Post-match thoughts v Spurs

Neil Dawson said:
So… received notification my Twitter had been blocked this morning and legal emails from the Premier league for breach of copyright. For a 20 second clip from a kid!!! The internet is full of goal clips!! Maybe it got triggered because it passed 50k views after Marc Pugh retweeted it.

Im not bothered as loads of people got to enjoy the memory but do you not think they would have bigger things to worry about!!
Click to expand...

Ridiculous, big brother really is watching . I saw the clips and fair play to your lad, brilliant link to see both goals. Can't the dimwits see it was actually a great advert for PL football and free with it.
 
Neil Dawson said:
So… received notification my Twitter had been blocked this morning and legal emails from the Premier league for breach of copyright. For a 20 second clip from a kid!!! The internet is full of goal clips!! Maybe it got triggered because it passed 50k views after Marc Pugh retweeted it.

Im not bothered as loads of people got to enjoy the memory but do you not think they would have bigger things to worry about!!
Click to expand...

Apparently you were reported by a certain Mr Hughesless
 
Standent said:
Kane is only offside if the VAR assistant (or referee if referred to the monitor) subjectively believes he is interfering with play. A case can be made either way. If I try and take the emotion out of it (easier to do given events 5 minutes later), I’d say that Kane’s positioning was largely irrelevant to the outcome as, unsighted or not, there was virtually no prospect of Neto saving the shot. It was hit very well and the deflection off Stephens took it perfectly into the corner.
Click to expand...
I would imagine that would indeed be the justification for the decision.

Once the ball leaves Dan's boot, Neto is already starting to dive to his right, so clearly has committed to trying to save it on that side. He's committed, there's no turning back, he's in mid-air. In the replays you can see that he is getting nowhere near to that ball, because of the deflection, Kane or no Kane. The fact that he dived to the right at the right moment suggests that he saw the shot clearly enough and was able to react to it. He was just unfortunate that the slight deflection took it beyond his reach.

I CAN see how VAR could rule that Kane wasn't interfering in that passage of play, i.e. the shot which Neto clearly saw (no), the deflection (no) and the failure for Neto to reach the ball (no).

Not saying that I agree with it, but being fair I can see how VAR, if purely answering the question "Did Kane interfere ?" could conceivably conclude "No".
It's all about interpretation unfortunately. You could probably make a case either way. The fact that Neto didn't make a fuss about it suggests that he accepted that it was just an unlucky deflection.

Oh and it was Spurs, who were losing at home at the time.
Oh and it was Kane being checked.
:p
 
Neil Dawson said:
So… received notification my Twitter had been blocked this morning and legal emails from the Premier league for breach of copyright. For a 20 second clip from a kid!!! The internet is full of goal clips!! Maybe it got triggered because it passed 50k views after Marc Pugh retweeted it.

Im not bothered as loads of people got to enjoy the memory but do you not think they would have bigger things to worry about!!
Click to expand...
How utterly ridiculous. You should send a legal response to the PL citing a breach of competence over the past x years.
 
CherryBare said:
I take your argument, but whether Neto was going to save it is irrelevant, the question is whether Kane in any way interfered with neto's view, and personally I think 100%
Click to expand...

In the two freeze frames earlier in this post the split second after Danjuma has struck the ball Neto has moved to his left a couple of feet.

The slight deflection off Stephens takes the ball nearer to the post and VAR has decided if Kane hadn't been where he was Neto wouldn't have got to the ball.

We'll never know why Neto moved to his left. Presumably Neto thought that was the trajectory of the ball.
 
paul49 said:
In the two freeze frames earlier in this post the split second after Danjuma has struck the ball Neto has moved to his left a couple of feet.

The slight deflection off Stephens takes the ball nearer to the post and VAR has decided if Kane hadn't been where he was Neto wouldn't have got to the ball.

We'll never know why Neto moved to his left. Presumably Neto thought that was the trajectory of the ball.
Click to expand...
Having watched it back several times on MOTD footage I don't think Neto moved either way, he pretty much was rooted to the spot?
 
paul49 said:
In the two freeze frames earlier in this post the split second after Danjuma has struck the ball Neto has moved to his left a couple of feet.

The slight deflection off Stephens takes the ball nearer to the post and VAR has decided if Kane hadn't been where he was Neto wouldn't have got to the ball.

We'll never know why Neto moved to his left. Presumably Neto thought that was the trajectory of the ball.
Click to expand...
The TV broadcast in the States mentioned this movement by Neto and showed it on the replay. There is an argument that Neto moved that direction to see around Kane, putting him a bit out of position, perhaps. That constitutes Kane affecting play. The color commentator (who I believe was Stephen Warnock) also noted that Neto didn't have much to say about it.
 
Kicks_On_66 said:
The TV broadcast in the States mentioned this movement by Neto and showed it on the replay. There is an argument that Neto moved that direction to see around Kane, putting him a bit out of position, perhaps. That constitutes Kane affecting play. The color commentator (who I believe was Stephen Warnock) also noted that Neto didn't have much to say about it.
Click to expand...

warnocks white
 
zigger zaggar said:
Having watched it back several times on MOTD footage I don't think Neto moved either way, he pretty much was rooted to the spot?
Click to expand...
Just go back on this thread and look at the two frames that have been posted by Matt Stevenson. You can see Neto has definitely moved to his left in the split second after Danjuma has struck the ball by where he is standing in the second frame in relation to the advertising hoarding behind the goal.
 
Last edited:
Neil Dawson said:
So… received notification my Twitter had been blocked this morning and legal emails from the Premier league for breach of copyright. For a 20 second clip from a kid!!! The internet is full of goal clips!! Maybe it got triggered because it passed 50k views after Marc Pugh retweeted it.

Im not bothered as loads of people got to enjoy the memory but do you not think they would have bigger things to worry about!!
Click to expand...

This clip is harmless fun, but if your boy steps it up a notch and starts analysing the inconsistency of VAR decisions and the like, it’s very problematic for them - better they nip this sort of creativity in the bud with the threat of legal action ;)
 
ErikthViking said:
In the US, a color (hence the US spelling) commentator assists the main sports commentator by filling in detail or opinion, often when play is not in progress. So, the same as our so-called 'expert summariser' e.g. Willo.
Click to expand...

Did wonder re the 'color commentator'. Partly assumed it must have been a mistype :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;