What's new

Spurs and VAR

BringBack_leGin

Well-Known Member
Jul 28, 2004
27,719
54,929
You've nailed it here.

There should be no guidance about arm positioning per se.

Just what's clear intent and what isn't.

Let the ref determine that on his own free of any pressure pertaining to unclear guidelines that don't and can't cover every eventuality.

So if the ref reviews an incident on the monitor it should be his own judgement regarding intent, that's it.

If its accidental and denied a very clear goal scoring opportunity then give a pen.

But these handball aren't even close to goal scoring opportunities.

How stupid are these people.
I don’t think anyone is so much saying that Lascelles fouled Dier, only that Dier’s arm doesn’t touch the ball without that push therefore the push should be taken into account.
 

Trotter

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2009
2,169
3,312
so how did they get the free kick that actually leads to the incident?

Because the referee made a judgement call that Hjojberg impeded their player. I can understand why, he certainly looked at their player after he played the ball and turned sideways into him. Personally I think it was coming together and the Newcastle player "bought" the foul, but I am not going to berate a referee for giving a 50/50 foul just because of the outcome of the free-kick, when decisions during game including some given for us were just as 50/50.
 

Trotter

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2009
2,169
3,312
What was "unnatural" about the position of Dier's arm?

It was entirely natural. Otherwise it wouldn't have been there. And it was there because he was pushed and unbalanced by Lascelles as he was jumping.

Or are you of the opinion that Dier deliberately thrust his arm out to block a ball that he couldn't see - fully in the knowledge that if the ball did hit his arm, it would inevitably lead to a 95th minute penalty and likely equaliser for Newcastle? Because, you know, players could hardly be more aware that there is a person in a darkened room somewhere watching the game forensically - especially with regard to potential handballs in penalty areas - itching to award penalties.

If that is your thinking, perhaps you could explain why Dier would deliberately have done such a thing? Maybe he had a monkey on the draw?

Whether it was in a natural position is irrelevant. He was unnaturally bigger by having his arms extended, that is the ONLY thing that matters.
Dier did not deliberately handle the ball. But again that is totally and utterly irrelevant now.
 

Led's Zeppelin

Can't Re Member
May 28, 2013
7,333
20,178
A lot of these attempts at defining the offence are arbitrary. Or, I might suggest, worse. They are bureaucracy rewarding its own officiousness.

There’s nothing in the spirit of the game that has ever required a penalty to be awarded if a player's bum accidentally deflects the ball, or if his shoulder blade does. Why then is there any need for a drastic punishment of this kind to be handed (!) out when it hits the back of an arm? Intentional use of the arm is one thing. Accidental use is a materially different matter, and they are not connected by any logic or reason in the context of the game.

Cheating, or intent to cheat has always been the offence, not accidentally deflecting the ball. The rules should protect against cheating, not define it where there’s no pre-existing consensus.

But because intent is hard to prove, petty-minded officials have decided to try to make the rule more objective. And changed the nature of the game in the process.

That is an awful way to manage a sport, because it’s putting the existence of rules before their purpose.

It proves that the authorities are not up to the job of governing any game, let alone the most popular sport in the world.
 

SheffieldAndy

Friends with the monster under my bed.
Jul 4, 2012
1,677
1,985
Because the referee made a judgement call that Hjojberg impeded their player. I can understand why, he certainly looked at their player after he played the ball and turned sideways into him. Personally I think it was coming together and the Newcastle player "bought" the foul, but I am not going to berate a referee for giving a 50/50 foul just because of the outcome of the free-kick, when decisions during game including some given for us were just as 50/50.
I do respect and appreciate your knowledge of the rules (especially today), but I’m not sure how you can call a player jumping off the ground, nowhere near the ball, head first into another player either a coming together or a 50/50 mate.
 

SecretLemonadeDrinker

Well-Known Member
Jun 30, 2020
2,027
11,165
not really a push at all, think we are clutching at straws dissecting every possible scenario.

dier jumped, with that fella nearby, there is contact from him, thus slightly throwing dirt off balanced in the air, hence the arm coming up.
If that’s a foul, that’s as bad as it being a penalty too I’m afraid.
i’m still bloody fuming about it tbh, so blatantly accidental, absolutely nothing he could do to avoid it as he just wasn’t aware of it happening.

like last weeks penalty against Doherty, the ball has deflected off our players foot and hit his arm, entirely accidental.

the rule is fucked, along with the way it’s implemented, but people who have no real understanding of how the game is played, absolute arrogant job worths.

