Spurs (H) Post Match Thread

[Indaparkside]

On current form, Bravo would have saved the shot for their first goal. We should not be conceding such a high percentage of shots faced. Just saying.

So ederson's fault we drew now. People have blamed him, kdb, var etc. We drew because we never took our chances end of

 

[twosips]

One thing this game has convinced me, even with VAR there, is that we're going to score 9 or 10 in a league game this season. We tore Spurs to pieces. We'll do that to a lesser team and we'll finish the chances too and there will be a HUGE outrage in the press about City disrespecting their opponents. Again. Bring it on...

 

[The Lightbowne Cowboy]

So ederson's fault we drew now. People have blamed him, kdb, var etc. We drew because we never took our chances end of

Spot on Parkside. Now the steams stopped pissing out of my ears, I've calmed down and come to the conclusion that we fluffed our lines time and time again. We should of been 4 or 5 up when they scored their 2nd.

 

[Tricky_Trev]

Could you copy and paste the handball rule.please....I'm really interested to see if its different from the one I've read...
Cheers

“It is an offence if a player:

• deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, including moving their hand/arm towards the ball
• gains possession/control of the ball after it has touched their hand/arm and then: a) scores in the opponent’s goal or b) creates a goalscoring opportunity
• scores in the opponent’s goal directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper”

I’ve typed that up myself as for some reason I couldn’t get a screenshot to work

 

[hammocity]

No at the time he didnt but ALL goals.are checked regardless of what has taken place....the refs on VAR saw it....even Kdb indicated in his post match comments that he saw it on the replay...he said something like..what's he supposed to do, chop his arm.off...think Bernardo said the same

Our version of VAR is supposed to only check “clear and obvious errors” and replays in real time. It was clear neither of these criteria were used, it was some officious twat in a caravan 200 miles away looking for a reason to dry bum us.

 

[Paladin]

I’ve read the handball rule dozens of times since the game and I’m not convinced there was an offence. Ex refs in the media can come out saying “any handball that results in a goal is a foul”, but the laws don’t actually say that, and surely that’s what matters? The laws read as if Laporte would have had to gain possession/control of the ball AFTER it hitting his arm. Not in the moment it hit his arm, but after it. It’s clear that he did not gain control of the ball afterwards. The other parts of the rule are to do with if it’s deliberate (which it wasn’t), or if it goes in the net directly off the arm/hand (which it didn’t). I’m not even convinced it’s a foul, even under the new law.

It wasn't handball under the new law. Incompetent VAR referee who doesn't know the basics of his own profession.

 

[northwichblue]

Spot on Parkside. Now the steams stopped pissing out of my ears, I've calmed down and come to the conclusion that we fluffed our lines time and time again. We should of been 4 or 5 up when they scored their 2nd.

It's the same old story week in week out

 

[omcfc]

When Liverpool have a crucial last minute winner chalked off I might believe VAR is being applied impartially.

I imagine that over the course of a few seasons we will be able to collect some statistics on it. It'll be interesting to see what they show.

 

[simon23]

“It is an offence if a player:

• deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, including moving their hand/arm towards the ball
• gains possession/control of the ball after it has touched their hand/arm and then: a) scores in the opponent’s goal or b) creates a goalscoring opportunity
• scores in the opponent’s goal directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper”

I’ve typed that up myself as for some reason I couldn’t get a screenshot to work

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

 

[lightning Rodri]

Spot on Parkside. Now the steams stopped pissing out of my ears, I've calmed down and come to the conclusion that we fluffed our lines time and time again. We should of been 4 or 5 up when they scored their 2nd.

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.

 

[lightning Rodri]

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.