• Current Donation Goals

Michael Tucker

Tottenham Hotspur 1 Chelsea 0

Recommended Posts

Sciatika   

The important point now is to get it firmly entrenched in referee's minds that Chelsea were the better team over the 90 minutes with more shots on and off target, more corners, fewer fouls and that Spurs won the game by being awarded a penalty based on a wrong decision by VAR that undermined the correct decision of the officials. The Chelsea players stopped because the linesman stopped but the linesman did so because he was in line and could clearly see the offside. It was a mistake to refer to VAR. The referee should have trusted his assistant, but it was understandable because VAR is new. There is always a tendency to overuse new things until you get used to what works and what does not. The players should have played to the whistle but, in a noisy atmosphere, you don't always hear the whistle. They probably assumed it had been blown. It was unfortunate but we play on and try to overcome the deficit in the replay. We need to be careful not to overplay but merely mention it at appropriate times, especially when reporters bring it up, in the build-up to the second leg. The psychology is important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, grunson said:

That was what I thought. However after a bit of searching around this morning I came across a suggestion that it is only 'subjective' decisions (the usual 'in the opinion of the referee' decisions like 'was it a foul?') that can be considered in that way (that would cover missed incidents too). Offsides are considered to be 'objective' decisions, the same as the ball crossing the line. That is to say someone is either offside or they aren't. It may be that the conclusion of VAR was actually that things were so close that they had to give the benefit of the doubt in favour of the attacker.

The problem is that we don't actually know exactly how the VAR decision was reached and also that VAR may be being assumed to be able to make an objective decision in every case with no option to defer back to the original decision.

This is really the age old problem with the offside laws. Rules really intended to prevent 'goal hanging' and crowding the keeper end up being used by defending teams to play opponents offside and have to be interpreted to millimetre precision. I don't think there is any solution.

Off-side only applying inside the penalty area? Could make for interesting tactics! 😉 😉 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
grunson   
9 minutes ago, Bob Singleton said:

Off-side only applying inside the penalty area? Could make for interesting tactics! 😉 😉 😉

The only suggestion I would have is that we just accept the officials are making their best guess and, when it is possible to measure objectively, get it right the vast majority of the time. Then we take an 'never mind, it happens' approach when they miss one, remembering that rather a lot of us will have seen players seemingly being ten yards offside in real time and screamed in rage at the officials and then discovered they are about two yards onside when we see a replay. It is so not going to happen, sadly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ham   

I suggested a few days ago that as a club, we start to publicly complain about dodgy reffing decisions. 

Sarri finally did it and the media has had to deal with it today. 

It won't be as easy for officials to make biased decisions in the coming weeks, mark my words. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sky’s reporting of the incident today almost made me put my foot through the screen. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, paulw66 said:

Norwich at home last season. Look what happened. 

Cricket and tennis is black and white. Was the ball going to hit the stumps, was the batsman out of his crease. Tennis even easier - was the ball in or out.

VAR in football for fouls or potential fouls are going to be subjective. How many times on a football program do you see 2 "experts" give different opinions on whether something was or was not a foul. all the time. 

Offside is also black and white and technology is also used in Rugby very successfully.

Quite simply, the availability of technology to enable the capability to review a situation, (whatever its type), once again from possibly different viewpoints adds to an ability to adjudicate on it.

Furthermore, had it been roles reversed last night, with us seeking the same penalty as Kane was, and had technology ruled in our favour, then Mark et al would have all been in favour of it.

Edited by PeteRobbo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The_Ghost said:

No way what? 

No way do I agree with the comment you made and which I emboldened as a quote above my statement of no way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
paulw66   
3 minutes ago, PeteRobbo said:

Offside is also black and white and technology is also used in Rugby very successfully.

Quite simply, the availability of technology to enable the capability to review a situation, (whatever its type), once again from possibly different viewpoints adds to an ability to adjudicate on it.

Furthermore, had it been roles reversed last night, with us seeking the same penalty as Kane was, and had technology ruled in our favour, then Mark et al would have all been in favour of it.

Offside wasn't black and white last night was it? He was off and was given on. 

Rugby is very different. Far more restarts, lineouts, scrums etc. 

I don't want VAR full stop, irrespective of last night's shambles, but you are missing Mark's point....it didn't go our way, and it will continue not to. Not only did it not go our way, it was incorrectly ruled against us. They used technology to overturn a correct decision to our detriment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, paulw66 said:

Offside wasn't black and white last night was it? He was off and was given on. 

Rugby is very different. Far more restarts, lineouts, scrums etc. 

I don't want VAR full stop, irrespective of last night's shambles, but you are missing Mark's point....it didn't go our way, and it will continue not to. Not only did it not go our way, it was incorrectly ruled against us. They used technology to overturn a correct decision to our detriment. 

Actually it is far more subtle.  The only thing stopping refs being ever increasingly bias (as the PMGOL unwittingly encourages) is their fear of making obviously silly errors.
VAR protects them from the really big errors, while doing nothing to dissuade them from smaller errors or bigger mismanagement.
A ref giving a penalty for an obvious dive is protected by VAR.  A ref who fails to book anyone from a team that commits a series of brutal fouls gets not correction at all.
The biased ref just has it easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.