Spurs and VAR

[Ribble]

The circus continues. Contact not enough? Well it was a stronger contact than the Brentford penalty which was apparently correctly overturned?

I like how he dismisses the second angle which shows exactly why he's wrong and that Maddison's standing leg got taken with enough force to lift it off the bloody ground. As if anyone is staying standing after that.

 

[Dov67]

I get the feeling that if the ref had given a penalty for Maddison foul, he would have said , yes, that was the correct decision - the exact opposite of what he says in that clip.

The refs in the VAR room are either incompetent/useless or corrupt and the former refs giving their opinions on those refs are no better

Until The VAR refs and the on field refs have to go in front of the cameras while watching the incidents on screen and bloody explain themselves, this bullshit will continue

power + zero accountability guarantees bias, incompetence and corruption

 

[jordibwoy]

If the Szoboszlai pen vs Bournemouth was given then Madders' should have been given

 

[AdamYoung]

With so much emphasis on the original decision there is always going to be these massive inconsistencies, where the ref is backed. Typically the one outlier is at Brentford where a tight call was overturned. Ultimately I think VAR will need to be stripped right back to almost no intervention accept for complete howlingly obvious decisions but even then there is the debate as to what is howling enough.

 

[Dillspur]

With so much emphasis on the original decision there is always going to be these massive inconsistencies, where the ref is backed. Typically the one outlier is at Brentford where a tight call was overturned. Ultimately I think VAR will need to be stripped right back to almost no intervention accept for complete howlingly obvious decisions but even then there is the debate as to what is howling enough.

I think it should probably go the other way, in that any tight decision (regarding penalties) should be reviewed by the on field ref. Clear and obvious is still subjective, I can understand why the on-field decision was upheld, from where the ref was it does look like Maddison was playing for it, it wasn't until you saw a different angle that you can see the contact.

 

[Cochise]

I was going to say the same thing. The referee's are making a rod for their own back with this.

Maddison went down upon feeling contact from Basham. Was it enough to upend him? No, but there was contact.

In the Brentford game there was contact. The player actually made more of a meal of it than Maddison did with the way he acted like his leg could no longer function.

So once again we ask where is the continuity? Either both are or both aren't.

 

[yido_number1]

The circus continues. Contact not enough? Well it was a stronger contact than the Brentford penalty which was apparently correctly overturned?

They need to be more consistent that's for sure. I don't mind that not being given against Madison as there wasn't a lot of contact. When you see the son one back it makes a total mockery of what he is saying.

Personally would rather neither are given and the contact has to be enough to warrant going down.

 

[brasil_spur]

They need to be more consistent that's for sure. I don't mind that not being given against Madison as there wasn't a lot of contact. When you see the son one back it makes a total mockery of what he is saying.

Personally would rather neither are given and the contact has to be enough to warrant going down.

I'm the opposite of this, in the case where no contact with the ball has been made - I think if you make contact with a player inside the box whilst attempting a tackle and don't make contact with the ball then it is a penalty - otherwise you're judging on the scale of the contact which is impossible to do.

For me both are penalties, but the Madders one is more obvious as Son's was more of a trailing leg then a tackle.

 

[waresy]

Football is giving itself a problem through all the inconsistency. Allow contact without it being a foul anywhere on the pitch, give fouls for trips, pushes, barges, dangerous etc but not being being stronger than your oppenent.

Son's 'foul' shouldnt have been a penalty, barely touched legs as they changed direction
Maddison was tackled from behind but was it enough to warrant a penalty, if that was against us and given I'd be very annoyed. Maddison (and many other players across the league) needs to stay on his feet more. Why would you though when the directive seems to be attempting to take out contact. You have to chance it as the consequences are little if you are deemed not to have been fouled.

 

[g_harry]

If the Szoboszlai pen vs Bournemouth was given then Madders' should have been given

100% this and the crazy thing about it is that there was no contact in the Szoboszlai pen and yesterday madders heels where clearly clipped. So maddening the inconsistency.

 

[cwy21]

Uh...should we close this thread now?

 

[Marty]

Yeah they really need to publish the official VAR lines from that offside because no angle I've seen suggests anything other than Diaz being fairly clearly onside.

I don't get why they're complaining about the reds though.

 

[Marty]

There we go

I'm not sure how that error is even possible. We benefit this time but I would be so angry if that was against us.

 

[yido_number1]

Haha VAR naused it up. Can't wait to hear from klopp

 

[Wick3d]

Yeah they really need to publish the official VAR lines from that offside because no angle I've seen suggests anything other than Diaz being fairly clearly onside.

I don't get why they're complaining about the reds though.

I saw that and was so deflated because it was onside. When they gave it as offside, I was so happy, but I knew there must have been a cock up! The pictures they showed were of Diaz in an onside position.

The first red, for me, was a red card, but it was unlucky. I don't think the intent was there, just unfortunate, as it was a leg-breaker.

I get the second red, as Jota's first yellow wasn't a yellow card for me. His knee clipped the back of Udogie's foot when he was running not sure how that was intentional. The second yellow, he can't argue about.

The thing is, you win and lose some with VAR and the refs these days. I would love for some consistency as it ruins the game too much

 

[spurmin]

There we go

View attachment 132778


I'm not sure how that error is even possible. We benefit this time but I would be so angry if that was against us.

I thought they checked every goal

 

[Hazelton]

Scrap it.

 

[Yiddo100]

So the technology was fine they just didn’t bother checking? It’s funny, very funny in fact but that will be against us soon and I’ll be raging, sooner VAR is binned the better.

 

[southlondonyiddo]

The officials just released a statement , words to the effect of Really sorry but we absolutely fucked it today lol

Shame. Games gone

 

[Marty]

I thought they checked every goal

They do. They inexplicably fucked up.