What's new

Player Watch Player Watch: Son Heung-min

Marauder

Well-Known Member
Aug 20, 2008
657
2,800
Haven't seen many details on the reasons why the card was rescinded, but it wouldn't surprise me if they did it based on Atkinson's actions (giving a yellow first, then a red based on crowd and player reactions) rather than the panel making a judgment call on the severity of the tackle. Still think it would have been a yellow if not for the injury though.
And will they also give us back the 2 points the coward Atkinson cost us?!! ??
 

Marauder

Well-Known Member
Aug 20, 2008
657
2,800
He was totally shaken by the incident and thats just testament to what a great and nice guy he is. Hopefully with time he will acknowledge that whilst it was a poor tackle it wasnt the tackle that caused the injury

Same goes for Aurier too in all honesty - he was also shaken but think he will be alright
It's the last fucking thing we needed right now on top of everything else. And Lloris earlier too and now Son and Aurier... it's like the footballing gods are conspiring against us this season :banghead:
 

TEESSIDE1

Married, new job and Spurs on the up!
Jul 3, 2006
15,089
18,780
VAR in football needs to be similar to the No Ball rule in cricket.

Cricket:

Foot behind or on the line - legal ball.
Foot in front of the line - no ball.

Therefore in football for offside it would be:

Foot behind or on the line - onside.
Foot in front of the line - offside.
Hands, arms, head etc shouldn’t impact the decisioning.
 

DJS

A hoonter must hoont
Dec 9, 2006
31,261
21,760
Not gonna give us our 2 points back though, heads should roll.
 

SirHarryHotspur

Well-Known Member
Aug 9, 2017
4,999
7,414
The sad thing about the Premier League and VAR is that we will never find out what persuaded the ref to change from yellow to red for Sonny. Compare that to Rugby and the world cup , I watched a couple of games and every bit of the conversation between the ref and video ref is heard and the reasons for a decision explained.
 

Trotter

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2009
2,169
3,312
As per my post above it shows that they "forgot" to use VAR to review a red card. Huge mistake (which sadly cost us)

Of course they didn’t forget to VAR the offence, they did check it during the interval.
All that happened in case was Atkinson thought yellow initially, his 4th official and linesman both advised him over comms to hold back the yellow as they both thought it was Red, he then issued the Red, after looking at injury.
VAR (Anthony Taylor) then checked during the stoppage, as they always do, as you rightly say, after a goal or red card, and decided it was not obvious error to send Son off.

And just because it was overturned does not mean VAR was wrong to not see this as clear and obvious error, firstly we don’t know if panel decision was unanimous, and if it wasn’t that would indicate not clear and obvious, and secondly like our legal system different thresholds need to be met between FA Panel and VAR to overturn decision.

Totally agree with the decision to rescind card though.
 
Last edited:

philll

Well-Known Member
Aug 31, 2012
9,110
31,701
Now the Premier League and their PR department look so stupid for issuing that statement so soon.
This is the main takeaway from this. They would've had ample time to review the footage and see that it wasn't worthy of a red and they still fell over themselves to protect the referee, and rush that statement out.
 

spursgirls

SC Supporter
Aug 13, 2008
19,161
38,943
It's the last fucking thing we needed right now on top of everything else. And Lloris earlier too and now Son and Aurier... it's like the footballing gods are conspiring against us this season :banghead:
This season? This decade!
 

punkisback

Well-Known Member
Apr 10, 2004
4,410
7,278
VAR in football needs to be similar to the No Ball rule in cricket.

Cricket:

Foot behind or on the line - legal ball.
Foot in front of the line - no ball.

Therefore in football for offside it would be:

Foot behind or on the line - onside.
Foot in front of the line - offside.
Hands, arms, head etc shouldn’t impact the decisioning.
What if someone scores from a diving header when his head is offside, but foot behind the last defender?
 

Trotter

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2009
2,169
3,312
VAR in football needs to be similar to the No Ball rule in cricket.

Cricket:

Foot behind or on the line - legal ball.
Foot in front of the line - no ball.

Therefore in football for offside it would be:

Foot behind or on the line - onside.
Foot in front of the line - offside.
Hands, arms, head etc shouldn’t impact the decisioning.

I agree, with one proviso, as being offside with body parts is infuriating to say the least and the 3D markings just seem to be unreliable.
The proviso I would add is that if the attacker subsequently scores with his head, the head of both players should subsequently be taken into account in review, but 2D feet only to be taken into consideration in other circumstances. However 1cm offside is 1cm offside, and they should take best available frame, which will still be better than a linesman “best guessing” a decision from width of pitch.
 
Last edited:

SugarRay

Well-Known Member
Jul 6, 2011
7,984
11,110
How have you survived being a Spurs fan these last forty-odd years if all you are interested in is results? I want entertaining football, and a team that I’m proud of and can buy into emotionally.

I’d like trophies too, mind, but what are the chances of that?

Not results, just a result! We need a result.

Not been a spurs fan last forty odd years either...mainly because it’s impossible to be fan of anything when you’re not even a twinkle in your old mans nutsack?
 

MichaelPawson

Well-Known Member
Aug 22, 2013
834
2,149
Respectfully, I think a lot of us are overestimating our club's ability to close out games at this point in time. The sending off certainly didn't help, but acting like the three points were in the bag until the red card doesn't match with my impressions of the match as I was watching it. Atkinson's decision deprived us of an opportunity for three points, and even that's somewhat debatable.
 

mil1lion

This is the place to be
May 7, 2004
42,335
77,592
Well that must be the latest VAR decision yet

1572986071461.png
 

nailsy

SC Supporter
Jul 24, 2005
30,536
46,628
[
I agree, with one proviso, as being offside with body parts is infuriating to say the least and the 3D markings just seem to be unreliable.
The proviso I would add is that if the attacker subsequently scores with his head, the head of both players should subsequently be taken into account in review, but 2D feet only to be taken into consideration in other circumstances. However 1cm offside is 1cm offside, and they should take best available frame, which will still be better than a linesman “best guessing” a decision from width of pitch.

Is the system accurate to 1CM? My understanding was that the frame rates used means they can't guarantee that level of accuracy.
 

McFlash

In the corner, eating crayons.
Oct 19, 2005
12,740
45,362
The decision didn't cost us 2 points, we are more than capable of costing ourselves 2 points at the moment!
 
Top