Spurs (H) Post Match Thread

[kaz7]

thats not accurate though....if he hasnt seen it VAr can give it...but the ref can review it as well on the pitch side monitors.

ive just seen the footage of the incident where you can see what the ref is doing...now for the first part of the foul by Lamela, as a couple of people have pointed out he aint looking at the incident, however he does see the second part of it and rodri is still on his feet or at elast on his way down and Lamela is in contact with him ......so the ref has seen part of the incident.....now he deems from what he has seen that it aint a penalty....Var dont think it is either.......me, you, all city fans and others think it is a penalty - this happens all the time with or without VAR. VAR could have checked it (and may well have done) and the outcoe would still be the same.....

I could be wrong on this (I dont know) but if VAR does over rule a ref's decision, teh ref will check this on the pitchside monitors and then make a final decision...he could still over rule VAR orgo with what they have said...does anyone know if this is the protocol or not?

They are discouraged to use the monitors because of time,a last min winner should qualify the use of the monitor if not nothing will,waste of money putting them in

 

[mosssideblue]

Watching the Laporte one back again, ok, it’s handball, but his arm wouldn’t be there if it wasn’t being GRABBED/PULLED by the defender, so therefore VAR should have either awarded a penalty or advantage.

The takedown of Rodri is just mind blowing. The cünt was looking right at it and bottled it, VAR should have made him look at a monitor, yet he booked Sterling 30 seconds later for the same thing.
And people say there’s no agenda??

I assume you mean the ref and if so, he was looking in the other direction to it

 

[simon23]

Sigh,no we don't have to get used to it,we are football fans who can't celebrate goals anymore,we should complain as much as possible,VAR is the single best thing that has happened to those who want to skew the game,you will never see any rag or dipper player thrown to the ground and not get a pen,we all know it,they have used us as experiments,clear and obvious went out of the window the 2nd we stepped out at west ham,funny only one other game has var been used to disallow a goal,the other games nothing,the law of averages there should have been more calls this weekend,so far out of 9 goals we have had 2 chalked off,3 var reviews,they strained everything to find raz offside and i'm yet to see for sure who touvhed the ball yesterday,now we are 2 points down and they don't have to explain fuck all,i was for var but this last week it's proved me wrong,very wrong
SHOUT IT FROMM THE ROOF TOP

well keep bithing and moaining about it then and see where it gets you....nowhere

I agree that other players get penalties etc for lesser things....for instance aguero usually does his best to stay on his feet (think of the 93:20 moment - Ohnua actually clips his ankle before Sergio puts it in the back of the net....now Salah and others would have gone diving over but sergio (as he usually does) stayed on his feet and the rest is glorious history.....id rather it that way)

VAR will affect us more because we are the most attacking team int he league playing against packed defences - we will have more tight offisde calls than any other becuse of the way we play and the way teams defend against us and the amount of chances we create ....thats just mathamtical fact based on probability/laws of averages.
did you think any of spurs two goals should have been reviewed by VAR yesterday (They would have been btw)

you an argue all you want and you wont see it Im eratin cause you dont want to but the ball hit laportes arm whether you like it or not.

 

[danielwood5]

you can disagree all you want....there is an or in the sentance and that stipulates that if a hand ball (deliberate or not) creates a goal scoring opportunity - which it did...its there in black and white...no he never had control of the ball or possession but the or bit is the important bit and the ref has interpirted it corretly.

But if he never had control or possession of the ball then everything that is written after that in the law is irrelevant.
What the law says is that if the ball hits the hand and the attacking player gains possession (a defender hits the ball clear, it hits an attackers arm which then causes the ball to drop to the attacker, i.e. gains possession from the attacking team) or gains control of the ball (ball is crossed into the box, hits an attackers arm and then drops to their feet) if a goal is scored or the now controlled/possessed ball is given to a teammate to assist after the attacker has gained control/possession then that goal is disallowed.
If the ball glances off the attacker then goes elsewhere, the attacking player has not gained possession or control therefore isn't handball.
The part of the law that says 'scores, or creates a goal-scoring opportunity' is wholly dependant on the attacking player who's arm is hit taking control or possession of the ball. The 'or' bit is the least important part of the law, so I definitely disagree with you as it is written there in black and white.
If the law said that it's handball if the ball accidentally hits the arm then falls to a teammate who then scores or assists you'd be right but it doesn't, it states that the player who initially touched the ball then can't score or consciously assist without it being a handball. Laportes neither scored nor assisted therefore the goal should have stood.

