Spurs and VAR

[Trotter]

As regards the new handball rule. The rules state that leeway should be given if the ball ricochets against a player’s arm or if the player in question cannot see the ball. It’s very clear.Therefore the ref did not or should not have awarded the penalty.Carroll looked offside anyway.
I thought that VAR would have stopped players cheating by diving to get a penalty.
It has created a scenario whereby attackers deliberately hit the ball against a defenders arm.I am not saying Carroll did this but when he came on he was trying things.

Sorry but that is only in the case of when the arm is not making body unnaturally bigger.
The penalty was correctly awarded

 

[Mr Pink]

PEH did not commit a foul, Joelinton did.

Absolute bollox he gave the ref a decision to make. Joelinton conned the ref and the thick numpty was fooled.

Its incompetence of the highest order.

 

[JCRD]

Can we please stop with some of the conspiracy theories that referees are against us.

They're not against us and we have had favourable decisions as many as others have had against us.

We will also get a penalty or five that is identical to the one we gave away. It's a shitty rule but a rule that means we will all get penalties out of it. Unfortunately we will also give away a few more.

We have also had favourable offside decisions but also unfavourable.

I won't say they all even themselves out as I'm not a believer of that but I do believe we have had good and bad from VAR and the rules, no matter how shitty they are.

 

[Beni]

Opinions, we were always advised the first thing to look out for when the law was obstruction was an unnecessary move in the opposite direction to where the ball was played, and backed up with a look at opponent whilst doing it, It ticks that,
Did Joelinton "buy the foul", sure, he could have avoided the contact, did Hjojbjerg give the referee (well actually probably the assistant as referee had followed ball) a decision to make, yes.

Ok Peter. It wasn’t a foul. It wasn’t a handball. Regardless of what some PhD of the square root of F-All has written in a paperback book. Every Spurs fan, plus media and neutrals see this, except you and today’s officials.

 

[SheffieldAndy]

Opinions, we were always advised the first thing to look out for when the law was obstruction was an unnecessary move in the opposite direction to where the ball was played, and backed up with a look at opponent whilst doing it, It ticks that,
Did Joelinton "buy the foul", sure, he could have avoided the contact, did Hjojbjerg give the referee (well actually probably the assistant as referee had followed ball) a decision to make, yes.

It’s still a stretch mate, he’s looking at the player the whole time he is the ball, as the ball is played (towards goal), he then turns his body to the left (towards goal), and then his head in the same direction as the ball as he moves left towards goal. He never once moves to his right (as you said) or away from the ball once it’s played.
The guy then dived into him.
But as you say, it’s opinions.

 

[SecretLemonadeDrinker]

Just because you don't understand the laws of football, and even when spelt out to you and copied from the FA website don't want to understand them, and I would suggest even if they were tattooed on your fucking head you still wouldn't does not make someone going out of their way telling you them and actually trying to educate you a bit into them, a troll.

Grow up

Labelling you a troll was in reference to your risible post about the award of the free kick. You have been provided with footage of the incident which clearly shows Joelinton launching himself, airborne and headlong from 2-3 yards away, deliberately into Hojbjerg in an unfortunately successful attempt to win an unearned free kick. Yet you concluded that it was a foul by Hojbjerg? Judging from your earlier posts, you obviously aren’t blind. So the only remaining possible conclusion is that you are trolling.

The problem seems to be that you’re now so invested in insisting that the Newcastle penalty was fully justified in every respect that, even in the face of the most compelling evidence, you will adopt whichever stance suits your purpose, no matter how absurd.

 

[Trotter]

Ok Peter. It wasn’t a foul. It wasn’t a handball. Regardless of what some PhD of the square root of F-All has written in a paperback book. Every Spurs fan, plus media and neutrals see this, except you and today’s officials.

I agree do not like seeing that as a handball, and in all previous seasons would never have been, and am all for previous laws (which were really avoidable or not avoidable, not deliberate or accidental), but sorry that is 100% a penalty under the current laws it is not even up for debate, it is a pure fact. The law is that black and white.

