I've watched a replay of the Gomes injury a dozen times and still can't figure out how Son is supposedly responsible for it. How did they not use VAR to review it? Seems likely the red card will be revoked, shame the equalising goal won't be. Spurs get stitched up again :roll:
Premier League 2019/2020 Thread
- Thread starter edd_jedi
- Start date
Agreed. Yes it was certainly a foul, and yes it was probably a yellow. However there was clearly no intent from Son to hurt Gomes and the subsequent injury was one of those freak accidents that can sometimes happen. I certainly hope Spurs do get the red card overturned, but as for VAR, whilst I am very much in favour of it, I'm very much against the inconsistent, weak-as-piss way it's currently being used. If you're going to use it, use it properly! Referees on the pitch do make mistakes sometimes, so why shouldn't another referee, with the benefit of VAR replays, overturn errors every time when it's clear? And if it's not clear, don't overturn it. What's hard about that?edd_jedi said:
edd_jedi said:
He isn't. Aurier is. There are a few pictures that show it on Twitter. Although it's still a complete accident. Gomes' foot gets caught under Aurier's and hey presto, snap. Son should get than red over turned, it wasn't his fault after all, but I would feel bad appealing to have the ban over turned after what happened to Gomes. I know it isn't Son's fault but it sort of feels, I dunno, "wrong" to appeal it.
I also thought VAR had a shocker in that game. The non Pen against Son when Meena falls on him is more of pen than the one (was it Brighton?) got given against Everton last week when Keane stood on someone's foot. Though that pen itse;f was shockingly soft, it was given and so the bar has been set. I also thought the non penalty against Ali for handball was a pen. His hand has no business being above his head, for me that was 'clear and obvious' and should have been a pen.
Then there is the pen Watford got for the slightest of touches on Duelefeu. That's a booking for diving for me. Yes, there is contact but FFS that wasn't enough to knock my one year over never mind a grown man. The fact he takes a step and then dives gives it away. But, no, apparently contact now = a foul (unless you're from South Korea and play for Spurs) and thus a penalty.
They really need to sort out where the bar for VAR lies cos ATM it is all over the place, from VAR refusing to over turn GBH in the first few weeks to now it giving penalties for players being within a foot of each other, it's ruining games. All that is going to happen managers will be saying to players, if you feel ANY contact, dive and VAR will look at it and ATM we'll get a penalty. Pretty soon the best way to defend will be to go nowhere near the player and just play 3 keepers. It's pathetic. On that note...
theforceuk said:
That sounds really sensible and not complete over kill. 8 groups of 3 with 2 progressing. Drag it out a bit more why don't you?
edd_jedi said:
Agreed. I only saw 30 mins of highlights this morning but it looked some game. I thought both cards were harsh. Daily Blind does foul yer man but it was 1 of those where a lot of the time you see the ref warn a player if he has already been booked. To allow play to go on, to then give a pen for another foul and THEN send off someone else for complaining seemed very OTT. Ajax can feel hard done by.
As for the hand ball, it deflects off his team mate 4 yards away, it was a shot on goal so travelling at some speed too. He had literally no chance of moving his arm. It would be physically impossible to react that quickly. So how is it a pen? His arms are by his side as well, albeit out a bit but nothing even close to an unnatural position (whatever the **** that even means).
The hand ball rule is a joke. As is VAR.
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2014
- Messages
- 9,062
I've not seen any of last nights games, sound entertaining though. I agree on the arms being in an unnatural position being a joke, what does that mean? Unless your arm is dislocated or broken then its hand ball!!!! I see Liverpool scraped another win.
Less than convincing performance by Spurs against Sheffield Utd so far. Considering Spurs are so out of form at the moment, I'm struggling to understand why Poch seems to think fielding a completely different starting 11 and formation every game will help? It reminds me of watching England, a team of half decent players but with no clue how to play together. Surely when you're struggling for results, some consistency is needed? He's starting to look like David Moyes at Utd.
Well I think we can safely say North London is neither red or white at the moment, both teams are a laughing stock. Looks like this will be the first season neither make top 4. A few weeks ago I thought Spurs were just having a bad run but now it's clear there are major problems, not sure how they've managed to slide so far in such a short space of time. Looks like the top 4 is decided already with a load of dross occupying 5th - 20th. Hats off to Rodgers and Lampard, both on fire.
Will be interesting if City lose tomorrow, then the doubt will get into Pep's head for sure.
Will be interesting if City lose tomorrow, then the doubt will get into Pep's head for sure.
Richard_H
Grand Master
Coldn't agree more. Tony Adams' summary was spot on. No heart, no leaders, no clue.
I'm surprised at Spurs. They are a solid side but they just seem to be stuck in a rut. I don't know if it's the fact Poch has had pretty much the same team for 3 or 4 years any maybe things have gone stale, or is it due to lack of signings, is it cos of Eriksen's missus supposedly putting it about with half the team and the fact that doesn't do much for squad cohesion when he finds out? Or is it just a bad patch?
I would have more confidence in them coming good than Arsenal though.
Emery has been there 18 minths now and I still don't know what kind of style he wants the team to play. Fairly certain he doesn't know his best 11 either. After 18 months that's not good. There is STILL a hell of a lot of dead wood in that squad too. It's probably more deadwood than players you would keep. Granted injuries haven't helped him, but
I would not be surprised to see him sacked if results don't improve soon.
