Spurs and VAR

[Trotter]

Sounds like you have more connections than me but I get the impression referees are backing each other in this storm. However as I said in my earlier comment Sam Matterface's piece on VAR today said he was told by multiple current and former refs it was a penalty. I'd like to think I have a pretty balanced opinion when it comes to football from watching and playing over the years and I'm just stunned that people think Kane is at fault here. It's like flat earth conspiracy level shit in my head thinking he's cheating!

I totally disagree on A though. I've been there on the pitch, trying my hardest (like he was) lose balance and do whatever you can to get something on the player. I tackled a guy with my head once and I was a lazy forward, because I was in a tussle and full of adrenaline.

I think it's obvious Lascelles panicked and moved his arm across Kane's knee (who was anticipating a challenge and trying to hold him off). I'm stunned anyone thinks differently, but I guess football is opinions.

This isn't Spurs tinted glasses either, Rodri's was a pen last week. Far too much onus put on to players cheating. Defenders shepherding the ball out for a goal kick throwing themselves to the floor for an easy foul need to start getting booked for simulation if you aren't allowed to put yourself between player and ball.

Totally agree referees with be tight-lipped publicly, they are under instructions from the PGMOL to be.
This is a learning process they and all of us are going through, and personally I think they have it wrong, the 2 Man City incidents (Rodri and yesterday's) both were clear and obvious errors, but only those 2 so far in my view, rest have been subjective. I think the offside against Sterling first day was an error really, as the technology is not up to standard yet to say whether offside or not, so should have stayed with onfield decision.

'However I am not saying Kane is at fault, he has done nothing most others in the same circumstance wouldn't do. and they have been coached to do it for many years now. It is just the way football has gone, try to initiate contact and win a penalty, rather than wait for the contact, and get a certain one. If he was wearing a red shirt and called Salah I am sure most views would be different on here though. I see what was done here as no different to leaving your foot in when a keeper comes out trying to get the contact or deliberately running into an opponents knee or leg in the area so he trips you up, basically initiating the contact. But I can respect your opinions above, as I say on first glance I thought was a penalty also (the view that the AR would have had).
But there is certainly enough doubt in this one, that no matter which way Mike Dean went half the footballing public would think it was an error, so the definition of stonewall, or clear and obvious are way off the mark here.

 

[Lighty64]

Agree Kane does nothing to make Lascelles fall, Lascelles stumbles, but the same could be argued that Lascelles does nothing to make Kane fall, Kane basically leaves the ball alone and moves off course, into where Lascelles is, to ensure contact is made, in other words initiates the contact.
So far of 8 people I have seen mention it on TV, 4 of them (including a Premier League referee) are of the opinion that Kane rather than Lascelles initiates the contact, either way it is certainly nowhere near a clear and obvious foul, and very much a subjective decision. VAR correctly did not get involved at all.

Come off it in respect of Lamela and Rodri, you must be the 5% or so of Spurs fans and less than 0.1% of the country that believe that was not a penalty. All referees have basically admitted there was an error.
The one penalty the refereeing community will argue that was wrong yesterday and VAR should have been involved was again against Manchester City

okay lets try this

does Kane have the right to protect his ground?

if you see a player coming down the side of you and you are in front then you lean that way to protect it. you don't expect the player to dive past you hands 1st. if he had seen the defender sliding in to tackle with his feet you then would lean the other way to get your shot away

edit: also the ref on tv also said at 1st he thought it was a penalty, had he given it VAR wouldn't of overturned it

 

[Lighty64]

This one wasnt given either. The threshold for given them is outrageously high.

yet Salah gets a slight pull then still got to the ball and gets a pen

 

[Trotter]

okay lets try this

does Kane have the right to protect his ground?

if you see a player coming down the side of you and you are in front then you lean that way to protect it. you don't expect the player to dive past you hands 1st. if he had seen the defender sliding in to tackle with his feet you then would lean the other way to get your shot away

edit: also the ref on tv also said at 1st he thought it was a penalty, had he given it VAR wouldn't of overturned it

Yes Kane has the right to protect his ground (providing he is in playing distance of the ball, and does not commit any foul in accordance with Law 12), but if he does and comes off worse, that is his lookout.
Totally agree VAR would not have overturned it, it is the total definition of a subjective 50/50 call, VAR was sticking with the on-field referee whichever way he went.
The angle Mike Dean was looking in from will certainly have had him seeing Kane moving to his left to ensure contact rather than following the ball, and that is what will have made his decision.
Would have much rather preferred him to stay on his feet, which he could easily have done, and would have had a one on one against the keeper from like 8 yards out.