Yes, I get what you're saying about it being a soft foul on Dier.

But in the context of dissecting the handball minutely and then giving it, the same standards have to be applied to the push. And since the push was the earlier foul, it takes precedent.

All of which is moot anyway since the free kick that led to the penalty should clearly have been a free kick to Spurs, not against.
 

Marauder

Well-Known Member
Aug 20, 2008
657
2,800
Didn't really notice it at the time, was too pissed off when realised penalty was going to be given. Thought straight away that is a penalty, when it checked for offside thought we may have a get out of jail card, but alas no cigar.
Will look on MOTD and advise after that

But the Newcastle guy was offside, wasn't he?! They showed the lines in the replay and his whole arm and head were over the line! ? Have the offside rules changed again this season? Is it a case of all of the player has to be offside and not millimeters like last season??
 

Trotter

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2009
2,169
3,312
A lot of these attempts at defining the offence are arbitrary. Or, I might suggest, worse. They are bureaucracy rewarding its own officiousness.

There’s nothing in the spirit of the game that has ever required a penalty to be awarded if a player's bum accidentally deflects the ball, or if his shoulder blade does. Why then is there any need for a drastic punishment of this kind to be handed (!) out when it hits the back of an arm? Intentional use of the arm is one thing. Accidental use is a materially different matter, and they are not connected by any logic or reason in the context of the game.

Cheating, or intent to cheat has always been the offence, not accidentally deflecting the ball. The rules should protect against cheating, not define it where there’s no pre-existing consensus.

But because intent is hard to prove, petty-minded officials have decided to try to make the rule more objective. And changed the nature of the game in the process.

That is an awful way to manage a sport, because it’s putting the existence of rules before their purpose.

It proves that the authorities are not up to the job of governing any game, let alone the most popular sport in the world.

Totally agree.
However I would say that if the Premier League had adopted a much more reasonable version of the laws when they existed rather than basically telling their referees, there is this loophole we want you to exploit, so continue refereeing like you always have done, I would suggest they wouldn't have come down heavy with this current interpretation.
 

penfold_99

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2006
697
604
Only if you totally ignore the line "Except for the above offences".

Basically if it is in the top bit (which Dier's offence was) that is it, you don't get into the red bit.

Ah, ok I thought the red bits were the exceptions to the back bits, how else would they apply?

His arm is not in a unnatural position in a jumping motion and he hasn't moved to be in be unnatural position to block the ball.

It's a sad day as we will just have attacks flicking the ball at defends hands and they will be given as defenders arms will be behind their back is an unnatural position.
 

SecretLemonadeDrinker

Well-Known Member
Jun 30, 2020
2,027
11,165
Whether it was in a natural position is irrelevant. He was unnaturally bigger by having his arms extended, that is the ONLY thing that matters.
Dier did not deliberately handle the ball. But again that is totally and utterly irrelevant now.

But that's precisely the point. He wasn't "unnaturally" bigger. For it to have been unnatural, it would have to be deliberate. And it was no such thing. It was wholly reactive. Nothing more.
 

BringBack_leGin

Well-Known Member
Jul 28, 2004
27,719
54,929
Because the referee made a judgement call that Hjojberg impeded their player. I can understand why, he certainly looked at their player after he played the ball and turned sideways into him. Personally I think it was coming together and the Newcastle player "bought" the foul, but I am not going to berate a referee for giving a 50/50 foul just because of the outcome of the free-kick, when decisions during game including some given for us were just as 50/50.
50/50? Their player quite literally leapt into Højbjerg from several yards away. I can see where you’re coming from RE the validity of the handball decision, but bar Højbjerg disappearing into thin air so that the Newcastle player could fly a further two meters forward and hit the ground I’m not sure what Højbjerg could’ve done at all differently there.
 

Trotter

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2009
2,169
3,312
But the Newcastle guy was offside, wasn't he?! They showed the lines in the replay and his whole arm and head were over the line! ? Have the offside rules changed again this season? Is it a case of all of the player has to be offside and not millimeters like last season??

I don't think he was, offside laws have not changed. (remember the still picture is 2D, the technology measuring is 3D), and where the arm is is irrelevant as cannot score with the arm

Ah, ok I thought the red bits were the exceptions to the back bits, how else would they apply?

His arm is not in a unnatural position in a jumping motion and he hasn't moved to be in be unnatural position to block the ball.

