Why do Spurs accept bad decisions against us?

TottenhamMattSpur said:

Be handy if someone actually kept a log of all teams good and bad decisions (IE ones for and against that are incorrectly given)
You could then tell at the end of a season if anyone really got the benefit.
The only gripe I had on Saturday was that it wasn't checked.

Click to expand...

you say it wasn't checked, it happened after 30seconds, they scored it after 2 mins, and from where I was sat he had his hand on his ear piece. they only go to the screen if the VAR ref considers he made an error. in Europe after seeing the Rose handball v City, it's something that will happen in the CL, but might of not happened in the PL.

danielneeds said:

The only one of these which I think was unjust or shady was Poch’s touchline ban. All the rest, of you take off your Spur-tinted glasses, are correct decisions.

Click to expand...

starting to wonder if Deans words to Poch at the time was "that will teach you to beat my beloved".

nicdic said:

And the letter of the law clarifies that whilst, yes it is handball if the ball hits an arm outside of the natural silhouette of the body, if it hits the arm having deflected off another part of the player's body, then it is neither a free kick or penalty.

Click to expand...

this has always been my interpretation of it as well and as soon as the showed the replay of it deflecting off sissoko's chest i was relieved as i was sure it would be overturned, genuinely couldn't believe how quick the process was with the ref putting his finger to his ear and pointing to the spot. i feel as though i have no idea what is and isn't handball these days though and it just seems that with var now that 9 times out of 10 it'll be given, especially when they're slowing down replays and disregarding any context.

You want Poch to do this?

Blake Griffin said:

this has always been my interpretation of it as well and as soon as the showed the replay of it deflecting off sissoko's chest i was relieved as i was sure it would be overturned, genuinely couldn't believe how quick the process was with the ref putting his finger to his ear and pointing to the spot. i feel as though i have no idea what is and isn't handball these days though and it just seems that with var now that 9 times out of 10 it'll be given, especially when they're slowing down replays and disregarding any context.

Click to expand...

I suggest you read this...
https://www.sportsjoe.ie/football/hand-ball-rule-in-football-sissoko-202011

Sorry to say this law will apply to the premier League next season thereby encouraging forwards to just kick the ball at defenders arms.....sad times.

Krule said:

I suggest you read this...
https://www.sportsjoe.ie/football/hand-ball-rule-in-football-sissoko-202011

Sorry to say this law will apply to the premier League next season thereby encouraging forwards to just kick the ball at defenders arms.....sad times.

Click to expand...

and this https://www.independent.co.uk/sport...all-champions-league-final-2019-a8941016.html

which was then debated by a few of them...



and

Danners9 said:

and this https://www.independent.co.uk/sport...all-champions-league-final-2019-a8941016.html

which was then debated by a few of them...



and

Click to expand...

What about the blatant missed free kick for the hand up Trippier's arse? Outrageous.

Franc said:

What about the blatant missed free kick for the hand up Trippier's arse? Outrageous.

Click to expand...

He wasn't complaining, so...

Seriously though, there were genuine yellow card fouls ignored because of 'advantage' where the free kick was the true advantage. A foul on Rose near the corner sticks in my mind. Same thing happens in lots of games so I am not suggesting a conspiracy or anything, but you'd like to think a ref chosen for the showpiece final would be a bit better. He didn't bring the play back or punish the defender. Just waved play on and we'd lost the ball.

One of the main things love about Poch is he never uses things like this as excuses.

Ridiculous thread.

That's why Liverpool get these decisions and we don't. The Liverpool Mafia of ex-players all say it was a penalty so it is. Never was it a penalty. Liverpool got the Ref last year investigated for corruption.

mpickard2087 said:

So they thought it wasn't an error then.....

I think there has to be nuance in it, whatever the letter of the law says. If someone is trying to control a ball and then it bounces up and hits an arm accidently that's clearly not a penalty. But Sissoko's he hasn't even really blocked it, it's skimmed off him and the arm is out and has prevented the ball going into the penalty area. The right footballing decision has been made there.

If that's down the other end, and a penalty wasn't given, the thread would be about 500 pages long by now.

Click to expand...

No, no, no, no, no. Sorry, chap, no. The right officiating decision was made, but the call is completely against the point of why handballs are penalised.

We know why handballs are penalised: the game is supposed to be played with the feet and using one’s hand to control the ball is not part of the game.

However, the idea that if a player’s hand is struck by a ball through a concatenation of circumstances that said player has no control over (which is what the current stance by officials is) is utterly ludicrous.

As has been said by me, and many others, it means that logically, players would have to spend the whole game with their arms at their sides in order to avoid an ‘unnatural silhouette’ from causing a sanction.