 

[sausage]

yet Salah gets a slight pull then still got to the ball and gets a pen

I love bashing the victims as much as anyone, but Salah's shirt was visibly pulled by Luiz, so it looked a clear infringement from any angle.

The Martial one just looks like jostling until you see it from slow mo in the right angle. I can see why they are trying to make it so that the VAR isn't just a robot ref with a fleshy one on the field for show - they are probably looking out for themselves in some ways, but I can see the argument.

I just don't understand why any non-biased/agenda driven person wouldn't see the Kane one as a penalty.

 

[Lighty64]

I love bashing the victims as much as anyone, but Salah's shirt was visibly pulled by Luiz, so it looked a clear infringement from any angle.

The Martial one just looks like jostling until you see it from slow mo in the right angle. I can see why they are trying to make it so that the VAR isn't just a robot ref with a fleshy one on the field for show - they are probably looking out for themselves in some ways, but I can see the argument.

I just don't understand why any non-biased/agenda driven person wouldn't see the Kane one as a penalty.

but originally VAR was wanted to get decisions correct, and would only be used for possible red cards, offsides and penalties. I agree the Salah 1 is a pen, but I can't understand how the Palace defender leaning on a players shoulder, someone standing on someones foot, or a player stumbling/lunging and taking a player out, plus a player wrapping his arms around a players neck are not given as penalties

 

[SpartanSpur]

Interesting quote from Kane saying Dean told him he didn't have a clear view of the incident. Really think Hackett's point of using pitch side monitors is a strong one in these cases. Referring to VAR is a waste of time currently if they can't/won't overturn anything.

Kane absolutely stunned too, he knows he's been blatantly fouled.

Now seen the SSN bit with Gallagher. Both ex players with him think definite penalty. Both make the points I made. The woman saying Lascelles knew what he was doing getting his arm across. Warnock (I think) saying again Kane is looking to hold him off to then take the shot with his right foot, with no idea he was falling over. Maybe there is merit to having an ex player in the VAR box alongside the VAR ref?

Good that Gallagher had to hold his hands up on the Silva/Lerma one, but I still think theres been a case of people looking too hard for a reason to back the ref in the Kane one. Gallagher would have 100% given that if he was reffing, he basically admitted it.

 

[Shadydan]

If Kane initiates the contact, then he is the one who has committed the offence, if any indeed has been committed by either player.
Lascelles would not have committed any.
Lascelles is entitled to be on the pitch, Kane should stay on his feet, rather than deviating off course and falling to the ground in an attempt to win a penalty, he did himself and our team no favours.

From 1:12 Steven Warnock says what myself and I think many people in here have been trying to say about this initiate contact rubbish, he is trying to use his body which is perfectly legal in football, the offence is on Lascelles who impedes Kane and subsequently obstructs him from taking a shot at goal.

 

[Trotter]

From 1:12 Steven Warnock says what myself and I think many people in here have been trying to say about this initiate contact rubbish, he is trying to use his body which is perfectly legal in football, the offence is on Lascelles who impedes Kane and subsequently obstructs him from taking a shot at goal.

That is one view, but basically he is trying to use his body and fails because there is nobody there, and he tumbles over what is. Kane has to take responsibility for that move sideways, without it there is no or very minimal contact. In other words Kane's move to the left causes him to go over, that is not Lascelles fault.
I would much rather take the view of a former FIFA referee (who actually knows the laws of the game) in that clip than a player who invariably doesn't, but may have better idea about the intention of the player, and don't want to sound sexist (although this will) but would totally discount the view of the token female.
So far by the way I have seen more former players suggest no penalty, than a penalty, and have not seen a former top level referee say Dean was incorrect, which they are usually very quick to pounce on.
The one thing for definite though is this is split down the middle (apart from on Spurs and Newcastle forums), so no way is it a clear and obvious error, however much we want to bleat on about how hard done we always are.

In fact I think there have been only 3 VAR errors this season, and all have gone against Manchester City, one a technology and interpretation of fact issue (the first day offside), Lamela on Rodri, and the stamp on the foot. Everything else has been much more subjective.

