What's new

Match Threads Spurs vs Newcastle

Date
Jan 4, 2025
KO Time
12:30 pm
Score
1 - 2

Match Prediction

  • Spurs Win

    Votes: 29 15.4%
  • Newcastle Win

    Votes: 151 80.3%
  • Draw

    Votes: 8 4.3%

  • Total voters
    188

coys63

Well-Known Member
Nov 13, 2006
800
787
Great chat lads on what is a very polarising issue. I just think the rule itself makes it impossible for it to be applied consistently. As much as it needs to be viewed objectively, the interpretation by the ref's and VAR is definitely subjective depending on who the ref is and who is sitting in the VAR booth. It can't be anything else other than that and the inconsistency of the decisions being made attests to that. And let's not forget that it doesn't matter how many tv angles you get, they are all two dimensional, slowed down frame by frame which always makes things look worse than they are. The human body doesn't move at that speed

A common sense, reasonable person approach needs to be taken when making these decisions, especially by VAR but alas it rarely happens.
 

Whazam

Well-Known Member
Aug 8, 2019
825
3,130
Joelinton was running towards Begvall at the point of impact. Every single freeze frame image of he contact clearly shows at the point of impact his arm was not making him unnaturally bigger.

This is the freeze frame from the TV broadcast, a moment BEFORE the handball. Where is his left arm? It's barely visible by his side, because he wasn't unnaturally extending it

View attachment 149815
I disagree, he very obviously stops his run and gets lower when Bergvall is about to make the pass and then his arm gets out further, which your screenshot is proof of. He is not in a stride in that picture. And you can also see it in the replays.

Either way, I guess it doesn't matter now, but I don't get how you can't even 'understand people disagreeing with this,' and claim its people 'admitting they know nothing about the rules.' The rule is unfortunately not that black and white. Just the phrasing of 'unnaturally bigger' could have a million different meanings. (Is that actually what the law says?) And, I would argue the officials, more often than not, gives the free kick in similar situations (at least outside of the penalty area).
 

Dov67

Well-Known Member
Jul 1, 2005
3,542
11,071
Isn't the point that without the handball the ball ends up in a different place and the opportunity to shoot and score simply doesn't happen, and therefore the handball was essential to goal?

I dont know the technicalities of the rules as of yesterday, so its a genuine question
 

thecook

Well-Known Member
Jan 17, 2009
6,546
13,771
I disagree, he very obviously stops his run and gets lower when Bergvall is about to make the pass and then his arm gets out further, which your screenshot is proof of. He is not in a stride in that picture. And you can also see it in the replays.

Either way, I guess it doesn't matter now, but I don't get how you can't even 'understand people disagreeing with this,' and claim its people 'admitting they know nothing about the rules.' The rule is unfortunately not that black and white. Just the phrasing of 'unnaturally bigger' could have a million different meanings. (Is that actually what the law says?) And, I would argue the officials, more often than not, gives the free kick in similar situations (at least outside of the penalty area).
He doesn't stop, he maybe slows. He continues to run until roughly the same point on the pitch that Bergvall was when he plays the pass before stopping. This means he needs to use his arms for that motion or 'for his body moving fairly as part of that play.'

He crouches as he runs to poise himself to try and intercept the pass. Not to deliberately handball it. But yeah, I don't think we wil agree, other than it sucks to conceed that goal :)

Unnaturally bigger is what the law says. Yep, that can be open to interpretation, but you have to take the reasonable man approach to interpretion and his arm being largely by his side to me is just a natural position, all things being considered at that moment in time. Of course if they were flailed out then yes, call it a free kick for sure.

Regarding my response to Bluto's post and people disagreeing with that, well I stand by that but perhaps was a bit mean in saying people don't understand the rules. However, Bluto is stating the facts, from the rules, so to disagree is just plain wrong.
 

Whazam

Well-Known Member
Aug 8, 2019
825
3,130
He doesn't stop, he maybe slows. He continues to run until roughly the same point on the pitch that Bergvall was when he plays the pass before stopping. This means he needs to use his arms for that motion or 'for his body moving fairly as part of that play.'

