PSV vs Spurs

[JH]

It does show that his view is blocked. It’s a rare case but is still correct in law IMK

Come on now, even you don't believe that. Kane is a good yard to his left.

 

[Padfoot]

Notice that you don't even specify the offence ....

Because it’s obvious.....

 

[Tealeaf]

Come on now, even you don't believe that. Kane is a good yard to his left.

I don’t do trolling . I may do typos- IMK instead of IMO - but that image and the real time footage reinforce my position. I’m happy with that call.

 

[one]

"Impacting an opponent's ability to play the ball" is the criteria. Not the opponent's ability to 'attempt' to at the ball.
The was a top flight game not to long ago where a PIAOP blocked the keeper's path to get back in position while a goal was scored. The keeper was about 10 yards out of position and had no chance of playing the ball and the correct decision was given as not offside.

In Kane's case I havent seen a vid but from the image it looks not offside. Hard one for AR to make the 'interference' call but the ref can do that. A VAR would have given the goal.

 

[Big Cat]

Because it’s obvious.....

Please please please, come forward and enlighten us! We are not worthy...

 

[Sheffields Finest]

Please please please, come forward and enlighten us! We are not worthy...

How obvious does obvious need to be??? Are there levels of obviousness??

 

[Peter Grove]

It does show that his view is blocked. It’s a rare case but is still correct in law IMK

No it's not - the law does not say that an offside offence is committed if all that happens is that an opponent's view of the ball is blocked. In terms of interfering with an opponent, the law says it's only an offence if the player is "preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision."

Even if Kane was clearly blocking the opponent's line of sight (which in itself is somewhat debatable) he did not prevent him from playing the ball. You'll also note that it doesn't say prevented from attempting to play the ball, it says prevented from "playing or being able to play the ball." The defender was on one post, the shot from just outside the 6 yard area went in at the opposite post. No matter what Kane did, that defender never had a chance of playing or being able to play the ball.

Also, as @JH says, the defender was moving away from the ball - the screenshot below shows he has moved even further away from the ball by the time it hits the back of the net, than he was in the screenshot you posted.It was the player's distance from the ball and his movement relative to it that prevented him from playing the ball, not anything that Kane did.

 

[Tealeaf]

*concedes he is in a small minority and retires the field with grace and dignity*