What's new

Spurs and VAR

Trotter

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2009
2,169
3,312
Because Rodri initiated contact and lamela’s hands, while clumsy, had nothing to do with Rodri falling (apart from giving him an excuse) - he falls because he tangles legs with Lamela from the contact he initiates.

That’s why VAR wasn’t interested.

Didn't know whether to rate this funny, creative, wtf or just plain disagree.
Cannot believe you are being serious though
 

wrd

Well-Known Member
Aug 22, 2014
13,603
58,005
Because Rodri initiated contact and lamela’s hands, while clumsy, had nothing to do with Rodri falling (apart from giving him an excuse) - he falls because he tangles legs with Lamela from the contact he initiates.

That’s why VAR wasn’t interested.

I don't think it's as clear cut as people are making out, yes it's fucking stupid to have your hands up in those areas (around the neck) but Rodri didn't do himself favours falling fowards when Lamelas contact would have been pulling him backwards. That's why it wasn't clear and obvious I imagine.
 

Phomesy

Well-Known Member
Aug 20, 2013
9,188
14,102
Didn't know whether to rate this funny, creative, wtf or just plain disagree.
Cannot believe you are being serious though

Okay. VAR didn’t refer it because of a conspiracy to deny City the win. That make more sense?

Oliver didn’t give the decision and when berated by City players told them VAR wasn’t interested. For the reasons I posted.(y)
 

Phomesy

Well-Known Member
Aug 20, 2013
9,188
14,102
I don't think it's as clear cut as people are making out, yes it's fucking stupid to have your hands up in those areas (around the neck) but Rodri didn't do himself favours falling fowards when Lamelas contact would have been pulling him backwards. That's why it wasn't clear and obvious I imagine.

If you watch the replay it’s quite clear Rodri tangles legs with Lamela. Don’t know why people are having a hard time understanding why VAR wasn’t interested. It’s pretty clear
 

Trotter

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2009
2,169
3,312
Okay. VAR didn’t refer it because of a conspiracy to deny City the win. That make more sense?

Oliver didn’t give the decision and when berated by City players told them VAR wasn’t interested. For the reasons I posted.(y)

No Oliver didn't give it because he was looking in a different direction (the cluster of players around the penalty spot)
VAR didn't overrule it because they won't make judgement on subjective issues (PGMOL technical head Niel Swarbrick has already said that).
It really was as blatant a foul in a tussle as you could expect to see though (unless you are wearing those Spurs glasses where if an opponent breathes on one of us it should be a sending off, and we can punch an opponent on the pitch and it would be an accident)
 

Phomesy

Well-Known Member
Aug 20, 2013
9,188
14,102
No Oliver didn't give it because he was looking in a different direction (the cluster of players around the penalty spot)
VAR didn't overrule it because they won't make judgement on subjective issues (PGMOL technical head Niel Swarbrick has already said that)

If VAR feels a clear and obvious foul has been missed they will intervene.

There was no clear and obvious foul for the reasons I’ve posted which are easy to see in the replay (y)
 

Trotter

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2009
2,169
3,312
If VAR feels a clear and obvious foul has been missed they
will intervene.

There was no clear and obvious foul for the reasons I’ve posted which are easy to see in the replay (y)

No they won't. They have set the bar very high.
Premier League VAR will not interfere on subjective calls at all, only factual ones.
 

-Afri-Coy-

Well-Known Member
Jun 26, 2012
5,838
18,570
I came here thinking it was a thread for Spurs and VAR memes, I’m now leaving extremely disappointed. Thanks for nothing.
 

easley91

Well-Known Member
Jan 27, 2011
18,716
53,767
Does anybody know why Lamela executing a flawless Rock Bottom on Rodri wasn't flagged? Tbf, I think Rodri might have initiated contact, but idk
Sorry (not sorry) to be that guy, but that was nothing like a rock bottom. More of a bulldog. :sneaky:
 

Phomesy

Well-Known Member
Aug 20, 2013
9,188
14,102
No they won't. They have set the bar very high.
Premier League VAR will not interfere on subjective calls at all, only factual ones.

Disagree all you like but having been in conversation with people who were involved in the decision making process on Saturday I’m pretty confident in my assessment. Cheers (y)
 

Trotter

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2009
2,169
3,312
Disagree all you like but having been in conversation with people who were involved in the decision making process on Saturday I’m pretty confident in my assessment. Cheers (y)

No you haven't, Why lie ?
Stick to Rugby, Cricket and Aussie Rules., sports you may know something about
 
Last edited:

dagraham

Well-Known Member
Sep 20, 2005
19,115
46,080
Two things to pick apart here. Firstly the decisions historically going against us. It's very natural to remember those that go against us more than those that go in our favour. But I'm not sure over the long term we've been as hard done by overall as you'd think. Obviously there's been some high profile shockers though.

Secondly, most people who are against var don't argue that it will lead to more correct decisions. Case in point Molineux last night showing their displeasure after being awarded the goal. The argument is this upside is not worth the downsides that currently come with it.

Agree.

Like all Spurs fans I raged about the injustices of some of the shocking decisions gone against us. However, as you've said it's easy tio forget the favourable ones, and in the past few years we've had plenty of decisions go for us and it still hasn't led to us winning anything, so I think it's too easy to just blame corruption and incompetence holding us back.

