Football, as was once said, is a funny old game, but is it just getting ridiculous now?
Last week in Arsenal’s game against Spurs we saw an argument ensue about a decision that, previously, would never have usually cause even a discussion.
Harry Kane was clearly offside as he went to challenge for the ball before Shkodran Mustafi nudged him in the back and he fell over like a ice-skating baby deer who’d had one too many beers.
Most people agreed that Anthony Taylor, as he tends to do, had got it wrong, and that Arsenal should have had a free kick. Even the referees’ union said it wasn’t a penalty.
But that wasn’t good enough for some. We had the likes of Sam Wallace, whom I normally have a lot of time for, not only convinced Taylor was right but actively arguing that point and being more than a little obnoxious about it (not Wallace specifically, others in the ‘debate’).
Have sought expert opinion on the Kane penalty. Consensus is that while his offside position occurs first, the offside offence comes after Mustafi foul. In eyes of officials (although not MOTD) Kane not yet playing or attempting to play ball when fouled. Correct decision pic.twitter.com/yajyKjmNIJ
— Sam Wallace (@SamWallaceTel) March 2, 2019
Fast forward six days and we were treated to a similar incident, this time involving Raheem Sterling.
If there is one player who will not be treated like Harry Kane by the media then it is Raheem Sterling so Arsenal fans everywhere sat up to take notice.
What would these people say about this incident?
Was Sterling offside?
Was his movement towards the ball enough to trigger the rule even if the ref didn’t give it?
What do you think?
Sterling goal #1 was offside. Law 11.2, offside offence occurs when offside player is 'challenging an opponent for the ball' or 'clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent'
— Sam Wallace (@SamWallaceTel) March 9, 2019
It would be funny if it wasn’t so predictable.