What's new

Spurs and VAR

BringBack_leGin

Well-Known Member
Jul 28, 2004
27,719
54,929
Actually just seen it. I don't think it is a foul by Lascelles at all. Lascelles didn't really do anything apart from stand his ground, Dier moved into him if anything in my view.
You think Dier, while mid air, managed to move his body backwards towards Lascelles outstretched arm, and then forward again, like some kind of Jedi cirque du soleil performer hybrid, all in a split second, but lacked the ability to avoid the ball with his hands?

Probably best we stop here, we’re not going to find common ground on this issue.
 

talbot64

Well-Known Member
Mar 11, 2004
534
1,232
Makes the reserve striker and plan B a different requirement now. It used to be do you want a big target man to lump it to at the expense of playing a passing game. Now the target man needs to header at a defender and shout for a penalty or knock down to a team mate. if you get one you just can’t defend i.e. Carroll they are worth there weight in gold with these rules

Of course we buy a player like this they will change the offside rule
 

doctor stefan Freud

the tired tread of sad biology
Sep 2, 2013
15,170
72,169
There are diagrams issued. Basically according to IFAB a body has a natural silhouette when arms are pointing vertically whilst directly next to the body. Everything out of this silhouette is deemed as being making body bigger (so you can tuck hands behind you, in front of you, or directly by the side of you, everything else risks being penalised.
I’d imagine so but Dier’s configuration today was not unnatural in relation to the action he was committing as a consequence of the context he was in. There would literally be no way for him to gain the force to jump if he didn’t commit the action. And then surely it comes down to a question of intent, of which he had none whatsoever discernible to both the eye and a replay.

Appreciate your points by the way
 

popstar7

Well-Known Member
Jan 14, 2012
3,036
9,367
the hand/arm has made their body unnaturally bigger

This bit really pisses me off. There's nothing 'unnatural' about Dier's arm position. Nothing unnatural about the Palace defender's arm position for the one against Everton yesterday. The rule implies that arms by your side is somehow the normal, natural way to play football. Yet Calvert-Lewin can clearly move his arms into a genuinely 'unnatural' position to attempt to control the ball against Palace but because he has his arms in front of him that's no penalty.

 

Wadec

Well-Known Member
May 14, 2014
1,761
5,434
To be honest those rules make sense, but only when looking at a player closing down or blocking a shot. If a player is spreading their arms in those instances it is justifiable to award the penalty. You see players tucking their arms behind their back all the time in these instances and I don't think penalties are being awarded as a result of this happening.

However when players are being penalised when simply running or jumping to head the ball and not even trying to stop the ball there is an issue. The only way to stop this is to say run and jump with your arms by your side, that is a nonsense.

Surely when the powers that be decided to enforce these rules they were thinking of scenario 1 and not scenario 2.
 

BringBack_leGin

Well-Known Member
Jul 28, 2004
27,719
54,929
Makes the reserve striker and plan B a different requirement now. It used to be do you want a big target man to lump it to at the expense of playing a passing game. Now the target man needs to header at a defender and shout for a penalty or knock down to a team mate. if you get one you just can’t defend i.e. Carroll they are worth there weight in gold with these rules

Of course we buy a player like this they will change the offside rule

I’d almost suggest Andy Carroll has just become our ideal striker target...
 

penfold_99

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2006
697
604
Bolded in black for the relevant piece of why Dier's was a penalty
Bolded in Red for why Lascelles was not a penalty

The rule you bolded for dier in black is also an exception (one up from the one in red)

  • directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close
If I follow correctly it should not be a penalty.
 

Wadec

Well-Known Member
May 14, 2014
1,761
5,434
This bit really pisses me off. There's nothing 'unnatural' about Dier's arm position. Nothing unnatural about the Palace defender's arm position for the one against Everton yesterday. The rule implies that arms by your side is somehow the normal, natural way to play football. Yet Calvert-Lewin can clearly move his arms into a genuinely 'unnatural' position to attempt to control the ball against Palace but because he has his arms in front of him that's no penalty.



Exactly this, was the same in the Chelsea game. Player had his arm by his side but still controlled the ball by doing that, but not a handball as it was 'natural'. Surely if a goal scoring opportunity has been stopped or arisen as a result is more important than whether the arm is vertical/diagonal.
 