Is the law fit for purpose, no, but it is what it is, and we will almost certainly have to put up with it for this whole season.

I am so glad I gave my whistle up when I did, would hate refereeing under these current laws.

 

[easley91]

No doubt he's been your rock as you were growing up

No wonder I hit rock bottom

 

[wrd]

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?

Mate refs have no comprehension of body mechanics lets face it.

 

[BringBack_leGin]

There is no conspiracy theory. Santa doesn’t exist and the tooth fairy was your parents.

Not suggesting conspiracy theories, but Utd and Liverpool do get an unconscious bias in their favour from referees in my opinion.

 

[wrd]

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.

A coming together would make sense but if you watch the footage Hojbjerg does a weight shift screen left away from the attacker not towards which is why it shouldn't be considered a block.

 

[Thenewcat]

I agree do not like seeing that as a handball, and in all previous seasons would never have been, and am all for previous laws (which were really avoidable or not avoidable, not deliberate or accidental), but sorry that is 100% a penalty under the current laws it is not even up for debate, it is a pure fact. The law is that black and white.

Is the law fit for purpose, no, but it is what it is, and we will almost certainly have to put up with it for this whole season.

I am so glad I gave my whistle up when I did, would hate refereeing under these current laws.

I agree with you, except for 2 simple facts:

1). It was never a free kick to begin with
2). Dier was pushed, by a player who was offside when the ball was played in, which makes him very much active. It was that push that caused him to flail his arms to try to keep his balance

even allowing for the fact that 1) isn’t reviewable, the correct decision was a free kick to spurs for offside and/or the foul on Dier

 

[SecretLemonadeDrinker]

A coming together would make sense but if you watch the footage Hojbjerg does a weight shift screen left away from the attacker not towards which is why it shouldn't be considered a block.

Exactly. The contact was instigated entirely by Joelinton. It is absurd that anyone would suggest that the opposite is the case.

 

[wrd]

I mean for fuck sake, you want to talk about unnatural movement, look at Joelington

 

[SpursSince1980]

Regardless of the letter of the law, that was sheer lunacy. The ref had to abide by the law. But made an incorrect judgment in my opinion. The attacker threw himself against the defender. The defender falls forward and is not in control of their body. Yes, the ball strikes the back of the arm, but the attacker effectively maneuvered the defender into an awkward body position. That was clear for anyone to see. The ref could have avoided being being criticized for not following the law, by simply awarding a foul to Spurs. Yes, that would be a generous call for us, but giving them a penalty for that unintentional movement was world class idiocy. Compounded by the ridiculous free kick given that led to the goal. Joelinton mounted PEH like a horse and somehow got the free kick. The whole situation is appalling and makes a complete mockery of the game. Football now takes a back seat to VAR, moronic IFAB laws, and referees clamoring for the limelight. The whole incident was beyond the pale.

@erhieyid Apologies... as I’m a very shitty mood today. But is there a reason me writing about VAR in a VAR thread is considered by your esteemed judgement to be Spam? By what measure should i censor myself so as not to run afoul of what you consider to be spam?
oh, and for the record... while we are on topic... fuck VAR. may it burn in hell for all eternity.
i need a drink....

 

[wrd]

You're allowed to should to shoulder somebody, if Hojbjerg weight had shifted towards the attacker then I could understand but he objectively shifts his weight onto his left and he's turning towards where the ball went. The only even of him even remotely blocking off their number 9 is him anticipating the silly fuck swan diving into him.

 

[Croftwoodspurs]

Opinions, we were always advised the first thing to look out for when the law was obstruction was an unnecessary move in the opposite direction to where the ball was played, and backed up with a look at opponent whilst doing it, It ticks that,
Did Joelinton "buy the foul", sure, he could have avoided the contact, did Hjojbjerg give the referee (well actually probably the assistant as referee had followed ball) a decision to make, yes.