Besides, two of those shocker decisions of the past would already never have re-occurred due to the goal line technology that's been in operation for a while outside the parameters of VAR. As for the others, I still think you can limit the scope of VAR to change the face of the way the game is experienced by only allowing a limited number of calls. At least that way it would only be used sparingly to reduce the complete blatant cheating and incompetence, rather than to scrutinise every goal in case someone's nose is offside.
 

TottenhamLegend

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2012
3,273
9,439
As for the others, I still think you can limit the scope of VAR to change the face of the way the game is experienced by only allowing a limited number of calls. At least that way it would only be used sparingly to reduce the complete blatant cheating and incompetence, rather than to scrutinise every goal in case someone's nose is offside.
Agreed. If we have to have it, I'd be for the cricket approach. Give the manager/captain 1 or 2 reviews per game. Must be reviewed within 10 seconds of the incident, and if you are correct and it's overturned, you keep your review.
 

dagraham

Well-Known Member
Sep 20, 2005
19,115
46,080
Agreed. If we have to have it, I'd be for the cricket approach. Give the manager/captain 1 or 2 reviews per game. Must be reviewed within 10 seconds of the incident, and if you are correct and it's overturned, you keep your review.

Yeah something like that, although 10 seconds isn’t enough time.
 

mightyspur

Now with lovely smooth balls
Aug 21, 2014
9,760
27,014
Agreed. If we have to have it, I'd be for the cricket approach. Give the manager/captain 1 or 2 reviews per game. Must be reviewed within 10 seconds of the incident, and if you are correct and it's overturned, you keep your review.
This is a terrible idea and I don't understand why people keep suggesting it.
 

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Apr 1, 2005
41,363
74,893
Is the solution to the last point you've made potentially giving fans access to the ref mics? Like they do in rugby.

Seems to me that if some fans can hear the decision making, either on tv or via a ref-link then it will alleviate some (perhaps only a small amount) of the confusion.

They did it before for an arsenal game but didn't tell the players. The audience heard tony adams call the ref a cheating c***. They didn't do it again.
 

Trotter

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2009
2,169
3,312
They did it before for an arsenal game but didn't tell the players. The audience heard tony adams call the ref a cheating c***. They didn't do it again.

Almost, he kept yelling at David Elleray who had disallowed a goal. "That's my goal, that's my goal", then when running away yelled at him "cheat" (no expletives), and was booked (Referees can accept being sworn at in heat of moment, but not being called a cheat). In dressing room afterwards George Graham asked him afterwards what he had done to get booked, and he swore he had done nothing wrong, at which stage he was told that Elleray (who incidentally is the IFAB technical director that has been driving force being introducing the law changes this year) was mic'd up, at which point Adams owned up.
It wasn't a live TV match (they just couldn't do that before the watershed), it was for a refereeing documentary, so could have been edited I suppose though
 

sly1

Well-Known Member
Sep 25, 2004
451
1,270
I don't understand the objections to the goal being disallowed on Saturday.

There are three issues:
1) Was the handball law applied correctly?
2) Is the handball law as it stands suitable for its purpose?
3) Does VAR in general diminish the spectacle of football?

Let's ignore 3), because it's too broad and subjective for this debate.

Regarding issue number 1, for all the headlines about the "controversial" winner and Man City being "denied victory" by the decision, it seems that not a single person in the world actually disagrees that the law was correctly applied and that the correct decision was made. According to the laws of the game, what happened is exactly what should have happened, VAR or no VAR.

Regarding the second issue, I do not think there should be any controversy, but I think it is quite confusing and does seem inconsistent at first sight. However, I do think the rule is more or less correct as it stands. I think the general idea is that accidental/unavoidable handballs are inevitable at both ends of the pitch, and that it shouldn't be the defining moment of the match. A team shouldn't have a penalty given against them for an unavoidable handball, but a team also should't be able to score a goal from an accidental handball. This seems like a pretty straightforward was of looking at the handballs, and it seems to be pretty in line with how most people already considered how the handball rule should be applied. Most people thought that Aguero's accidental handball goal last year shouldn't have stood, and most people thought that Koscielny's a few years ago shouldn't have stood either. Equally, whenever an attacking player has committed an obvious accidental handball (attempting to chest the ball or a deflection), it has always been given as a free kick with no complaints. It is clear that the only real purpose of the “accidental” handball rule has been to avoid spoiling games by giving penalties from unavoidable flukes.

In general, people don't think that you should get a goal for accidentally punching the ball into the net, and I think people would generally agree that accidentally hitting it to your team mate who scores is the same thing.

So why is this particular goal so controversial? I think it simply comes down to the fact that it was hard to see in the video and on tv. People want to have what it looks like to them confirmed, and it didn't really look like a handball (even to a biased observer) in real-time. I expect that if the exact same situation happened with Laporte in more space so you could more clearly see what was going on, a lot more people would have spotted the handball the first time and no one would have an issue with the decision. The only way you could get round this is to somehow implement VAR such that it doesn't pick up all infringements but only picks up infringements that the referee should have spotted the first time. This would obviously be a ridiculously subjective system without any clear benefit.

(Regarding whether VAR detracts from the excitement of a goal being scored, I think there is definitely a strong case for this and I'm going to withhold judgement until I've got more of a feel for it.)
 
Last edited:
Top