Spurs and VAR

[Trotter]

Won’t even bother looking back, can imagine everyone saying how badly we were treated by VAR today, forgetting that we got 2 in my view incorrect game changing decisions go our way with VAR. Firstly the Kane penalty was a foul by Kane not the other way round, and I still cannot see any contact was leve l with the line, and the foul by Doherty should have been a penalty and seen him take an early bath.
In respect of their goal, the most surprising thing was VAR even looked at the foul as was in previous phase of play, but having looked at it amazed referee kept with original decision.

But no getting away from it, we benefitted due to VAR today, and doubt we would have walked away with maximum points without it, and its errors

 

[Spurrific]

Won’t even bother looking back, can imagine everyone saying how badly we were treated by VAR today, forgetting that we got 2 in my view incorrect game changing decisions go our way with VAR. Firstly the Kane penalty was a foul by Kane not the other way round, and I still cannot see any contact was leve l with the line, and the foul by Doherty should have been a penalty and seen him take an early bath.
In respect of their goal, the most surprising thing was VAR even looked at the foul as was in previous phase of play, but having looked at it amazed referee kept with original decision.

But no getting away from it, we benefitted due to VAR today.

You’re a meme.

 

[Tucker]

Won’t even bother looking back, can imagine everyone saying how badly we were treated by VAR today, forgetting that we got 2 in my view incorrect game changing decisions go our way with VAR. Firstly the Kane penalty was a foul by Kane not the other way round, and I still cannot see any contact was leve l with the line, and the foul by Doherty should have been a penalty and seen him take an early bath.
In respect of their goal, the most surprising thing was VAR even looked at the foul as was in previous phase of play, but having looked at it amazed referee kept with original decision.

But no getting away from it, we benefitted due to VAR today, and doubt we would have walked away with maximum points without it, and its errors

You are Peter Walton and I claim my five pounds.

 

[mstill13]

How long until we have MK Yid telling us he got it right?

Came on here just to post this.

I wasn't disappointed.

 

[mil1lion]

Even if he did get a touch on the ball it's still a foul. He goes over the top of the ball and scissors the ankle of Hojbjerg. The ref just seemed to want to back himself because he was so close to it when it happened so reversing the decision would have made him look bad.

 

[taidgh]

Won’t even bother looking back, can imagine everyone saying how badly we were treated by VAR today, forgetting that we got 2 in my view incorrect game changing decisions go our way with VAR. Firstly the Kane penalty was a foul by Kane not the other way round, and I still cannot see any contact was leve l with the line, and the foul by Doherty should have been a penalty and seen him take an early bath.
In respect of their goal, the most surprising thing was VAR even looked at the foul as was in previous phase of play, but having looked at it amazed referee kept with original decision.

But no getting away from it, we benefitted due to VAR today, and doubt we would have walked away with maximum points without it, and its errors

I agree the foul could have gone against Kane, and I think Doherty was very lucky to have not conceded a pen (and a likely red card). But for the Brighton goal, it was a clear foul on Hojbjerg and a definite case of a referee not wanting to admit to his own mistake. Classic self-preservation. And the phase of play was absolutely the same. The tackle/foul won possession, from which the goal was scored - we never regained possession after that incident.

 

[Trotter]

I agree the foul could have gone against Kane, and I think Doherty was very lucky to have not conceded a pen (and a likely red card). But for the Brighton goal, it was a clear foul on Hojbjerg and a definite case of a referee not wanting to admit to his own mistake. Classic self-preservation. And the phase of play was absolutely the same. The tackle/foul won possession, from which the goal was scored - we never regained possession after that incident.

Totally agree it was a foul on Hjobjerg, and amazed it wasn’t overturned when he was invited over. I was more shocked he was invited over though as was in previous phase of play and we had reset our defence so should not have even been looked at by VAR.

 

[SargeantMeatCurtains]

Or alternatively not taking the blind everything and everyone is against a spurs wannabe hooligan view of some of you kids on here, but a view based on the actual incidents that took place rather than the perceived in your minds view of them.