 

[Spurrific]

That is one view, but basically he is trying to use his body and fails because there is nobody there, and he tumbles over what is. Kane has to take responsibility for that move sideways, without it there is no or very minimal contact. In other words Kane's move to the left causes him to go over, that is not Lascelles fault.
I would much rather take the view of a former FIFA referee (who actually knows the laws of the game) in that clip than a player who invariably doesn't, but may have better idea about the intention of the player, and don't want to sound sexist (although this will) but would totally discount the view of the token female.
So far by the way I have seen more former players suggest no penalty, than a penalty, and have not seen a former top level referee say Dean was incorrect, which they are usually very quick to pounce on.

It was a foul. Blaming Kane for that is incredible, he was dragged to the ground. I don't give a fuck what the old boys club of former referees thinks - this "token female" knows more than them if they think it wasn't a penalty (they know it was a penalty, by the way - they just won't throw one of their own under the bus, for obvious reasons). And don't say "don't want to sound sexist" and then proceed to say something sexist, nobody on here is stupid enough to not see through that.

 

[Shadydan]

That is one view, but basically he is trying to use his body and fails because there is nobody there, and he tumbles over what is. Kane has to take responsibility for that move sideways, without it there is no or very minimal contact. In other words Kane's move to the left causes him to go over, that is not Lascelles fault.
I would much rather take the view of a former FIFA referee (who actually knows the laws of the game) in that clip than a player who invariably doesn't, but may have better idea about the intention of the player.

This is the view from those trying to get their point across which directly contradicts yours. I'm just using this video in hope you understand what I've been trying to say.

You're just solidifying my point, he tried to use his body (which is perfectly legal) and Lascelles is on the floor out of his desperation to lunge at the ball, I don't see how you're trying to pin the blame on Kane here when he's done nothing wrong, incredible!

 

[Trotter]

This is the view from those trying to get their point across which directly contradicts yours. I'm just using this video in hope you understand what I've been trying to say.

You're just solidifying my point, he tried to use his body (which is perfectly legal) and Lascelles is on the floor out of his desperation to lunge at the ball, I don't see how you're trying to pin the blame on Kane here when he's done nothing wrong, incredible!

I can totally understand the point you and others are making. I could take the easy route and just agree with it. after all this is a Spurs forum, but unfortunately I don't.

i see it as Lascelles stumbled, Kane does what most strikers would do and tried shielding a ball and changed his direction thinking the player was next to him and tried to block him , but he was incorrect, and it was that move caused the contact.
Without that move that Kane did, he would have a free shot on goal from 8 yards out.

 

[SpartanSpur]

It was a foul. Blaming Kane for that is incredible, he was dragged to the ground. I don't give a fuck what the old boys club of former referees thinks - this "token female" knows more than them if they think it wasn't a penalty (they know it was a penalty, by the way - they just won't throw one of their own under the bus, for obvious reasons). And don't say "don't want to sound sexist" and then proceed to say something sexist, nobody on here is stupid enough to not see through that.

It's so easy to see through Gallagher. He's basically saying he thought it was a clear penalty in real time, and continued to do so until he did his best analysis to back his referee up. To call Kane out for cheating here (which is what is being insinuated by saying he played for it) is flat out ridiculous. The defender knows exactly what he's doing. I'll be the first to admit Kane has dived in the past but anyone that knows football knows that was all on Lascelles.

You can even see it in the Newcastle players' reactions. All head down, none screaming at the ref for a dive.

The issue I have with the PGMOL statement is that they are saying that they are backing the referees decision when Kane is saying Dean told him he wasn't sure. They were backing a guess.

Can understand refs backing their own, especially with all the heat on them over VAR, but I continue to be absolutely dumbfounded how anyone sees that as anything but a clear penalty. If it was given Gallagher would have been saying it was a great decision on SSN. Focus would suddenly all have been on 'reckless/clumsy' Lascelles as it suits the narrative. No doubt about it.

 

[Trotter]

It was a foul. Blaming Kane for that is incredible, he was dragged to the ground. I don't give a fuck what the old boys club of former referees thinks - this "token female" knows more than them if they think it wasn't a penalty (they know it was a penalty, by the way - they just won't throw one of their own under the bus, for obvious reasons). And don't say "don't want to sound sexist" and then proceed to say something sexist, nobody on here is stupid enough to not see through that.

