Are United fans the new deluded scousers?
Kane was pummeled on Talksport after the game.
Harry Kane MBE | Performances
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
Kane was pummeled on Talksport after the game.
One of the better Player Tribune articles I've read.
That's literally what they do. Minor touchups here or there, but for the most part, what you see is straight from the athlete.
Agree to disagree.
Wait what, people think it was a dive? he wanted and found the contact and he could have avoided it, but in modern football that's not the attackers job.
Have I missed something? Is contact now something to be penalised..... in a contact sport?
Kane dived. Whether he was fouled is a separate question.
Maybe very is off, but he looked selfish and didn't really do anything. As @RooneyLegend pointed out, he could and should have put Son through a few times, but failed to do so. His main job is to score, create space for others and assist. He did create room for others, only to not use that space when he received the ball. He was wasteful; therefore, I think he had a poor match against United.
There's absolutely no chance Harry Kane is as articulate as he's presented in that article.
Or, if he his, there's no chance that that's the norm for professional athletes as the player's tribune would have you believe.
He as much as admitted it himself.
"I felt contact and I went down. I'm not going to jump out of the way because it's football."
Consciously choosing to go down is diving. But no commentator will pull Sir Kane of England up on that.
I might be going mad here but the part I'd focus on was the 'I felt contact' part.
If Kane had jumped over Karius or actively avoided contact would you have still given the penalty as Karius impeded him?
Carragher made a good point, when GK comes out charging like a lunatic then stiker have every right to take the advantage. Why should Kane jump over Gk and lose his balance and goal scoring chance?
For me the point is if he wants to say he didn't dive, he should play as he would have without the 'contact, I'm going down' trigger.
Think it is pretty obvious that he was turning in full balance and would have gone past him without issue. Problem is his heavy touch would have made it difficult for him to do much afterwards.
You have completely ignored my question so I'll ask it again.
If Kane had actively tried to avoid Karius rather than taking the contact and going down would you say its a penalty?
I am not saying Kane didn't do what he should have done. But it's obviously a dive. It's not going past karius that's troubling Kane in this situation. It's his poor touch to turn the ball away from him that means he has no choice but to seek the penalty.
Point being, it's a weak argument for "I'm not a diver" but a fine argument for what a striker should be doing in that situation.
Yeah agree with that.
He does try to avoid him (ie go past him) for most of the move and sets himself well up for it - He could have gone past him without issue if he wanted to. he only goes down because he decides to.
The point is that the contact, if it exists, doesn't actually affect the situation other than Kane choosing to go down. He is clearly not out of balance. Contact != foul.
No footballer should avoid contact to the point of losing balance and control of the ball. That's called shitting out of challenges and only a foul if the challenge being ducked is genuinely dangerous.
You've still ignored my question, but you probably never will answer it so I'll skip past it. I agree that the contact that Kane's taken is not enough to send him down; it's, by that definition, a dive, but what I don't agree with is any suggestion that somehow means that makes it not a foul.
Kane is absolutely blatantly impeded by a keeper rushing out at him who gets nowhere near the ball. He has a list of options he can chose to do from here. He can continue to run in a straight line at Karius and take a bigger hit (and had he done that there would be no discussion of the incident), he can try and avoid him and play on or he can try to hurdle the challenge and certainly lose possession, but he's under no obligation whatsoever to help Karius out.
Kane's quote being parroted around by Liverpool fans as some sort of proof that it wasn't a penalty shows, at best, a questionable understanding of the laws of the game if not wilful ignorance.
And it's interesting you end with 'contact != foul' because it's blatantly obvious that fans, pundits, even players probably, do not get this point. Until it's drilled home that a player doesn't even need to be touched to be fouled then you're going to get players 'diving' to prove that they were impeded until that point everytime someone goes 'but he didn't even touch him or there wasn't very much contact' then you're increasing the need for players to engage in some gamesmanship and embellish contact.
Last edited:
That is a bizarre claim. If Kane does not try and change direction with the ball away from Karius, karius will obviously reach the ball at some point for a clean tackle. If Kane deliberately goes into karius it will obviously not be a penalty.
This is commonly known as 'going past your opponent' which is what Kane is attempting to do initially.
You are basically completely wrong. The only way a foul can be given without contact is for dangerous play or obstruction. Neither of which is the case here.
The rule for giving a foul with contact, is that the contact must impede the progress of your opponent. Which doesn't happen. If Kane had taken a better touch turning past Karius it would have been a simply finish into an open goal. That he fails to do so under pressure from Karius does not mean he has been impeded - All players have a right to their position on the pitch and it is up to the attacker to find a way around that.