He crouches as he runs to poise himself to try and intercept the pass. Not to deliberately handball it. But yeah, I don't think we wil agree, other than it sucks to conceed that goal :)

Unnaturally bigger is what the law says. Yep, that can be open to interpretation, but you have to take the reasonable man approach to interpretion and his arm being largely by his side to me is just a natural position, all things being considered at that moment in time. Of course were they flailed out then yes, call it a free kick for sure.

Regarding my response to Bluto's post and people disagreeing with that, well I stand by that but perhaps was a bit mean in saying people don't understand the rules. However, Bluto is stating the facts, from the rules, so to disagree is just plain wrong.
Yeah, we won't agree here at all. 😁 But I appreciate your response here.
 

Swalien

Well-Known Member
Aug 22, 2014
1,508
1,879
If this was in a Liverpool game and it was, say Van Dijk toe poking the ball out to Alexander-Arnold for instance and the opposing team win the ball back with the hand then score after another pass there is no way in a million years the goal would have stood. If it was against Liverpool or another media darling club the commentators fans Var and pundits would say it’s not a goal. The psychological bias in the premier league towards certain clubs and against certain clubs is ridiculous.
 

Chimbo!

Well-Known Member
Jan 7, 2007
3,812
3,909
If Forest to do us a favour tomorrow and beat Wolves, the Newcastle defeat would not have been too damaging.
 

yiddopaul

Well-Known Member
Dec 28, 2005
3,695
7,293
Yes, that was the match that saved us in the end. I remember Klinsmann running riot that day.
That was the Christian Gross season.
We never change! Klinsmann was a desperate signing from Sugar. We always seem to react, rather than build.
 

Dazzazzad

Well-Known Member
Jan 17, 2006
1,616
6,080
We never change! Klinsmann was a desperate signing from Sugar. We always seem to react, rather than build.
Sarr
Udogie
VDV
Gray
Odobert
Yang
Kinsky
Bergvall
Spence

That's 9 very buildy signings the last few years. Could throw Johnson in as well if you like - he's somewhere between building and reactive.
 

Dazzazzad

Well-Known Member
Jan 17, 2006
1,616
6,080
Sarr
Udogie
VDV
Gray
Odobert
Yang
Kinsky
Bergvall
Spence

That's 9 very buildy signings the last few years. Could throw Johnson in as well if you like - he's somewhere between building and reactive.
Even forgot Vuskovic and Phillips!
 

Bluto Blutarsky

Well-Known Member
Mar 4, 2021
21,513
96,408
If this was in a Liverpool game and it was, say Van Dijk toe poking the ball out to Alexander-Arnold for instance and the opposing team win the ball back with the hand then score after another pass there is no way in a million years the goal would have stood. If it was against Liverpool or another media darling club the commentators fans Var and pundits would say it’s not a goal. The psychological bias in the premier league towards certain clubs and against certain clubs is ridiculous.
The goal would have stood 100% of the time.

Now, what might be different is that some refs might have stopped the play in real time, its a subjective call, but once play is allowed to continue, it was an inadvertent hand ball, and the player did not score. Goal allowed 100% of the time - no matter who is playing, or who they are playing against.
 

healesl

Well Balanced (mostly!)
Jan 28, 2011
5
58
My issue with the whole handball/non-handball decision is the complete lack of consistency. Everybody (all TV pundits and other club fans) are hiding behind the 'natural position / accidental handball' argument, which I do get in some game situations, but in this case, I certainly do not agree with, as the handball created a goalscoring opportunity (accidental or not) and so play should be stopped. However, my point is, what people are failing to see are the refereeing double standards. if, for the Newcastle goal it is deemed 'not handball', as his arms are by his side and not in an unnatural position (and therefore accidental) and those are the rules, then fine, we live with it.............but when Burns handballs it later in the half (after already being booked), his arms were stretched out away from his body, deemed NOT is a natural position by the ref (so non-accidental, i.e. deliberate) as he blows for a foul and stops the game, then surely it is a booking (for deliberate handball, stopping a possible Spurs attack), and therefore a second yellow and a red card. However, as the ref has not booked him for a second time, he must therefore have still deemed the action as accidental, so why stop the game for a free-kick in this situation, when he didn't for the goal?!?!?!?
 