It also means that it would be open to abuse. An opposition player, surrounded by defenders can’t create an opening and is going to lose the ball. ‘I know!’, he thinks, ‘let me just dink this ball into Sissoko’s hand and I’ll get a penalty’.

What if a player was wiping his brow in the penalty box and the ball comes sailing in and smacks his hand? Penalty, is it?

The point here is that the instructions given to refs to penalise any contact with a player’s hand, even if it’s accidental, is too stringent and inflexible.

What makes it worse is that handball, by IFABs own definition, is considered a ‘subjective consideration’, i.e. open to interpretation. The ref on Saturday had it within his power to not give the penalty, even with the instructions officials have been given in this year’s UEFA competitions.

The letter of law may have been observed in the decision, but the spirit of the law most certainly wasn’t, and in that respect we have grounds to feel aggrieved.

rez9000 said:

No, no, no, no, no. Sorry, chap, no. The right officiating decision was made, but the call is completely against the point of why handballs are penalised.

We know why handballs are penalised: the game is supposed to be played with the feet and using one’s hand to control the ball is not part of the game.

However, the idea that if a player’s hand is struck by a ball through a concatenation of circumstances that said player has no control over (which is what the current stance by officials is) is utterly ludicrous.

As has been said by me, and many others, it means that logically, players would have to spend the whole game with their arms at their sides in order to avoid an ‘unnatural silhouette’ from causing a sanction.

It also means that it would be open to abuse. An opposition player, surrounded by defenders can’t create an opening and is going to lose the ball. ‘I know!’, he thinks, ‘let me just dink this ball into Sissoko’s hand and I’ll get a penalty’.

What if a player was wiping his brow in the penalty box and the ball comes sailing in and smacks his hand? Penalty, is it?

The point here is that the instructions given to refs to penalise any contact with a player’s hand, even if it’s accidental, is too stringent and inflexible.

What makes it worse is that handball, by IFABs own definition, is considered a ‘subjective consideration’, i.e. open to interpretation. The ref on Saturday had it within his power to not give the penalty, even with the instructions officials have been given in this year’s UEFA competitions.

The letter of law may have been observed in the decision, but the spirit of the law most certainly wasn’t, and in that respect we have grounds to feel aggrieved.

Click to expand...

You can judge every situation on it's merits, instances like the PSG vs. Man Utd penalty and the one Rose got done for I'd say are harsh because of the scenario and they're throwing themselves in front of the ball and the arm wasn't in an outrageous position, but in general if you go in waving your arms in crazy fashion then you can have no complaints - even if an attacker buys one (not sure why clever play to gain the advantage/penalty is seen as an grievous crime anyway?).

Sissoko did something silly, with no mitigating circumstances to get away with it, and got punished for it. For me it doesn't even register on the list of refereeing injustices Spurs have had in the 25 years I've been watching them.

But as always, it's the refs fault and they were against us, as it is in about 95% of match threads these days.....

Never go full RAWK

carmeldevil said:

You want Poch to do this?

Click to expand...

That is fucking frightening.

Point by point, if you'll indulge me:

mpickard2087 said:

You can judge every situation on it's merits, instances like the PSG vs. Man Utd penalty and the one Rose got done for I'd say are harsh because of the scenario and they're throwing themselves in front of the ball and the arm wasn't in an outrageous position, but in general if you go in waving your arms in crazy fashion then you can have no complaints - even if an attacker buys one (not sure why clever play to gain the advantage/penalty is seen as an grievous crime anyway?).

Click to expand...

Until recently, a ball striking a raised arm, where the ball hits the arm, rather than the arm striking the ball would not have been penalised, as it would have been deemed accidental. That's the point. The current instructions to officials is that even accidental contact is deemed sanctionable. That's not right. It's too harsh, it's too inflexible.

Sissoko did something silly, with no mitigating circumstances to get away with it, and got punished for it. For me it doesn't even register on the list of refereeing injustices Spurs have had in the 25 years I've been watching them.

Click to expand...

With respect, that's debatable. Giving instruction or guidance to a teammate is not a silly thing to do. It's very easy for us on the sidelines to parse every action and decide on its wisdom, but that's far harder to do for one playing in the cauldron of a top-level match, especially one as fraught with tension as a Champions League Final. The idea that Sissoko did something silly ignores any considerations of the pressure every player on that pitch would have been under.

But as always, it's the refs fault and they were against us, as it is in about 95% of match threads these days.....

Click to expand...

As I've said repeatedly in the match thread, I believe the referee made the correct officiating call, but made the wrong call in terms of the spirit of the game and its rules.

