So the deflection off Laporte created a goalscoring opportunity ?
Jesus didn't run inside & smash the ball through 5 defenders to create it ?
really??VAR is only here to stop city,,,end of
A physical game is fine, players using their strength to jostle for the ball is great, but grabbing hold of an arm so a player can't get on the end of a cross isn't part of a physical game, it's just plain cheating which is what VAR should be stamping out.I can see your point but the counter to it is that football should be a physical game...should a player lose his feet and throw himself to the ground like Salah does on multuple occasions just cause someone touches his/slightly grabs his arm????? I dont think thats justifiable reason to fall over....however what you hear a lot of nowadays (though i completely disagree with it) is the omment that if the player feels contact he is "entitled to go over" - to me that is just plain wrong.
the ball fell to jesus off laportes arm directly....the arm was part of the build up whih is why it was correctly ruled out....
to me the rule is wrong but thats not what you are talking about here...the application of the rule was correct
A physical game is fine, players using their strength to jostle for the ball is great, but grabbing hold of an arm so a player can't get on the end of a cross isn't part of a physical game, it's just plain cheating which is what VAR should be stamping out.
The problem now is players know that they won't get anything unless they go down as referees miss these things all the time, which, ironically, is why VAR was brought in, to correct these decisions referees miss without the need for a player to go down however easily.
I agree about the 'entitled to go down' thing, that is also cheating which is why I think Otamendi should have had a yellow yesterday.
Spot on.I'm still absolutely fuming :(
The amount of chances we created and wasted was a joke we wouldn't have needed that decision at the end had we taken some.
Defence was shite on both Spurs goals.
Plenty of positives tho we played really well and to carve open Spurs that many times is ridiculous.
No, I'm asking you, if when Jesus got the ball, you thought a goalscoring opportunity had been created ?
I didn't. I thought he created it completely, for himself, afterwards.
The rules quoted in this thread, do not say that any deflection to any player in any circumstance, should result in a disallowed goal.
Chances are, as with Otamendi handball, they will now interpret the rules this way, from now on, in order to legitimise it.
The rule isn't wrong, the interpretation of it that you're using and the VAR officials are using is wrong, the disallowed goal was a perfectly good goal according to the current laws of the game.two different arguments there...
1. the rule is wrong - yes i fully agree.
2. interpitation of the present rule....the ball via the arm of laporte goes to our player - we therefore have gained an advantage due to a handball and in the build up to the goal (which is the key bit) and we gained possession from it
VAr also got the Jesus one right vs west ham - albeit by millimetres sterling was offisde int he build up before he passed to jesus - he was offisde therefore correct....
as you said it also got the penalty retake right - because rice cleared the ball...if he hadnt touched the ball it and a city player had got to it and missed it wouldnt have been retaken but if the city player had got to it and scored then if that player had encroached as well (and i belive the nearest one had done at the same time as Rice) it would hve hd to be retaken
So this is where VAR can and will be use corruptly.the differnce is that ALL goals will be reviewed according to VAR rules/implementation to check whether they should stand. Whether you like it or not the ball came off laportes hand and by thr new rules that is hand ball and the goal was correctly ruled offside.......the rule its self you can question but as the rule stands it was the correct decision.
fouls - they will only look at it and then over rule if they think the ref has made a major mistake...no matter what you or i think (Ithat the ref made a mistake) the VAR officials didnt think he did....the ref indcated that he hadnt got word from VAR that it was a penalty
what people are failing to grasp is that VAR works at different levels depending on what the situation is:
1. ALL goals will be reviewed - no matter what
2. VAR will judge on offisdes (because it can see what the naked eye cannt in real life and its a black or white decision).
3 .Fouls/potential fouls are for the ref and will only be over turned if the VAR officials believ the ref has either not seen it or has made a huge mistake - now this is where there is a human error/grey area....different people will see different incidents in different ways......most people thought it was a foul by Lamela on Rodri (including me) - however the ref didnt think it was and the VAR officials agreed with it - do I agree with the decision, NO I dont, but thats irrelevant.
