Jamie Redknapp on the VAR thing:
It doesn't matter if the handball is intentional or unintentional, that's the law now but it is such a harsh decision. What I find amazing is that not one Tottenham player complains or looks at the referee. It's just that feeling of losing the game and there's nothing you can do.
I have no idea why he's so amazed that none of the players complained or "look(ed) at the referee". It wasn't the kind of thing you'd expect a player to notice, unless they had eyes like a shitehawk and were stood around ball watching in the 92nd minute of the game.
Oh, sorry, Jesus mate, here, we'll change the video footage for you...What I find amazing is how players complain to the referee after their decision is made. Jesus has a go, why isn’t he booked for that? Why aren’t pundits calling out that unsportsmanlike behaviour?
Comments section is on point.
What I find amazing is how players complain to the referee after their decision is made. Jesus has a go, why isn’t he booked for that? Why aren’t pundits calling out that unsportsmanlike behaviour?
Maybe it'll end up like cricket, you score a goal, then have to all turn to the ref and shout "Owzat?!".I HATE it when pundits say that!! Lee Dixon said the same thing on the NBC commentary, just because the players don't see it/appeal for it doesn't mean the goal should stand!
Also, intent is not important in this. Fact that he did handle it is all that matters."Aymeric Laporte did not intend to handle the ball and seemingly did not even realise he had done so from a late corner before Jesus struck."
Does he have no sense of feeling in his arms?
"Aymeric Laporte did not intend to handle the ball and seemingly did not even realise he had done so from a late corner before Jesus struck."
Does he have no sense of feeling in his arms?
Football was better without VAR
Football was better without VAR
At the end of the day, making the rule black and white and removing the intent question from the analysis of incidents like these makes the decision unquestionable, as we no longer have the reliance on one man’s subjective opinion on what might have been going through another man’s mind.
Handling the ball in the build up to a goal has become a strict liability offence, which is great because it means that there is no doubt over the validity of the goal.
Well if he scores, it tangibly changes the game, if he misses, then it’s no different to playing advantage in our favour and that advantage coming to fruition. Yesterday’s situation happened in a split second, and for years we’ve heard incorrect decisions protected by the argument of it happening too quickly, in a split second so the referee/ linesman couldn’t possibly see. We’ve always heard how the officials don’t have the benefit of multiple camera angles and frames that the tv viewers have. Now, that argument doesn’t exist anymore, the referees have the benefit of perspective, time and clarity.I get that but for me if an action is deemed a foul then this should be true in all areas of the pitch regardless of following actions.
The idea that the ball hitting my hand and my strike partner scores is a foul but if he misses it isn’t, is completely ludicrous to me.
Well if he scores, it tangibly changes the game, if he misses, then it’s no different to playing advantage in our favour and that advantage coming to fruition. Yesterday’s situation happened in a split second, and for years we’ve heard incorrect decisions protected by the argument of it happening too quickly, in a split second so the referee/ linesman couldn’t possibly see. We’ve always heard how the officials don’t have the benefit of multiple camera angles and frames that the tv viewers have. Now, that argument doesn’t exist anymore, the referees have the benefit of perspective, time and clarity.
It’s not a case that it’s not a foul if the player misses, it’s the case that it would be ludicrous to give a free kick two inches away from where there’d have been a goal kick anyway, slowing the match down for no reason, and it’s also the case that if there’s been no goal then there’s no reason to check VAR in this instance, whereas if there is a goal then VAR ensures that it is a good goal.
Subjectivity and grey areas lead to contestable goals, and given that goals more than every other pitch event are the currency which affects where every team finishes in the league, it should always be 100% clear whether or not a goal is a good goal. For this to happen, black and white rules are necessary which remove subjectivity, and the means to adhere to those rules also, and that is the situation we now have.
I accept you don’t want to continue, so feel free to ignore this massively hypothetical question, but if at the end of the season we finish two points behind City with that goal having been given regardless of the fact that it never gets scored without Laporte’s arm, you accept that and don’t feel aggrieved? If so then good on you.Agree to disagree.
He also talks like a BeeGee; that transatlantic tax dodge accent really fucking gratesI struggle to see why the media persist with Keown. He's void of personality, thick as shit and takes himself far too seriously..