It's a sad day as we will just have attacks flicking the ball at defends hands and they will be given as defenders arms will be behind their back is an unnatural position.

It is not "Unnatural position", it is "Unnaturally bigger", that is the law, and that is if outside of body silhouette.
 

Shadydan

Well-Known Member
Jul 7, 2012
38,247
104,143
50/50? Their player quite literally leapt into Højbjerg from several yards away. I can see where you’re coming from RE the validity of the handball decision, but bar Højbjerg disappearing into thin air so that the Newcastle player could fly a further two meters forward and hit the ground I’m not sure what Højbjerg could’ve done at all differently there.

Yeah

And looking at it from the proper angle it's clear that he launched into Hojbjerg when he realised he lost the ball, when the incident happened the ball was in the process of being turned over, I can't believe anyone can actually defend this :LOL:

 

SecretLemonadeDrinker

Well-Known Member
Jun 30, 2020
2,027
11,165
From the other angle it looks like he didn't touch Dier

As his arm, is further back than Carroll, from that perception
View attachment 74923

He never pushes him, whether he nudges, I dont know but Ill be honest I couldn't complain as there isn't enough

I think the camera angle of your screen shot makes it look worse than it is

It's actually your angle that that fails to show the earlier push.
 

BringBack_leGin

Well-Known Member
Jul 28, 2004
27,719
54,929
Yeah

And looking at it from the proper angle it's clear that he launched into Hojbjerg when he realised he lost the ball, when the incident happened the ball was in the process of being turned over, I can't believe anyone can actually defend this :LOL:


I get sicker every time I see it. I’m not convinced or shouldn’t have been a red card to their player for violent conduct off the ball.
 
Last edited:

Marauder

Well-Known Member
Aug 20, 2008
657
2,800
I don't think he was, offside laws have not changed. (remember the still picture is 2D, the technology measuring is 3D), and where the arm is is irrelevant as cannot score with the arm

Huh?! How is the arm irrelevant?! Last season from what I remember if even a millimeter of any body part was over the line it was offside! Doesn't matter if you can score with it or not! Really confused here. I don't know 2D or 3D they always look at it this way, and last season this is 1000% offside. I really don't get it, what am I missing here?


p.s.- still raging from today ?
 

spud

Well-Known Member
Sep 2, 2003
5,850
8,794
Huh?! How is the arm irrelevant?! Last season from what I remember if even a millimeter of any body part was over the line it was offside! Doesn't matter if you can score with it or not! Really confused here. I don't know 2D or 3D they always look at it this way, and last season this is 1000% offside. I really don't get it, what am I missing here?


p.s.- still raging from today ?
The arm was irrelevant regarding offside last season and is irrelevant this season. You are mistaken about that.
 

SecretLemonadeDrinker

Well-Known Member
Jun 30, 2020
2,027
11,165
Because the referee made a judgement call that Hjojberg impeded their player. I can understand why, he certainly looked at their player after he played the ball and turned sideways into him. Personally I think it was coming together and the Newcastle player "bought" the foul, but I am not going to berate a referee for giving a 50/50 foul just because of the outcome of the free-kick, when decisions during game including some given for us were just as 50/50.


What the actual fuck?

Have you even seen the incident? It was 100% a foul on Hojbjerg. Joelinton ran at him and dived headlong into him.

Seriously, why are you so desperate to insist that the Newcastle goal was fully justified at every step in the build up when it was clearly anything but? It's seriously perverse. You're supposed to be a Spurs fan. I've seen Arsenal and Chelsea fans commenting about all the reasons why the penalty shouldn't have been a penalty and the free kick shouldn't have been a free kick (though enjoying it nevertheless). But you're determined to dig your feet in and, against all the evidence, insist otherwise.

Fucking bizarre.
 

Mr Pink

SC Supporter
Aug 25, 2010
54,776
99,340
Because the referee made a judgement call that Hjojberg impeded their player. I can understand why, he certainly looked at their player after he played the ball and turned sideways into him. Personally I think it was coming together and the Newcastle player "bought" the foul, but I am not going to berate a referee for giving a 50/50 foul just because of the outcome of the free-kick, when decisions during game including some given for us were just as 50/50.

This is indeed the problem with refs. PEH shrewdly positions himself, it's not like a clear obstruction.

The Newcastle player wants to make it look as such and throws himself at him.

I mean ffs, how can you not see that.

No wonder there's such a lack of common sense and football know how amongst refs.
 
Top