Hi MK when you watch that video, you can clearly see that the ref was not looking at the incident so can't make that decision based on any law... He turned around and saw two players on the floor and guessed.. Also Joe linton changed his direction to move into holberg... So Holberg moved to the right to get out of the way.. It was not a foul, theres a picture of Linton already of the floor a couple of feet away from holberg.. I'm afraid you are wrong on this one...

 

[Spurs_1981]

As regards the new handball rule. The rules state that leeway should be given if the ball ricochets against a player’s arm or if the player in question cannot see the ball. It’s very clear.Therefore the ref did not or should not have awarded the penalty.Carroll looked offside anyway.
I thought that VAR would have stopped players cheating by diving to get a penalty.
It has created a scenario whereby attackers deliberately hit the ball against a defenders arm.I am not saying Carroll did this but when he came on he was trying things.

Sorry but that is only in the case of when the arm is not making body unnaturally bigger.
The penalty was correctly awarded

These rules are somewhat opaque to a casual observer. If any handball that occurs whilst the the arms are in a position to make the body 'unnaturally bigger' is deemed an offence, when exactly do these exceptions come into play?

Looking at the examples that weren't deemed offences over the weekend from Lacelles & Calvert-Lewin, both times arms were down by the sides (presumably deemed a 'natural position') but neither fell into the exception category. Back wasn't to the ball, no deflection etc,.

I'm sure I'm overlooking something but struggle to see what the use of writing exceptions that seem to be effectively redundant. It is just adding more to the confusion and frustration of fans.

 

[gavspur]

Wasn’t a foul for the free-kick.

The rule is stupid.

The stupid rule was applied.

Common sense has gone out the window (as we well knew from the CL Final).

It’s ruining the game. I’m all for VAR for things like unseen stamps on people, deliberate handball, clearly off-sides, but this minimal fine tooth comb approach just isn’t what the game is about. Ball line technology, is it over? Yes or no? Clear and obvious.

I would happily have the 1cm guy off side goals against us if we get rid of this pathetic nit picking within the game. There has to be a way that this technology is used effectively, not this freeze frame version of football. As for heading the ball against the back of a players arm, after he’s been bounced in to, and further back, a free-kick that never was?? Nah. I’m not having it. This isn’t the beautiful game. This handball rule is beyond pathetic.

 

[wrd]

Wasn’t a foul for the free-kick.

The rule is stupid.

The stupid rule was applied.

Common sense has gone out the window (as we well knew from the CL Final).

It’s ruining the game. I’m all for VAR for things like unseen stamps on people, deliberate handball, clearly off-sides, but this minimal fine tooth comb approach just isn’t what the game is about. Ball line technology, is it over? Yes or no? Clear and obvious.

I would happily have the 1cm guy off side goals against us if we get rid of this pathetic nit picking within the game. There has to be a way that this technology is used effectively, not this freeze frame version of football. As for heading the ball against the back of a players arm, after he’s been bounced in to, and further back, a free-kick that never was?? Nah. I’m not having it. This isn’t the beautiful game. This handball rule is beyond pathetic.

Let's face it mate, the officials have too much control and are able to govern the rule of the game as they see fit and their focus seems to be to directly benefit them as if the most important aspect of football is they have a binary decision to make even if it's to the detriment of the sport itself. They have completely lost touch with the reality of the spirit of the game and you only have to look at this thread and the BT ref reviews along with Ref watch to realise that they are so far down the rabbit hole of thinking their role in the sport is what matters.

The point of referees in any sport is to govern whatever it is they're officiating in the spirit of the game and make sure that nobody is gaining unfair advantages which goes against that. What refs have done in football is decide that their rulebook is the gospel and irrelevant of whether the penalised team wasn't cheating, they're going to go by their little rule book and pat themselves on the back and call people idiots because they think we don't understand the rules. We understand the rules just fine, we just realise that they're fucking stupid and that refs should introduce common sense when applying such fucking stupid rules.