Spurs (H) Post Match Thread

[BlueindianNewcity]

Watching the game again, we really thrashed them. Made them look no better than Burnley or Palace.

 

[Bunchofdickovs]

Cheers for that.

I think we all agree that the first bullet point and last bullet point are not what's at question here?

It's the middle one that is....and it's the use of the word "or" that is the issue.....

The ball hits Laportes arm....it does create (non deliberately) a goal scoring opportunity. He never has control or is in possession (laporte) either of the ball or what happens with his arm (and ball).... the key bit is that we (the team) have gained possession from a handball ( non deliberate). I still read it as the ref has called it right and I always ask myself would I have given handball if i saw it during the match ( i know the ref didnt .....and I'm not a qualified ref either) but being completely honest I would have given handball as its hit his arm (and it doesn't have to be deliberate- though this is the bit I believe is completely wrong with the law as it stands) and the attacking team have retained possession because of it and a goal scoring opportunity has arisen.

What needs to change is that it must be deliberate use of the hand to create a goal scoring opportunity. However we then get the arguments about how you prove intent which in a lot of cases is difficult so from another point of view I can see why they have tried to go so black and white on it

100% it would be far far far worse if it was not black and white . 2 different referees interpreting the handball rule in 2 different ways for an identical offence would create unnecessary lunacy . At least it's now equal for all .

 

[Roachy]

Watching the game again, we really thrashed them. Made them look no better than Burnley or Palace.

We totally dominated them. A Spurs colleague of mine was shocked at the difference in class. We convert our chances and the VAR situation has no where near as much discussion around it.

 

[Chippy_boy]

We totally dominated them. A Spurs colleague of mine was shocked at the difference in class. We convert our chances and the VAR situation has no where near as much discussion around it.

Absolutely right, it's the sense of injustice.

We battered them and won 3-2, either with the last minute goal or the early penalty. Neither should have gone to VAR, or both should. We were cheated out of a deserved victory by a stupid system and dreadful (or corrupt) officiating.

They reckon VAR will improve things, but honestly I cannot see how. The way I see it, the opportunity for injustices like this are increased not diminised by VAR... not to mention it ruining the game.

 

[ballinio]

100% it would be far far far worse if it was not black and white . 2 different referees interpreting the handball rule in 2 different ways for an identical offence would create unnecessary lunacy . At least it's now equal for all .

Lol

 

[The Lightbowne Cowboy]

You are right about this game. But if it happened in another game with greater implications, I doubt it will be so easy to blame it solely on our finishing. Especially if fought hard against a better team to score that kind of a decisive match winning goal.

I'm not saying we wasn't robbed, because we were, especially with the none penalty. But we should of been out of sight so we couldn't give them the chance to corrupt the outcome.

 

[blue ranger]

I think I felt even more positive about our prospects after the game. The gulf between us and spurs was even bigger than last season and some of our players clearly not fit yet, e.g. aguero. We will be fine and win league by 7-10 points.

 

[jim tolmies perm]

Cheers for that.

I think we all agree that the first bullet point and last bullet point are not what's at question here?

It's the middle one that is....and it's the use of the word "or" that is the issue.....

The ball hits Laportes arm....it does create (non deliberately) a goal scoring opportunity. He never has control or is in possession (laporte) either of the ball or what happens with his arm (and ball).... the key bit is that we (the team) have gained possession from a handball ( non deliberate). I still read it as the ref has called it right and I always ask myself would I have given handball if i saw it during the match ( i know the ref didnt .....and I'm not a qualified ref either) but being completely honest I would have given handball as its hit his arm (and it doesn't have to be deliberate- though this is the bit I believe is completely wrong with the law as it stands) and the attacking team have retained possession because of it and a goal scoring opportunity has arisen.

What needs to change is that it must be deliberate use of the hand to create a goal scoring opportunity. However we then get the arguments about how you prove intent which in a lot of cases is difficult so from another point of view I can see why they have tried to go so black and white on it

Sorry if I've misundestood but doesn't it say if "A PLAYER. " touches or gains possession with " THEIR" hand/arm , meaning Laporte didn't gain possession Gaby did and Gaby never handballed it
Bloody confused

 

[dennishasdoneit]

In that case, why bother with VAR at all. Leave it to the referee. The point is that the referee acts in full view. He can fuck us over once or twice and that's what we expect. VAR opens up an opportunity for someone we xan't see or hear and who doesn't have to explain themselves to fuck us over on something neither the ref nor the players are aware of.

You may not believe it's corrupt, but, if you're right, it's the only multi-billion pound industry in history that isn't.

Well said.

 

[cibaman]

Cheers for that.

I think we all agree that the first bullet point and last bullet point are not what's at question here?

It's the middle one that is....and it's the use of the word "or" that is the issue.....

The ball hits Laportes arm....it does create (non deliberately) a goal scoring opportunity. He never has control or is in possession (laporte) either of the ball or what happens with his arm (and ball).... the key bit is that we (the team) have gained possession from a handball ( non deliberate). I still read it as the ref has called it right and I always ask myself would I have given handball if i saw it during the match ( i know the ref didnt .....and I'm not a qualified ref either) but being completely honest I would have given handball as its hit his arm (and it doesn't have to be deliberate- though this is the bit I believe is completely wrong with the law as it stands) and the attacking team have retained possession because of it and a goal scoring opportunity has arisen.

What needs to change is that it must be deliberate use of the hand to create a goal scoring opportunity. However we then get the arguments about how you prove intent which in a lot of cases is difficult so from another point of view I can see why they have tried to go so black and white on it

I think the law is being interpreted on the basis that because the ball travelled directly from Laporte’s arm to Jesus then it must have created a goal scoring opportunity. But the ball barely deviated on its way to Jesus. It seems to me that the correct question should be “Did the ball only arrive at Jesus’s feet because It touched Laporte’s arm?”. I think the law needs to be clarified so that there needs to be a significant deviation in the trajectory, speed or bounce of the ball for it to count as creating a goal scoring opportunity.