As for yesterday's game, it all hinged on the handball by TAA. Although I do think Souness had a point when he said the game really swung on City's lack of defensive cover.
Returning to the handball, yes it clearly hits his hand. Looking at the replays Sky showed during the match I thought it was a penalty all day. Then at half time you see the replay that shows it deflects off Silva's hand and on to TAA.
The VAR reasoning actually makes perfect sense. They didn't give it as it deflected and TAA had no time to react (0.5 of a second according to Sky) and also his hands were in a "natural position". Ignoring the last bit as **** knows how you get your arm in an unnatural position without breaking or dislocating it, I don't think you can argue with why it wasn't given. It does hit Silva on the arm and TAA hardly has time to move his arm out of the way. So, for me, that was a fair enough decision.
The problem is a similar incident will happen next week and we all know the chances are a penalty will be given. The incredible lack of consistency is what pisses people off.
I would have more confidence in them coming good than Arsenal though.
Emery has been there 18 minths now and I still don't know what kind of style he wants the team to play. Fairly certain he doesn't know his best 11 either. After 18 months that's not good. There is STILL a hell of a lot of dead wood in that squad too. It's probably more deadwood than players you would keep. Granted injuries haven't helped him, but
I would not be surprised to see him sacked if results don't improve soon.
As for yesterday's game, it all hinged on the handball by TAA. Although I do think Souness had a point when he said the game really swung on City's lack of defensive cover.
Returning to the handball, yes it clearly hits his hand. Looking at the replays Sky showed during the match I thought it was a penalty all day. Then at half time you see the replay that shows it deflects off Silva's hand and on to TAA.
The VAR reasoning actually makes perfect sense. They didn't give it as it deflected and TAA had no time to react (0.5 of a second according to Sky) and also his hands were in a "natural position". Ignoring the last bit as **** knows how you get your arm in an unnatural position without breaking or dislocating it, I don't think you can argue with why it wasn't given. It does hit Silva on the arm and TAA hardly has time to move his arm out of the way. So, for me, that was a fair enough decision.
The problem is a similar incident will happen next week and we all know the chances are a penalty will be given. The incredible lack of consistency is what pisses people off.
Also I have to say that offside goal disallowed for SFU was bullshit, Spurs should have lost that game. I know the 'clear and obvious' rule doesn't apply to offside, but even with the tightest margin I don't see how this is offside. Surely Dier's knee is playing him on? Or is it the hand putting him offside?
edd_jedi said:
I quite agree, however don't forget Spurs had a goal ruled out in exactly similar circumstances earlier this season, where a player was offside by the width of a mosquito's nail clipping, so that much at least balances out.
It does make a complete laughing stock of VAR though when it takes 5 minutes to check and decide on an offside decision that is anything but clear to watching fans when that decision is finally announced! Are we really supposed to believe that a decision that is that close to call is completely accurate? It all hinges on them freezing the action at the exact moment the ball is played, and can they really determine that with complete certainty in such tight cases? Surely a single frame of footage either side of the true moment of passing the ball would yield a different decision with regards to offside, so can it really be regarded as foolproof to use it in such circumstances? :roll: Surely it would be fairer to give the benefit of the doubt to the attacking team when it's too close to call?
Agreed. There was also the disallowed Firminio goal last week where "his armpit" was ruked to be offside. Literally VAR used that exact phrase.
There is a lot to be said for taking a leaf out of Cricket's book and saying anything that is say within a foot of being on/offside, so six inches either way, is left to Linesman's discretion. Similar to "umpire's discretion" in cricket. That is effectively saying it's too close to call or at least there can be an argument made eitehr way and the person closest to it, the umpire in cricket, gets the final say.
Although, I guess that just crates another problem of what happens if a ball if 5.5 or 6.1 inches either way.
There is a lot to be said for taking a leaf out of Cricket's book and saying anything that is say within a foot of being on/offside, so six inches either way, is left to Linesman's discretion. Similar to "umpire's discretion" in cricket. That is effectively saying it's too close to call or at least there can be an argument made eitehr way and the person closest to it, the umpire in cricket, gets the final say.
Although, I guess that just crates another problem of what happens if a ball if 5.5 or 6.1 inches either way.
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2014
- Messages
- 9,062
I said before the off side rule needs to change so their has to be complete daylight behind the attacker and last defender for it to be off side. That would stop all this nonsense.
Liverpool are going to take some stopping now, 30 year wait may be over. About time they won it! :lol:
Liverpool are going to take some stopping now, 30 year wait may be over. About time they won it! :lol:
lejackal
Grand Master
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2015
- Messages
- 9,081
Offside needs to be one of three options:
1) no offside ever
2) the offside line goes through the body of the defender, not the little toe of their trailing leg and not the index finger of the attacker
3) a margin of error, benefit of doubt to the attacker and VAR can only override a clear refereeing error
1) no offside ever
2) the offside line goes through the body of the defender, not the little toe of their trailing leg and not the index finger of the attacker
3) a margin of error, benefit of doubt to the attacker and VAR can only override a clear refereeing error
Well, as I've said before, I'd like to see offside scrapped entirely. It worked in hockey and it could work in football too.