Trotter

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2009
2,169
3,312
The rule you bolded for dier in black is also an exception (one up from the one in red)

  • directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close
If I follow correctly it should not be a penalty.

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.
 

Shadydan

Well-Known Member
Jul 7, 2012
38,247
104,143
Actually just seen it. I don't think it is a foul by Lascelles at all. Lascelles didn't really do anything apart from stand his ground, Dier moved into him if anything in my view. Just a normal coming together you see go unpunished all the time when two players are fighting for the same piece of turf.

"Lascelles didn't really do anything"

1601237504618.png
 

hughy

I'm SUPER cereal.
Nov 18, 2007
31,842
56,935
This bit really pisses me off. There's nothing 'unnatural' about Dier's arm position. Nothing unnatural about the Palace defender's arm position for the one against Everton yesterday. The rule implies that arms by your side is somehow the normal, natural way to play football. Yet Calvert-Lewin can clearly move his arms into a genuinely 'unnatural' position to attempt to control the ball against Palace but because he has his arms in front of him that's no penalty.


Haven't seen that until now. It's literally blocking a goal-bound shot.

Screenshot_20200927_211507_com.android.chrome.jpg
 

Monkey boy

Well-Known Member
Jun 18, 2011
6,381
17,040
You think Dier, while mid air, managed to move his body backwards towards Lascelles outstretched arm, and then forward again, like some kind of Jedi cirque du soleil performer hybrid, all in a split second, but lacked the ability to avoid the ball with his hands?

Probably best we stop here, we’re not going to find common ground on this issue.

obvious troll is obvious.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Aug 20, 2003
9,188
11,150
Correct - its the implementaiton of VAR that is at fault. The people who set teh laws and decide how they are officiated are clueless.

The best thing about VAR is that it has almost eradicated diving. That is now rare, but when it does happen (see Bruno Fernandes) they should use VAR to make sure it gets punished with a yellow..
VAR hasn’t stopped diving, cheating and falling over to gain an advantage, in fact it’s benefitted some of the more favoured “tv teams” to claw a result out of nothing.
I do laugh at this self proclaimed “best league in the world” title, I can’t understand how every other sport can use video referrals so well and eventually come to a correct decision yet football Is just....well football in the PL....
 

Lighty64

I believe
Aug 24, 2010
10,400
12,476
Actually just seen it. I don't think it is a foul by Lascelles at all. Lascelles didn't really do anything apart from stand his ground, Dier moved into him if anything in my view. Just a normal coming together you see go unpunished all the time when two players are fighting for the same piece of turf.

so how did they get the free kick that actually leads to the incident?
 

Shanks

Kinda not anymore....
May 11, 2005
31,159
18,914
"Lascelles didn't really do anything"

View attachment 74917

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.
 

Mr Pink

SC Supporter
Aug 25, 2010
54,776
99,340
This bit really pisses me off. There's nothing 'unnatural' about Dier's arm position. Nothing unnatural about the Palace defender's arm position for the one against Everton yesterday. The rule implies that arms by your side is somehow the normal, natural way to play football. Yet Calvert-Lewin can clearly move his arms into a genuinely 'unnatural' position to attempt to control the ball against Palace but because he has his arms in front of him that's no penalty.



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.
 

beats1

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2010
30,006
29,551
"Lascelles didn't really do anything"

View attachment 74917
From the other angle it looks like he didn't touch Dier

As his arm, is further back than Carroll, from that perception
Screenshot 2020-09-27 at 21.27.48.png


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
 

Shadydan

Well-Known Member
Jul 7, 2012
38,247
104,143
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.

I'm not campaigning for the foul, I said it was soft but my point is highlighted in bold - if Lascelles slight push is throwing him off balance it's obviously enough to push Dier off balance hence why having his hands up in the air, if you're gonna give a pen for that then you need to look at the leading events which caused it.
 

SecretLemonadeDrinker

Well-Known Member
Jun 30, 2020
2,027
11,165
Bolded in black for the relevant piece of why Dier's was a penalty
Bolded in Red for why Lascelles was not a penalty

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?
 
Top