In practise, contact within the penalty area that the attacking player will then simulate as taking him off balance will be given as a penalty. It is by now so hard to determine such simulation because very few players will avoid it that it is even considered legitimate. But it is neither within the spirit nor the actual written letter of the rules that contact itself is a foul if it doesn't actually impede the progress of the opponent.
Forcing players into taking a bad touch to avoid contact is not a foul unless it is dangerous play. It's good aggressive defending.
But if you are coming from a place of thinking that defenders taking a position that limites the attacker's running lines means impeding then I guess you would think it could be a foul. It is completely wrong though.
Have you actually read the laws of the game or is your entire knowledge based on badly remembered paraphrases of it?
A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences:
Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the opponent’s path to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction when the ball is not within playing distance of either player.
All players have a right to their position on the field of play; being in the way of an opponent is not the same as moving into the way of an opponent.
A player may shield the ball by taking a position between an opponent and the ball if the ball is within playing distance and the opponent is not held off with the arms or body. If the ball is within playing distance, the player may be fairly charged by an opponent.
- handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within their penalty area)
- holds an opponent
- impedes an opponent with contact
- spits at an opponent
- plays in a dangerous manner
- impedes the progress of an opponent without any contact being made
Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the opponent’s path to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction when the ball is not within playing distance of either player.
All players have a right to their position on the field of play; being in the way of an opponent is not the same as moving into the way of an opponent.
A player may shield the ball by taking a position between an opponent and the ball if the ball is within playing distance and the opponent is not held off with the arms or body. If the ball is within playing distance, the player may be fairly charged by an opponent.
Even if there was obstruction, which there wasn't, a contactless impediment can never result in a penalty.
So Kane did the right thing. Only person who should be blamed is Goal keeper, same with Chelsea yesterday.
I thoroughly enjoyed that. Thanks for posting.
I'd be upset if a liverpool player didn't try for a penalty once it is clear that this isn't going anywhere else.
But it was a dive. Not as egregious as Alli who went in looking only for a penalty - I think if he had taken a better touch, he'd have fancied his chances of slotting it in while on his feet, which is a mitigating circumstance.
Maybe or maybe Kane's first touch was influenced by charging GK who had no chance of getting the ball and was late.
I wouldn't call that dive, it's not as if he manufactured contact against standing defender, GK was reckless and Kane would have lost the ball had he tried to jump the GK and then control it.
IIRC there was incident few years ago when player didn't go down and tried to regain balance and ended up messing up whole thing, in the end didn't even get penalty. Like I said, only person to blame for all this is GK and it's not even a dive.
if kane takes no touch, Karius would get the ball soon enough. Of course his touch is influenced by the charge. That is par for the course all over the pitch and a basic condition for any attacker trying to go past a defender.
It's not as bad as manufacturing a situation from start to finish. But the bottomline is that if Kane had the skill to take a better touch, there is nothing in that contact that would have prevented him from having an open net to finish into.
Being forced into that bad touch is not foul play.
I remember it happening to Owen in the CL for us. This is of course a problem with refereering that contributes to the problem.
Practically speaking, I agree. I He should not be giving the ref a decision to make. Principally, it was a dive though, even if there are degrees of diving.
If kane had taken just a small turn to take the ball out of reach of the keeper and held his position, it probably would have been a nailed on penalty though, since Karius is never getting out of that charge in time. He tries to go past him to go through on goal though, and succeeds (although his touch sends it out of reach for a good finish). With an omniscient ref, it should not have been whistled. In practise, it will always result in a penalty if it is determined there was contact.
My word, has there ever been as much moaning and whinging about a penalty decision?!
Jesus Christ, he didn't even score the penalty. It didn't even influence the game, apart from making me almost convinced afterwards that Liverpool were soon going to score the winner.
Anyway, going back to Kane in general, he has 130 goals in total now, already 9th on the all time scoring list. Greaves is our top ever goalscorer on 266.
He can break into 6th this season imo, maybe even into 5th if he continues at basically a goal a game pace and we go deep into the CL/ FA cup.
Even if we don't improve into a consistent trophy winning team, I wonder if he'd still want to break that all time record. 136 goals, he could do that in 4.5 seasons potentially or less (again assuming he carries on at the same pace). If we're still not competing, then maybe he can have his final swan song and pick up some trophies elsewhere. Do a Van Persie.
He can break into 6th this season imo, maybe even into 5th if he continues at basically a goal a game pace and we go deep into the CL/ FA cup.
