Spurs (H) Post Match Thread

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

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

So this is where VAR can and will be use corruptly.

Offside as you say, is not black and white. If the view of the pass is obscured, then the VAR officials are making a judgement call as to whether or not the attacker was offside or not at the very point the pass was made. Given the speed some players run at we are not talking millimetres of error, more like meters. So there is one instance conscious/unconscious bias can be an effect in the outcome of a decision.

In the instance of the third goal that never was, it was the defenders actions (drag back) which caused Laport's arm to be in the position where he made contact with the ball. The ball also hit the defenders arm practically simultaneously, but apparently that's ok even though his action of pulling back Laport's arm was not accidental. At the least it should have been a foul against Spurs. Even with my blue tinted spec's off, I can see that kind of decision going the other way for another team this season in the PL.

VAR should take away any doubt, but unfortunately it adds ANOTHER LAYER OF (UNACCOUNTABLE) SUBJECTIVITY TO THE APPLICATION OF THE LAWS OF THE GAME.

 

[alexmcity]

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!

Just an off-day in terms of finishing, which is normal in football and happens even to the greatest teams in history. Nothing to feel dramatic about.

 

[Neville Kneville]

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 detail has been posted on here. The Sky version is the one you are referring to.

The actual rule as quoted means the goal should stand. It was not a situation you would normally count as a likely goalscoring situation. Jesus turned it into one. If he'd hit the ball when it came to him, nothing would have happened.

They have chosen to call handball, ignore the foul & interpret the result as creating a goalscoring chance.

3 decisions, against City.

It's a goal.

 

[homerdog]

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

Listen, you've made your point, which you're perfectly entitled to do, but some of us don't agree with it. So stop repeating it ad fucking nauseam, it's tedious!

 

[bluemanchester]

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)

"it doesnt matter whether Laporte was having his arm pulled moments before."

Were referees given guidelines to adhere to concerning pulling and jostling at corners and set pieces, which this tug and pull comes within those guidelines, but VAR and referee can ignore.I seem to remember Sterling conceding a penalty at Stoke? for contact with one of their Goliaths because it was within those guidelines. I don't recall any other top club been penalised though.

 

[alexmcity]

People are crying a bit too much. If Pep had that mentality, he wouldn't have survived season 16/17 when we were spanked by Leicester and Everton after losing because of referee mistakes to Chelsea at home.

We can deal with adversity, we have a fantastic manager and team. Adversity and attempts to stop us will fuel our desire to improve the team further.

 

[IcriedwhenTueartleft]

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.

 

[danielwood5]

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.....

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.
I can't really remember seeing Salah go down when he's dragged backwards by the arm, the ones I remember are where there's two players going for a ball and he'd initiate contact then fall over theatrically. I think that it should have been a penalty not because Laporte fell over, whether easily or not, but because grabbing hold of a players arm to stop him getting on the end of a cross is an illegal move. To be honest, the whole grabbing hold of players as a defensive tactic is one that I've hated for years and really hoped that VAR would stamp out, it's an easy one to spot and doesn't require the rules to be changed it just needs them to be enforced properly. After a couple of weekends of penalties given for holding in the box it would soon stop.

 

[simon23]

lots of people saying the rule (including ex pros, pundits etc) saying the new rule about handball is wrong.

i dont think the attacking team being allowed the benefit of the doubt is still the line (could be wrong but i thought i heard this yesterday).....

the rule as i understand it(as its been changed this season ) and that is being quoted is that its a handball offence if, as part of the build to a goal, the ball hits a hand/arm (whether deliberate or not) of an attaking player - which it did. - i think this is wrong because like yesterday thre was no way on earth that Lapotre ever intended to either use his arm or gain an advantage from it, nor did it go in directly off his arm (if it had done it would have been ruled out....

the tech saw that Sterling was mm's offisde...now there is a debate on where you stop and start the footage amd someone on here was talking about film speeds etc last week who seemed to know a lot about it but even with the fastest camera's there is stillan error margin...depends on an interprition of when the ball is played for the pass...is it the moment the passer connects with the ball or the moment it leaves his foot? for me its the first (the moment the passer connects with the ball)...now you would would think that the time is such a timy amount of differene but when you are moving at the speed of someone like sterling at full pace the distance a player can cover in that time can be the difference of on or offside...

so again does the offside rule need to be changed to acomodate the differntial beteen the two possibilities....and again give the advantage slightly to the attacker...yes....I think (though people with better tech knowledge may say no) that if we changed the rule back to what it used to be (ie that there should be clear daylight between the attacked and defnder for it to be consdiered offside, then maybe that would make up the differnce in the split milliseconds from the passer touching the ball and the ball leaving his foot??

 

[Neville Kneville]

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.

We were lacking workrate & sharpness for the first Spurs goal imo. Aguero, Gundogan in particular, half arsed.

After the Champs Lg game, we should have stepped up the whole workrate & made sure we blocked that area after scoring.

As for the 2nd, as I said in another thread, Walker was at fault as he should have grabbed the Spurs player round the neck & hauled him to the ground, which is allowed, as proven by v.a.r.