 

[LucahArchie10]

According to the sage that is Neil Ashton in today's Sun, Spurs deserved their point for their resilience and never say die.

Obviously choosing to overlook the 30 missed chances and VAR decisions.

Apparently, it underlined Spurs' title challenger credentials.

I thought they were average at best and won't finish within 15 points of us.

I've now watched Harry Kane live 6 times & not once has he looked World Class, I'm sick of hearing those c.... go on about him.

 

[danielwood5]

you can disagree all you want....there is an or in the sentance and that stipulates that if a hand ball (deliberate or not) creates a goal scoring opportunity - which it did...its there in black and white...no he never had control of the ball or possession but the or bit is the important bit and the ref has interpirted it corretly.

But if he never had control or possession of the ball then everything that is written after that in the law is irrelevant.
What the law says is that if the ball hits the hand and the attacking player gains possession (a defender hits the ball clear, it hits an attackers arm which then causes the ball to drop to the attacker, i.e. gains possession from the defending team) or gains control of the ball (ball is crossed into the box, hits an attackers arm and then drops to their feet) if a goal is scored or the now controlled/possessed ball is given to a teammate to assist after the attacker has gained control/possession then that goal is disallowed.
If the ball glances off the attacker then goes elsewhere, the attacking player has not gained possession or control therefore isn't handball.
The part of the law that says 'scores, or creates a goal-scoring opportunity' is wholly dependant on the attacking player who's arm is hit taking control or possession of the ball. The 'or' bit is the least important part of the law, so I definitely disagree with you as it is written there in black and white.
If the law said that it's handball if the ball accidentally hits the arm then falls to a teammate who then scores or assists you'd be right but it doesn't, it states that the player who initially touched the ball then can't score or assist without it being a handball. Laportes neither scored nor assisted therefore the goal should have stood.

 

[simon23]

no......

they are different things becuase of the use of the word "or"

1. If the player gains possession by use of the hand/arm then its handball...so if the ball had hit laportes arm and dropeed at his fee it would have been a free kick to spurs.
2. if it hits laoprtes arm and goes in then its not a goal
or
3, if its in the build up to a goal...ie city as a team had possession cause of the ball hitting the player on the arm

 

[danielwood5]

Ive already said a lot of times that I believe it was a penalty for the challenge by Lamela on Rodri

what you need to get is that all teh bitchin and moaning aint going to change anything and nothing is going to change this season so you and others are going to have to get use to the new rules and VAR...

mistakes by refs (or corruption as Im sure you will see it) has always been part of the game....so its you that needs to get that....

Which would be fair enough if VAR wasn't sold to is as a way to remove the mistakes from the referees so all its done is slow down the game, disallow great goals for nothing, compound refereeing mistakesand just generally disrupt flowing games of football without actually minimising the mistakes its there to correct! Seems like it's not working to me so far.

 

[simon23]

Which would be fair enough if VAR wasn't sold to is as a way to remove the mistakes from the referees so all its done is slow down the game, disallow great goals for nothing, compound refereeing mistakesand just generally disrupt flowing games of football without actually minimising the mistakes its there to correct! Seems like it's not working to me so far.

the goal wasnt disallowwed for nothing...it was orrectly disalowed for handball

a system is only as good as the humans using it.......the refs for VAR got it spot on with the handball....they got it completely wrong for the rodri incident which everyone and their dogs think was a penalty

 

[blue moony]

the goal wasnt disallowwed for nothing...it was orrectly disalowed for handball

a system is only as good as the humans using it.......the refs for VAR got it spot on with the handball....they got it completely wrong for the rodri incident which everyone and their dogs think was a penalty

Still preaching !