I don't subscribe to the idea that the refs or the media or anyone else is conspiring against us. If the roles were reversed and it was Liverpool who had conceded a penalty in the same fashion, my view would be identical - that the referee bungled his decision. My view would be that we got away with it and I'm sure there'll be Liverpool fans who are grateful for their good fortune in being put ahead so early in the game.

My belief, and forgive me if my conjecture is off the mark, is that you're more exorcised by the idea that anyone who objects to the referee's decision is somehow convinced of a conspiracy against Spurs. However, the two are not mutually inclusive. It's perfectly possible to state that the referee's decision contributed to our loss without subscribing to a conspiracy theory. My view is that the referee made an inept decision and that that contributed to our loss. It wasn't the only reason we lost, but it played a part. That doesn't require me to believe that the referee made his choice for any reason other than believing it was the right one in the circumstances. I don't need to believe his decision was anything other than ineptitude on the part of officiating authorities. They've made a poor decision when it comes to the guidance around handball.

I'm on the same page as you when it comes to conspiracy idea. Hence why I said we had 'grounds to feel aggrieved', not 'we were robbed', or 'everyone's against us' or any such thing like that. I made no mention of labelling the authorities as somehow conspiring to gift Liverpool the trophy. In my view, the two are not related. There is no conspiracy against Spurs, but the referee's decision on the night was not justifiable. The two are not mutually inclusive.

rez9000 said:

Point by point, if you'll indulge me:
Until recently, a ball striking a raised arm, where the ball hits the arm, rather than the arm striking the ball would not have been penalised, as it would have been deemed accidental. That's the point. The current instructions to officials is that even accidental contact is deemed sanctionable. That's not right. It's too harsh, it's too inflexible.

With respect, that's debatable. Giving instruction or guidance to a teammate is not a silly thing to do. It's very easy for us on the sidelines to parse every action and decide on its wisdom, but that's far harder to do for one playing in the cauldron of a top-level match, especially one as fraught with tension as a Champions League Final. The idea that Sissoko did something silly ignores any considerations of the pressure every player on that pitch would have been under.

As I've said repeatedly in the match thread, I believe the referee made the correct officiating call, but made the wrong call in terms of the spirit of the game and its rules.

I don't subscribe to the idea that the refs or the media or anyone else is conspiring against us. If the roles were reversed and it was Liverpool who had conceded a penalty in the same fashion, my view would be identical - that the referee bungled his decision. My view would be that we got away with it and I'm sure there'll be Liverpool fans who are grateful for their good fortune in being put ahead so early in the game.

My belief, and forgive me if my conjecture is off the mark, is that you're more exorcised by the idea that anyone who objects to the referee's decision is somehow convinced of a conspiracy against Spurs. However, the two are not mutually inclusive. It's perfectly possible to state that the referee's decision contributed to our loss without subscribing to a conspiracy theory. My view is that the referee made an inept decision and that that contributed to our loss. It wasn't the only reason we lost, but it played a part. That doesn't require me to believe that the referee made his choice for any reason other than believing it was the right one in the circumstances. I don't need to believe his decision was anything other than ineptitude on the part of officiating authorities. They've made a poor decision when it comes to the guidance around handball.

I'm on the same page as you when it comes to conspiracy idea. Hence why I said we had 'grounds to feel aggrieved', not 'we were robbed', or 'everyone's against us' or any such thing like that. I made no mention of labelling the authorities as somehow conspiring to gift Liverpool the trophy. In my view, the two are not related. There is no conspiracy against Spurs, but the referee's decision on the night was not justifiable. The two are not mutually inclusive.

Click to expand...

I don't want to go round in circles here, but...... You can try and explain and excuse it away and say he was nervous and get into the wording of the rulebook, but the reality is SIssoko had his arm out at the perpendicular, despite skimming his chest/body first it his arm and prevented the ball going into the penalty area/towards goal, and I just don't see how you can complain about a penalty being given.

Penalties have always been given for accidental/unintentional handballs. I'm not sure how this marrative (not just from yourself) has come about that all of sudden we never saw these before this season.

I don't believe that most fans are convinced of a conspiracy. I'm just fucking tired of the same old stuff every game - it's the refs fault, flailing around trying to explain why the decisions made shouldn't have been made and were in fact wrong, and generally a lot of the time trying to defend what is various shades of indefensible. All the while trawling the internet, digging up and laughing at other clubs/fans for doing exactly the same thing and displaying a staggering lack of self awareness.

nicdic said:

For the ref to be overruled by VAR, as far as I'm aware, it would need to be the "clear and obvious error", but the ref could and probably should have given his position sent it for proper review. He's behind Moussa, he can't see where the contact is made. And the letter of the law clarifies that whilst, yes it is handball if the ball hits an arm outside of the natural silhouette of the body, if it hits the arm having deflected off another part of the player's body, then it is neither a free kick or penalty.

