The real definition of levelling out...

[Maske2g]

Everyone is moaning about the ref's, and yes we've had some bad luck.....

but here is the real definition of levelling out over the course of the season......

We were shit at home to Sunderland, got 3 pts
Shit away to Fulham, got 3 pts
Shit at home to WB 3 pts


There have been games where we deserved more. Yesterday....and at Stoke, specifically,

but we have got more than we deserved our fair share of times this season.

We are where we deserved to be, based on 22 matches of football, not 4 refereeing decisions.

Stop crying.....babies...

 

[Glenn_Purvey]

we can still win the league!!!

 

[Mr Pink]

Couldn't disagree more and what the hell does that have to do with it - grinding out games at home...we wern't aided by referee decisions in those instances.

 

[tttcowan]

couldn't disagree more and what the hell does that have to do with it - grinding out games at home...we wern't aided by referee decisions in those instances.

this.

 

[Glenn_Purvey]

there is still 16 games left in the league thats 48 points, spurs have every chance on winning the league this year.

 

[talkshowhost86]

Couldn't disagree more and what the hell does that have to do with it - grinding out games at home...we wern't aided by referee decisions in those instances.

Yup the two things are very different. If the other team creates more chances but then you snatch a winner, you deserve the win.

If you lose a game because a decision goes wrongly against you then that's a completely different issue.

For what it's worth I think we've had some decisions go very much in our favour this year so we shouldn't whinge too much, but to say we didn't deserve the wins against West Brom and Sunderland is ridiculous.

 

[Spurs_Bear]

Everyone is moaning about the ref's, and yes we've had some bad luck.....

but here is the real definition of levelling out over the course of the season......

We were shit at home to Sunderland, got 3 pts
Shit away to Fulham, got 3 pts
Shit at home to WB 3 pts


There have been games where we deserved more. Yesterday....and at Stoke, specifically,

but we have got more than we deserved our fair share of times this season.

We are where we deserved to be, based on 22 matches of football, not 4 refereeing decisions.

Stop crying.....babies...

What an absolute load of bollocks.

We might not have played 'brilliantly' against Sunderland or WBA at home but we were the better team in both games, so we technically did 'deserve something from the games'.

And we weren't helped by an incompetent fuckwit of a ref.

What an epic, epic fail of an opening to a thread.

 

[dvdhopeful]

Everyone is moaning about the ref's, and yes we've had some bad luck.....

but here is the real definition of levelling out over the course of the season......

We were shit at home to Sunderland, got 3 pts
Shit away to Fulham, got 3 pts
Shit at home to WB 3 pts


There have been games where we deserved more. Yesterday....and at Stoke, specifically,

but we have got more than we deserved our fair share of times this season.

We are where we deserved to be, based on 22 matches of football, not 4 refereeing decisions.

Stop crying.....babies...

Not coming down on either side here but you are confusing what is being argued over. There is a distinct difference between us playing badly and refereeing decisions changing the course of matches.

Neither the West Brom nor Sunderland matches had anything to do with an official. Fulham, it did, but you mention us being 'shit' rather than the referee helping us.

edit: didn't realise about 14 other people said the same :lol:

 

[GoldstarYid]

Couldn't disagree more and what the hell does that have to do with it - grinding out games at home...we wern't aided by referee decisions in those instances.

What he said.

 

[dontcallme]

About as intelligent a post as Boris' views on Modric.

Every team has bad games but there is more to winning games than putting in great performances. We've got a good keeper, a solid centre that is hard to break down, several top quality attacking midfielders and a striker with a good work rate and ability to hold up the ball and bring others into the game.

These qualities alone will see teams get three points in games when they don't play well.

 

[CaptainCat]

We weren't shit against WBA, lol.

 

[AngerManagement]

Everyone is moaning about the ref's, and yes we've had some bad luck.....

but here is the real definition of levelling out over the course of the season......

We were shit at home to Sunderland, got 3 pts
Shit away to Fulham, got 3 pts
Shit at home to WB 3 pts


There have been games where we deserved more. Yesterday....and at Stoke, specifically,

but we have got more than we deserved our fair share of times this season.

We are where we deserved to be, based on 22 matches of football, not 4 refereeing decisions.

Stop crying.....babies...

How is this a definition of anything?

Your being a bit of an arrogant prick to be honest, who are you to tell people to stop crying and label them babies?

THIS IS A FOOTBALL FAN FORUM! of course fans are going to discuss key incidents that go against their club here, you would have to be fucking retarded not to get that.

What is the point of your post exactly?

None of the games you mention (with the slight exception of Fulham) bare any relevance to the type of points fans have been making about harsh treatment from officials.

You say we played poorly against Sunderland, ok....but we were still the better team, they were just hard to break down, we broke them down and we won...what is your point about that game?

Same goes for WBA, we were easily the better team for the bulk of the match. We didn't play well but we were hardly lucky to win nor were we aided by poor decisions from the officials for the win.

Fulham people can point to their second half performance, but then we were better in the first and held a deserved lead. YOu can point to Walker's hand ball but then what about Sidwell's foul on Parker.