Don't worry, school starts again very soon.
But congrats, you keep up your record of swearing in every post you make

 

[Shadydan]

I can totally understand the point you and others are making. I could take the easy route and just agree with it. after all this is a Spurs forum, but unfortunately I don't.

i see it as Lascelles stumbled, Kane does what most strikers would do and tried shielding a ball and changed his direction thinking the player was next to him and tried to block him , but he was incorrect, and it was that move caused the contact.
Without that move that Kane did, he would have a free shot on goal from 8 yards out.

That's literally the point, Lascelles' stumble has caused the foul, who's fault is that?

 

[Trotter]

It's so easy to see through Gallagher. He's basically saying he thought it was a clear penalty in real time, and continued to do so until he did his best analysis to back his referee up. To call Kane out for cheating here (which is what is being insinuated by saying he played for it) is flat out ridiculous. The defender knows exactly what he's doing. I'll be the first to admit Kane has dived in the past but anyone that knows football knows that was all on Lascelles.

You can even see it in the Newcastle players' reactions. All head down, none screaming at the ref for a dive.

The issue I have with the PGMOL statement is that they are saying that they are backing the referees decision when Kane is saying Dean told him he wasn't sure. They were backing a guess.

Can understand refs backing their own, especially with all the heat on them over VAR, but I continue to be absolutely dumbfounded how anyone sees that as anything but a clear penalty. If it was given Gallagher would have been saying it was a great decision on SSN. Focus would suddenly all have been on 'reckless/clumsy' Lascelles as it suits the narrative. No doubt about it.

It is the same as me though. I actually thought it was a penalty on first TV view (basically the most seen view from the east stand. Was at other end of ground in live play, so too far away to get a proper look.

It was only when you see Kane's movement sideways from behind goal view (which you cannot see from the other view) that you can see what he did, and Dean will have had this view from behind, so will have seen the movement.

Nobody is saying it was a dive, not me, there was certainly enough contact to bring Kane down, the issue is what was the cause of that contact, my view is if Kane had carried on his normal run towards ball there would have been no contact, his move sideways into Lascelles casused it.

 

[Trotter]

That's literally the point, Lascelles' stumble has caused the foul, who's fault is that?

It is not an offence to stumble.
Likewise it is not an offence to have someone fall over you.

 

[Shadydan]

It is not an offence to stumble.
Likewise it is not an offence to have someone fall over you.

It's an offence to impede fella.

 

[Shadydan]

It is the same as me though. I actually thought it was a penalty on first TV view (basically the most seen view from the east stand. Was at other end of ground in live play, so too far away to get a proper look.

It was only when you see Kane's movement sideways from behind goal view (which you cannot see from the other view) that you can see what he did, and Dean will have had this view from behind, so will have seen the movement.

Nobody is saying it was a dive, not me, there was certainly enough contact to bring Kane down, the issue is what was the cause of that contact, my view is if Kane had carried on his normal run towards ball there would have been no contact, his move sideways into Lascelles casused it.

By saying that Kane is initiating contact you are insinuating that he's looking for the foul - ie dive are you not?

 

[SpartanSpur]

It is the same as me though. I actually thought it was a penalty on first TV view (basically the most seen view from the east stand. Was at other end of ground in live play, so too far away to get a proper look.

It was only when you see Kane's movement sideways from behind goal view (which you cannot see from the other view) that you can see what he did, and Dean will have had this view from behind, so will have seen the movement.

Nobody is saying it was a dive, not me, there was certainly enough contact to bring Kane down, the issue is what was the cause of that contact, my view is if Kane had carried on his normal run towards ball there would have been no contact, his move sideways into Lascelles casused it.

I personally think it's clear Lascelles in desperation uses his left arm to bring him down. He is not cushioning his fall. There is clear footage of the point of contact showing the unnatural position of the arm. He succeeds in bringing him down and he's no where near the ball. For me that completely overrides any movement from Kane (IMO natural movement too). Harry Kane will have been 100% focused on holding Lascelles off so he can get his right foot shot off. It's a perfect opportunity for him, better than a penalty even.

I usually try to see the other side (I like to be contrarian) but this has totally flummoxed me. I understand the argument, I'm just not buying it at all based on my experience of playing and watching the game. Even the extremely biased Paul Merson is saying he can not for the life of him see how that wasn't given!

I see where the refs are coming from but for me its a total heads gone. I need to move on and forget about it!