

We just come across as sour with all this hacking into players iCloud, bombarding Twitter with every angle of a pen and our interpretations of the offside rules. We didn't lose and didn't do enough to warrant a win.

Up until very recently I'd have been bitter, angry and properly ****ed off. But there's so many more important things in life, it's way too short to waste time on. Things have transpired that have given me a different outlook on things and it feels like the shackles have been removed from a footballing perspective.

I will agree kane is gormless, most players cheat and the ref is fat.

[Fosterbloke]

It is what it is. Time to move on. We have had plenty of dodgy pens over the years, think Owen going down time and again.

We were **** second half and let them back into the game.

We just come across as sour with all this hacking into players iCloud, bombarding Twitter with every angle of a pen and our interpretations of the offside rules. We didn't lose and didn't do enough to warrant a win.

Up until very recently I'd have been bitter, angry and properly ****ed off. But there's so many more important things in life, it's way too short to waste time on. Things have transpired that have given me a different outlook on things and it feels like the shackles have been removed from a footballing perspective.

I will agree kane is gormless, most players cheat and the ref is fat.

Do you have a DVD to sell?