Even if we don't improve into a consistent trophy winning team, I wonder if he'd still want to break that all time record. 136 goals, he could do that in 4.5 seasons potentially or less (again assuming he carries on at the same pace). If we're still not competing, then maybe he can have his final swan song and pick up some trophies elsewhere. Do a Van Persie.
Yeah and his recent comments show his commitment for the mean time anyway.Anyway, going back to Kane in general, he has 130 goals in total now, already 9th on the all time scoring list. Greaves is our top ever goalscorer on 266.
He can break into 6th this season imo, maybe even into 5th if he continues at basically a goal a game pace and we go deep into the CL/ FA cup.
Even if we don't improve into a consistent trophy winning team, I wonder if he'd still want to break that all time record. 136 goals, he could do that in 4.5 seasons potentially or less (again assuming he carries on at the same pace). If we're still not competing, then maybe he can have his final swan song and pick up some trophies elsewhere. Do a Van Persie.
This is partly my fault because I was using informal language, but you're quoting the wrong section of the laws here. Although I do mean that Karius impeded Kane in the sense that he made him deviate from his course by diving at his feet, in terms of the law this situation on the pitch is much better described as a tackle and, therefore, governed by law 12.1.
2015/2016 very clearly states 3 instances where a foul can be given without contact necessarily being made, and – by implication – adds that contact need not be made in the other instances.
In 2016/2017 the line was added after this list to say 'if an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick' which you seem to have interpreted to mean 'only an offence involving contact is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick'. I can see why you'd interprete it that way, it's poorly worded, but it's not what is actually said. It's a logical fallacy, not the intention of that line and is directly contradictory to the information, still present in the laws, that players can be sent off for attempts to do something, to argue this means you can only commit a foul if you make contact.
What the new wording intended to clarify, albeit badly, is that there are no instances where contact is made that can be given as an indirect free kick. As proved by the IFAB Q&A on the issue.
So the relevant law, as should have been obvious, is law 12.1. If a tackle is deemed to be careless, reckless, or using excessive force it's perfectly within the laws of the game (and something you see repeatedly with two footed challenges given as red cards without necessarily making contact) to give it as a DFK worthy offence and, if in the penalty box, a penalty. Whether Karius did tackle in a careless manner is a different issue, but it's an absolutely standard interpretation of the laws.
It's worth reminding ourselves of the basic requirements of a foul:
You'll note the absence of 'it must involve contact'. What Kane subsequently does or doesn't do is fundamentally immaterial to the question of whether Karius committed a foul or not. It was a correct decision.
Last edited:
Great player, would love him here even if had to break the world record for him, can only see him going to Madrid if he does leave spurs. complete striker for me and up on par with Suarez and Lewandowski as best strikers in europe.
This part is class, especially the father bit. Fair play.
The only way it sounds like he'll leave is if MP goes and his family encourage him to make a move .
Wasted at spurs. I think he’ll have one more season with them before he moves on for medals
at that dive, but tbf 99% of players would take that contact and go to ground to get the penalty. And until the refereeing changes it will remain that way.Why not? Why can't athletes articulate their thoughts to a moderate standard? Most are tasked with receiving and processing tons of specialized information the average Joe would will under. It's not far fetched to suggest that they would be at least very good at expressing their thoughts in a familiar language.
I've just read it, it is hardly Shakespearean in nature. Seems a pretty standard article from someone who is moderately articulate.
Lets by honest, it's far better than a 'moderate standard'. It's very well written and you don't have to delve very far around the internet to know that the average quality of written expression is very low in the English speaking world.
I don't doubt that Kane is probably quite intelligent, but that doesn't translate to being particularly good at writing (I know lots of scientists who deal with very complex issues who are horrible writers), it's a completely different skill. I do doubt, and very highly doubt at that, that he writes anything of length with any regularity. I also similarly doubt that he was focused on academic pursuits at an age when he would have been taught them at school.
But more to the point, it's striking that this Kane article is incredibly similar in layout, wording, format, and style to every other players tribune article about a whole host of sports from players from a whole host of backgrounds. Either they're editing them heavily or (for example) Iheanacho, and Venus Williams all express similar ideas with similar words in similar ways.
In fact, I very highly doubt that he wrote anything. I'm certain that these things are based on interviews with the person, written up by a ghost writer, and then sent to them for final tweaks and comments. To me, and you can disagree, they all come across as fan fiction loosely based on real events. A version of events that the athlete has signed off for sure, but no more true to life than your average biopic would be.
Loves a derby.
What a header.