I haven't seen another thread on this but I see Tottenham have won their appeal to get the goal on Saturday awarded to Harry Kane....will this set a trend?

ClaretDiver wrote:I haven't seen another thread on this but I see Tottenham have won their appeal to get the goal on Saturday awarded to Harry Kane....will this set a trend?

I swear on clarinetclaret's imaginary daughter's life that it won't set a trend.

The bookies wont be happy, quite a few punters would have had Kane next goal, last goal, Kane anytime 2-1, or 2-1 and Kane to score last, all the punters on the various Eriksson bets, will have already gone to claim and been paid out I'd have thought.

He should be ashamed, he may of got the slightest of touches but it was never his goal.
And to swear on your daughters life is just a bit pathetic.

Embarrassing. But then a lot of Spurs' antics are.

[quote="Shore claret"]He should be ashamed, he may of got the slightest of touches but it was never his goal.}

Wonder if he'll be happy to give a goal to a defender next time he shoots and the ball just clips the defender on the way to goal???

My fantasy football team needs the extra points so I'm all for it!

Good work from Gateshead

Lancasterclaret wrote:My fantasy football team needs the extra points so I'm all for it!

It won't get them.

You get a goal for the slightest of touches - but also if your own shot takes a massive deflection off an opposition player? If it brushed off a defender's back on the way in, would Kane not want it as his own?

Lancasterclaret wrote:My fantasy football team needs the extra points so I'm all for it!

You don't get them - remains as Eriksen I think

Kane is so desperate to get the golden boot he's resorting to this. It was Eriksen's goal.

A good trait to have for a striker. But It wasn't his goal. As above, he wouldn't want deflected goals going down as OG's.

No matter how many times I see it I still can't work out how they've given it to Kane.

a slight touch off a defender is also a corner, but not an own goal - why?

Was it a direct or indirect free kick?

Rick_Muller wrote:Was it a direct or indirect free kick?

Direct, had it been indirect then I susupect the goal would never have been given considering it went straight in (no matter what Kane claims).

This sets a precedent where players will start to be awarded goals when they haven't got a touch on the ball.

It's basically cheating someone else out of a goal. And for those who say players wouldn't claim goals they know they haven't scored, of course they would.

Laughable decision that only succeeds in Kane's desperation making himself look an absolute clown. Not helped by his 'astute' observation, "If they turn it around, they turn it around. If they take my word, they take my word. It is what it is."

Goes to show what’s more important to Kane. Its great to have a forward who loves scoring. But not in this way. What a ******* idiot.

Leamington Claret wrote:Laughable decision that only succeeds in Kane's desperation making himself look an absolute clown. Not helped by his 'astute' observation, "If they turn it around, they turn it around. If they take my word, they take my word. It is what it is."

He swears on his daughter's life that he got a touch.

Hmmm..... A man of integrity then.

Goobs wrote:Direct, had it been indirect then I susupect the goal would never have been given considering it went straight in (no matter what Kane claims).

That was the reason for my question - do you know for sure though, or have you assumed that to be the case because the goal was given?

Rick_Muller wrote:That was the reason for my question - do you know for sure though, or have you assumed that to be the case because the goal was given?

Do they even have indirect free kicks now?

cricketfieldclarets wrote:Do they even have indirect free kicks now?

I would hope so as they’re in the rules...

Rick_Muller wrote:That was the reason for my question - do you know for sure though, or have you assumed that to be the case because the goal was given?

I'm pretty sure it was given for a foul which would be a direct free-kick. I don't remember the ref having his hand raised to signal an indirect free-kick either.

Goobs wrote:I'm pretty sure it was given for a foul which would be a direct free-kick. I don't remember the ref having his hand raised to signal an indirect free-kick either.

Fair enough, I’ve watched the replay myself but there’s nothing conclusive. I think you’re right about it being direct too, just thought it would have been an interesting angle if it was in fact an indirect free kick

For the record - I think Kane’s quiff wafted the ball on the way past but he is also a grade a pollock for making such a fuss about it

ClaretTony wrote:Kane is so desperate to get the golden boot he's resorting to this. It was Eriksen's goal.

Let him have it,afterall it's the only thing he will ever win at Spuds the poor sod

cricketfieldclarets wrote:Do they even have indirect free kicks now?

Goal kicks are still indirect. They cannot lead directly to a goal; even if the ‘Keeper was to kick it into their own net.

cricketfieldclarets wrote:Do they even have indirect free kicks now?

As follows:

If a player:

plays in a dangerous manner
impedes the progress of an opponent without any contact being made
is guilty of dissent, using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures or other verbal offences
prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from the hands or kicks or attempts to kick the ball when the goalkeeper is in the process of releasing it
commits any other offence, not mentioned in the Laws, for which play is stopped to caution or send off a player

If a goalkeeper, inside his own penalty area:

controls the ball with the hands for more than six seconds before releasing it
touches the ball with the hands after releasing it and before it has touched another player, it has been deliberately kicked to the goalkeeper by a team-mate, receiving it directly from a throw-in taken by a team-mate

Spijed wrote:He swears on his daughter's life that he got a touch.

Hmmm..... A man of integrity then.

Are you accusing him of lying?

If the person who last touches the ball is credited with the goal, then most teams' top scorer will be "goalkeeper o.g."

Leisure wrote:

Wonder what Eriksson was thinking when he saw the replay, I'm think "cheeky *******".