Thread by @DaleJohnsonESPN

A thread on Harry Kane's offside goal for Tottenham against Sporting. #COYS

This thread brings in information from UEFA, but also uses knowledge of the system and the VAR processes.

Will also include the FACTUAL aspects of the law.

UEFA is not releasing a 3D animation of the decision (reasons will become clear).

However, UEFA has told me that the semi-automated offside technology (SAOT) was used to help assist the officials.

And this image with the correct offside lines was provided to the broadcaster.

Logic tells us that SAOT was used to determine the position of Harry Kane relative to the last defender.

But the ball is the defensive line here.

SAOT only tracks the 22 places.

With UEFA's SAOT, the ball isn't directly tracked, and there is also no sensor within the ball.

On the goal-line camera, Kane looks to be ahead of the ball, but UEFA needs to visualise and confirm this.

This required the use of the Hawk-Eye system, which explains why it took 3 mins 30 seconds for the offside call to be made. It wasn't about anything else within the phase.

UEFA would argue there is no point releasing the 3D animation of Kane's position in relation to the last defender, as that doesn't show the offside decision itself.

The ball is the key to this decision, and Hawkeye was required to visualise it.

UEFA has been very low key about SAOT during the UCL group stage, and is well aware it remains a work in progress.

FIFA might be a bit louder at the World Cup.

The old Hawk-Eye system has been there as a back-up throughout, as shown here in Ajax vs. Rangers.

So, UEFA is sure the correct decision was made, with SAOT tracking Kane and the last defender, and the old Hawk-Eye system providing position of the ball.

The "benefit of the doubt" for the lines touching would have applied as Hawk-Eye was used, but there is a clear gap.

A few bullet points about the offside law.

- The direction of the pass is irrelevant. All that is taken into consideration is the position of the striker relative to the second-last opposition player and, if necessary, the ball.

Ball being played backwards is of no relevance.

- A deflection off Nazinho isn't a deliberate play. The ball cannot just hit Nazinho to reset the offside phase, even if blocking a cross.

Nazinho must have control of his actions at that moment. The ball cannot just hit him.

This is not a debatable aspect of the decision.

- Because Nazinho doesn't play the ball deliberately, Kane remains active for offside from Emerson Royal's header.

As much as we can hate it, the VAR doesn't have any other choice but to disallow the goal once he knows Kane is ahead of the last defender and the ball.

- The front of the ball is used to make the offside decision. Not the middle, not anywhere else.

This is where the Hawk-Eye line is drawn to.

Forget Emerson. He is irrelevant other than being the teammate playing the ball.

I won't be responding to any posts about a "deliberate play", as it's completely pointless.

It's been explained that blocking the ball cannot, and never will be, judged to be a "deliberate play."

There's nothing more to say, it's just not a debatable aspect in law.

PS. "Clear and obvious" does not apply to offside with VAR.

Never has.

It doesn't apply to this offside. Or any other.