You come on here and take absolute pelters every single week for bizarrely sticking up for referees when they’ve made clear errors.

It’s incredibly weird behaviour. You’ll forever be Peter Walton to this forum. Which you should really take as a compliment considering the fact he was actually a real match official at one point in his life and you were not.

 

[cliff jones]

Doherty would not have seen red if the penalty against him had been given?

or have they reintroduced the douple jeopardy thing?

 

[Trotter]

Doherty would not have seen red if the penalty against him had been given?

or have they reintroduced the douple jeopardy thing?

Wasn’t in genuine attempt at playing ball, so would have been red card if deemed denial of obvious goalscoring opportunity.

 

[Trotter]

“Double jeopardy” only eliminated if genuine attempt to play ball

 

[Dov67]

to improve anything there must be accountability. It doesn't help refereeing standards that they don't have to explain themselves and can hide.

I wonder, having watched that replay on the monitor several times, if Graham Scott would have made that same call if he had known that after the game he would have to stand before the cameras, take questions, be interviewed and explain his decisions not to award a foul. I suspect he would have made a different call.

 

[Shadydan]

Nah this thread is hilarious ??

 

[mstill13]

Differences of opinions are fine. There's one person that seems to be trying so hard to not be biased that they come across totally biased (against us), in my opinion. But let's leave the personal insults out of it now yeah?

We're all living through a pandemic and nobody knows how someone else is coping so telling someone their life is meaningless is not on!

 

[SpursFox]

Just rehashing a bunch of what's been said already most likely, but its 1 a.m. so i'm sure I'm not disturbing anyone with my ramblings at this hour, but goodness gracious me. He clearly realised it was a foul, but wanted to try and find a touch on the ball by the Brighton player, knowing full well it would be irrelevant even if there was one, because you can't get an inconsequential feather touch on a ball in the middle of cleaning someone right out and it not be a foul, pretty sure this has been the way of things for a couple of decades or more now. From a few angles, including ones he saw, it seemed to show not even this wisp of a touch even existed in the first place. But despite him knowing both those things, it was the only possible way he could have justified his decision, so he fell back on it. He probably didn't view it that many times to get a better understanding of it, he was likely just buying time to run through how he was going to blab his justifications to anyone who asked him what on earth he was doing. You could tell by the look on his face, he looked guilty as sin while walking away from that monitor. The fact we won should not mask this incompetence, and there should really be consequences of some variety.

 

[taidgh]

Totally agree it was a foul on Hjobjerg, and amazed it wasn’t overturned when he was invited over. I was more shocked he was invited over though as was in previous phase of play and we had reset our defence so should not have even been looked at by VAR.

Not sure that's what phase of play means. The 'phase' would reset when we regain possession, not just immediately after the incident had occurred. If you have something from ifab that says different, please link here, as I'd love to read it.

 

[nedley]

I always wonder in these situations if a ref tries to balance things up. Kane's pen was very, very soft so I wonder if he wanted to make ammends - shite if so but more understandable than the idea he watched the replay and thought "no foul there!"

Then he's bent.

Simple.

 

[nedley]

Right. How do we get one of these petition thingys going?

 

[BringBack_leGin]

Well this thread took s completely expected, but still hilarious turn...

 

[Marty]

I totally get that Kane was lucky with the penalty. He did a very basketball thing of anticipating the opponent's run, stopping in front of him and allowing himself to be bundled over. He absolutely drew the foul and I would've understood if it hadn't been given.

Doherty was lucky as sin to get away with that tug, it appears he let go just in time to fool the refs.

But is "phase of play" supposed to be an argument for giving the goal to Brighton when they won the ball from a foul, did a quick passing move where no Spurs player even got near the ball and scored ten seconds later? I don't agree with that for a second and would like to see documentation that backs that up. In any case that was never in consideration when Scott made his verdict, he was solely looking at foul/no foul and got that part spectacularly wrong.