southlondonyiddo

My eyes have seen some of the glory..
Nov 8, 2004
13,178
16,527
The law is an ass

I’d love to see a player standing on the goal line with his hands in a natural position when the balls heading into an open goal but strikes him flush on the arm/hand

Good luck waving that on!!
 

jakuba

Well-Known Member
Aug 20, 2013
806
2,567
The law is an ass

I’d love to see a player standing on the goal line with his hands in a natural position when the balls heading into an open goal but strikes him flush on the arm/hand

Good luck waving that on!!
Don’t worry it’ll happen to us without a shadow of a doubt and whichever the worst interpretation for us will apply whether that be waived on if it’s our shot and a straight red and penalty if it’s a shot on our goal!
 

MR_BEN

Well-Known Member
Aug 5, 2005
3,427
2,145
The goal would have stood 100% of the time.

Now, what might be different is that some refs might have stopped the play in real time, its a subjective call, but once play is allowed to continue, it was an inadvertent hand ball, and the player did not score. Goal allowed 100% of the time - no matter who is playing, or who they are playing against.

Given how inconsistent both refs and VAR are, even across a single weekend let alone a whole season there is no way you can say that the goal would stand 100% of the time.

It’s probably already been disallowed multiple times this season. Rightly or wrongly.

What is clear from this is that despite the constant changes to handball rules over the last 3 or 4 years, they are still unclear, difficult to implement consistently - AND in many peoples opinions, including a lot of ‘football people’ totally illogical.
 

yiddopaul

Well-Known Member
Dec 28, 2005
3,695
7,293
Sarr
Udogie
VDV
Gray
Odobert
Yang
Kinsky
Bergvall
Spence

That's 9 very buildy signings the last few years. Could throw Johnson in as well if you like - he's somewhere between building and reactive.
I don't mean we never signed anyone, but you've just listed a large number of players that, other than VDV are not game changers (potential for some of them). Proper big teams sign players that have instant impact. Not the odd player that we buy because we're in trouble. We should be looking to upgrade every window, not 'back ups'. We are Tottenham-f******-Hotspur, one of the most famous clubs in world football! One of the richest! Lets start acting like a big club! COYS!
 

Dazzazzad

Well-Known Member
Jan 17, 2006
1,616
6,080
I don't mean we never signed anyone, but you've just listed a large number of players that, other than VDV are not game changers (potential for some of them). Proper big teams sign players that have instant impact. Not the odd player that we buy because we're in trouble. We should be looking to upgrade every window, not 'back ups'. We are Tottenham-f******-Hotspur, one of the most famous clubs in world football! One of the richest! Lets start acting like a big club! COYS!
You said we never build, are always being reactive in the market. Those 11/12 signings are with a long term view and plan. They are not reactive signings.

And several I listed are already first team players not backups - VDV, Udogie, Sarr. Maybe Kinsky soon. Gray and Bergvall not far off.
 

yiddopaul

Well-Known Member
Dec 28, 2005
3,695
7,293
You said we never build, are always being reactive in the market. Those 11/12 signings are with a long term view and plan. They are not reactive signings.

And several I listed are already first team players not backups - VDV, Udogie, Sarr. Maybe Kinsky soon. Gray and Bergvall not far off.
Other than VDV, the others are good. Nothing special. We buy players - generally speaking - that wouldn't get into Liverpool, Arse, City's teams. So why should they be good enough for us? We will in all likelihood, be very unsuccessful with our transfer policy. Hope I'm wrong of course.
 

Similar threads

Replies
2K
Views
126K
Replies
1K
Views
76K
Replies
2K
Views
103K
Top