Neville said what actually needs to happen here:
"If I was the referees back in Stockley Park, I'd be happy with the fact they've got the disallowed goal right but the first one [Erik Lamela on Rodri for a penalty in the first half], I think the officials at Stockley Park have to be stronger. I know that they've said it has to be clear and obvious to overrule the on-field referee, but for me that is clear and obvious.
"They've got to have the nerve and the courage to say, no, that is a penalty. We've not quite seen that yet. It's something I felt that day I went to Stockley Park with Jamie Carragher to get an understanding of what VAR was going to be. I felt that they weren't keen on overruling the referee on the pitch, which is right, but they have to overrule decisions like that.
However in this case the ref on the pitch and the VAR ref clearly agreed....the issue is what is deemed a foul and what isnt and that is always, alwyas open for debate
Spot on.
We created 22 chances in the game, with 30 shots in total and 10 on target.
Take one more of those 22 chances and there would be no discussion about a disallowed injury time goal.
Very poor from us!
yes a goal scoring opportunity had been created as the ball fell to the player in the box one touch control one touch finish...the language is if the ball hits an arm/hand as part of the "build up" to the goal i believe and again it was part of the build up
the ball fell to jesus off laportes arm directly....the arm was part of the build up whih is why it was correctly ruled out....
to me the rule is wrong but thats not what you are talking about here...the application of the rule was correct
it doesnt matter whether Laporte was having his arm pulled moments before...that happens at corners etc all the time and sometimes a foul is give, sometimes not...it hits his arm and we gain an advantage (not deliberate but an advantage non the less) - the rule is really clear (but i believe for the sake of the game it does need to be changed as in this incident and ones in the future it will spoil the game)
Yeah, the Kev one looked like nothing to me, he jumped over the coming tackle and stumbled because of it, it was a foul tackle whether it made contact or not regardless of if Kev went down or not. It wasn't a dive I didn't think and it looked at the time that there was slight contact with Kev's trailing foot which knocked him slightly off stride but I've only seen it once and so can't say for sure.again i part agree with you but should a player fall to the ground in that situation....for me no (but maybe they do it to try and bring it to the attention fo the ref)
its interesting on th entitled to go down bit as well as the was an incident with KDB where he rode what could of been a bad tackle but the player never actually touched him at all (or it certainly didnt look like it)...now KDB half went down and got up quickly...now if you have played football you willknow as anyone would that in that situation its almost an autmatic responce what KDB did - its like a protection against injury response to go down like that as you acn feel the tackle coming but it never actually happens but your body shape changes and hence you go over.......no was KDB entitled to go down or was he diving.....i dont think its either...i think its a natural response in trying to get out of the wy of something....
of course there are playrs who like salah go down at the slightest touch but there were loads on here criticising Salah (rightly IMHO) for doing the same last year with slight pulls on the arm....yet now saaying we sould get a penalty for that incident yesterday...people cannt have it both ways.....
Calmed down a bit from last night. Bottom line, we missed too many chances at 2-1 that would have killed the game. Not sure what it is about Spurs but they score a few at our place. Remember that 2-2 in Pep's 1st season, we were cruising at 2 up then they scored two quickly with virtually their only shots on goal?
They got a ludicrous pen as well under Pellegrini in his last season when it hit Sterling's back. Plus, we got denied that blatant penalty when Walker fouled Raz in the 2-2.
Then of course the CL game last season when they scored with just about every effort on goal, same against last night. Plus of course shafted by VAR.
I wish Bernado would waken up and get back to last season's form, bad miss from him at 2-1. Poor goalkeeping for their 1st goal, badly out of position plus too far out of his goal. Switched off for their 2nd from the corner.
Rose should have been sent off for wiping out Bernado in the 1st half, ridiculous decision from Oliver, as was the non-penalty incident in the 1st half.
I thought they were getting through our midfield on the break far too easily in the 2nd half, were we lacking a bit of steel in there yesterday?
Some fantastic balls in from KDB and some truly awful ones as well, especially 2nd half.
Lots to like about our play as usual, played some lovely stuff at times. Shot count of 29-3 sums up ultimately, how fortunate Spurs were to get a point out of a complete mullering.