You ARE going insane. 1) KAne was offside 2) Martinez made more of a play for the ball than several tackles on Watkins and Emi B that were no calls. 3) Martinez would have had the ball cleanly if Kane had not flicked it 4) it's still possible the ball touched Emi's right arm. 5) back to Kane flipping the ball, his intent was to flip it over Emi, away from goal, with no chance of an opportunity to play it - that's not what he was trying evidenced by 6) he was falling before any contact 7) he dragged his left foot into his own right calf to make the "trip" look more convincing. It's a strategic and calculated effort to fool a referee into thinking a foul has occured. when he could have easily hopped over the opponent as a true sportsman would 8 ) it happened in a context where fouls had been called in very one-sided direction for most of the match 9) see the two clips above to see that this way of looking at a foul is not a universal or consistent interpretation across premeirship matches. 10) even you admit that Martinez error was "speading his entire body" :For Kane to run into.....dive or whatever. (I would add that only one of the two made a legitimate effort to "play" the game in the way it's intended to be playd - Kane's effort was only to touch the ball away from play so he could cheat.)
But I think YOU are missing the point. Was the officiating fair? no but we won anyway. We were that much superior to this supposedly "big" club. That's the big take home point. I'll take it, I'm happy. Kane is still a diving cheat and the referee was snookered again. after being "entirely coincidentally" one sided througout the match.
Seriously, you are not insane, you are looking at the facts focusing on a few of them, from one perspective facts from a very di. I am focusing on those same facts but placing them in the context of the overal play and the overall match. The fact that our perspectives on it differ does not mean either of us are insane. it means we're fans.