Click to expand...

Watched the game back for the first time last night. And have to say. The ref has a terrible view of the handball. In fact I would say no view at all. So how can he give it?

I get it’s all over and we can’t change it. And I get it’s, some you get some you don’t.And yes. His arm was in an awkward position But I’m still staggered it was given. Still. Would argue it wasn’t a pen. As the first hit wasn’t to his arm. Same as I dispute the Rose pen against Man City. Both were incredibly harsh decisions which Being so early have a massive impact on the Players mentality.

Didn’t accidental handball in the area used to be a free kick back in the day? Or am I imagining it?

mpickard2087 said:

I don't want to go round in circles here, but...... You can try and explain and excuse it away and say he was nervous and get into the wording of the rulebook, but the reality is SIssoko had his arm out at the perpendicular, despite skimming his chest/body first it his arm and prevented the ball going into the penalty area/towards goal, and I just don't see how you can complain about a penalty being given.

Penalties have always been given for accidental/unintentional handballs. I'm not sure how this marrative (not just from yourself) has come about that all of sudden we never saw these before this season.

I don't believe that most fans are convinced of a conspiracy. I'm just fucking tired of the same old stuff every game - it's the refs fault, flailing around trying to explain why the decisions made shouldn't have been made and were in fact wrong, and generally a lot of the time trying to defend what is various shades of indefensible. All the while trawling the internet, digging up and laughing at other clubs/fans for doing exactly the same thing and displaying a staggering lack of self awareness.

Click to expand...

Which I don't engage in. I call a spade a spade.

And referee decisions being wrong historically doesn't make this one suddenly OK. I'm commenting on one decision. That right isn't negated by others questioning every decision. Nor does it negate it for those who do. In point of fact, I'm actually criticising a wider decision - the blanket instruction that referees have been given that all contact between ball and hand in a game is to be given as handball. That isn't something that has existed before as Peter Walton quite specifically explained after Man City's penalty in the first leg of the Quarter Final. Referees in the CL have been instructed this season that they are to give any contact between hand and ball, even accidental, as handball. That is a terrible decision and can and should be critiqued.

The argument around the referee's decision is not just one that is happening on this forum or within our fanbase only. It is going on in other places too and by people who have no dog in the fight. There are differing opinions This isn't strictly a Spurs matter, as the incident between PSG and Man U also demonstrates. There is a discussion to be had over the issue of officiating in the Champions League and this discussion is not invalidated by your view of it, nor does it mean that everyone who takes the opposing view is asserting a conspiracy.

Criticise the conspiracy theorising, sure. Criticise the hypocrisy of claiming to be a victim and then scorning others who do the same, sure. Believing that the referee didn't make a mistake is entirely your prerogative. But surely denying others the privilege of believing otherwise isn't right, is it?

Referees make mistakes. Criticising that is not a sin. I've not said the referee made the decision to further an agenda, have I? And yet the thrust of your posts suggest that any kind of criticism of the referee, or any criticism of refereeing in general is only rooted in the 'everyone's out to get us' camp and nowhere else. Can we not say that the referee made a mistake without it automatically meaning that we think there's an agenda behind it? And isn't suggesting that criticising a referee is only motivated by paranoia or victimisation just as intractable and inflexible a position as the stating that a refereeing 'mistake' is only due to a conspiracy? Is there no middle ground?

I don't subscribe to the conspiracy theorising, but that doesn't negate my right to analyse a referee's decisions nor to conclude that it had an effect on a match. If, as you say, referees have given decisions for accidental handball in the past, that doesn't make it right. It just means it has happened.

The fact of the matter is that there is split opinion on whether the penalty decision on Saturday was a correct call or not. And as I've said, repeatedly, my view is that it was within the letter of the law, but not in the spirit of the law. And that's a valid position to take and one that people not connected to the club have also taken.

As I said before, I can understand your irritation at the slightly paranoid idea of an anti-Spurs agenda - it's a silly thing to believe. But that doesn't mean that my view of ineptitude by officials is invalidated.

I understand your position. I don't agree with it, but I acknowledge why you have drawn your conclusion. Isn't that the end of the argument, if we can't convince one another of our positions? Is there any need to conflate the contrary position to a perceived motivation that may not necessarily apply? Do you believe that everyone who thinks the referee made a mistake is, in every instance, also someone who believes that he did so because he was out to 'get us'?

That's the key. That's what I'm critiquing. That you think that one cannot criticise a referee because doing so automatically means one is suggesting conspiracy or victimisation. That simply isn't fair.