Spurs (H) Post Match Thread

[simon23]

So the deflection off Laporte created a goalscoring opportunity ?

Jesus didn't run inside & smash the ball through 5 defenders to create it ?

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

 

[comiskey33]

VAR is only here to stop city,,,end of

really??

 

[danielwood5]

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.

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.

 

[SebastianBlue]

I see the trolls are on in force this morning.

 

[Neville Kneville]

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

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.

 

[simon23]

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.

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.....

 

[Deleted member 77198]

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.

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!

 

[simon23]

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.

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

 

[danielwood5]

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

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.
You can't say the Jesus offside goal was the correct decision either as the technology isn't in place to definitively rule on margins that small so the VAR officials guessed and instead of allowing the attacking team the benefit of the doubt as they should they just ruled it out so again that was the wrong decision.
The penalty retake was the right decision but I don't know whether the linesman gave it (as he should have, it's an easy decision to see) or if VAR gave it. At the time I thought the lino gave it and then VAR double checked if it was the right decision bit I can't say that for certain.

 

[Zenmanc]

Had to come up with some way to dethrone us. Oh well, season's not over lads.