Ok no one is disputing that we have picked up points when not playing our best, but that is the measure of a top team not a "true definition of balancing out"

You didn't even make the post about a balancing of decisions that have gone for us to counter those people have been pointing to that have cost us points.

All you have done is mention some subjective bollocks that in no way counters the arguments people have put forward for key decisions going against us in tight games (such as wrongly disallowed goals)

You are just voicing opinion about what you feel we deserved from games, others are talking about actual injustices resulting from poor decisions that would have changed the result in matches. Stoke, Chelsea and Wolves all contained errors that either wiped out perfectly good goals for us, gave goals against us that should have been ruled out or in the stoke and wolves games BOTH....this isn't subjective, its a clear and distinct error that had all been correctly awarded or ruled out would have lead to all three games being victories and an extra 7 points right there.

You can turn around and say what you think we deserved from other games, because even if you play poorly DEFENDING IS PART OF FOOTBALL and the ability to GRIND OUT RESULTS WHEN PLAYING POORLY is part of football.

That is by no means the same as having ref errors influencing results.

Your argument is as foolish as saying we shouldn't have complained about the Pedro Mendes goal that was ruled out at Old Trafford because they played better than us over the 90mins....in other words in makes no sense.


The only thing your post is a true definition of is stupidity I'm afraid my friend.

 

[nightgoat]

We were shit at home to Sunderland, got 3 pts
Shit away to Fulham, got 3 pts
Shit at home to WB 3 pts

Just like away to Stoke, and at home to Wolves and Chelsea, we scored more legitimate goals than the opposition in those three games.

 

[TheGreenLily]

Couldn't disagree more and what the hell does that have to do with it - grinding out games at home...we wern't aided by referee decisions in those instances.

Ummmmm... Fucking spot on :up:

 

[TheGreenLily]

there is still 16 games left in the league thats 48 points, spurs have every chance on winning the league this year.

Not with the ref's around we ain't :lol:

 

[Azazello]

There's no such thing as "getting what you deserve" in a results-oriented game; you win, lose or draw. Referees make mistakes and will therefore influence the outcome of matches. That is the case for all teams.

The way we can win more games is by conceding fewer goals, scoring more and worrying less about random mistakes from officials, as they will always happen.

 

[AngerManagement]

There's no such thing as "getting what you deserve" in a results-oriented game; you win, lose or draw. Referees make mistakes and will therefore influence the outcome of matches. That is the case for all teams.

The way we can win more games is by conceding fewer goals, scoring more and worrying less about random mistakes from officials, as they will always happen.

They wouldn't always happen if measures were put in place to prevent them.

Perhaps refs could be held accountable for their errors more, this could lead to better performance or at least stop people feeling aggrieved

The obvious answer is to simply introduce the type of technology that would eradicate all glaringly obvious decisions and matters of fact.

Put it this way, a fourth official with access to replays could have told the ref that Ade's goals against Wolves, Stoke and Chelsea were all legitimate without disruption to the game as well as ruling out the Stoke goal that Crouch handled in.....although I don't think we should go down the route of questioning every corner or free kick decision so the Wolves goal would probably still have occurred.

You'd also like to think that those two red card incidents would have handled better had a fourth official had involvement i.e. club captains are allowed to request a viewing from the ref (even limit these to avoid time wasting) and Parker and Kaboul could have requested a viewing of the incidents that happened to them and I would think with very little effort a decision could have been made by the fourth official and relayed to the ref.

It might not totally eradicate all errors from the game, but it would surely level the playing field somewhat and at least everyone would have a fairer chance of getting what they merit from a season instead of all this THESE THINGS EVEN THEMSELVES OUT bollocks we always have to listen to.

 

[dontcallme]

There's two ways to improve the situation.

There first is use of technology. Big decisions can be reviewed very quickly and violent actions such as Ballotelli's yesterday could be caught and punished immediately. I know some argue that it would stop the flow of the game but the reality is there are so many divers, people rolling around holding their ankles etc that football isn't reallt free-flowing anyway. Once players know they will be punished on the spot for cheating in time it will cut down a lot anyway.

Secondly is making refs the authority figure on the pitch again. Everyone abuses refs whether they get decisions right or not. Swear at the ref = booking, surround the ref = booking, any level of disrespect = booking. The captain can then have more of a dialogue with the ref.

"Stoke defenders are grabbing us from corners ref" = ref watches out for it at the next set-piece

Refereeing will only improve once technology is used, they get better support from the 3rd and 4th officials and they command authority on the pitch again.

 

[Azazello]

I agree - we could and should do something to minimise random errors. I wouldn't be against a fourth official with power to advise/instruct a ref on things that're missed or just called wrongly. The ref's authority isn't diminished in Rugby Union by allowing the review of the validity of a try for example and I believe that a football version of that could be made to work well - it would cut down on some of the more egregious mistakes that plague our game.

Getting the old duffers at the FA or FIFA to run with it is another matter, of course!

 

[AngerManagement]

The officials are so much better in rugby, football is by far the biggest sport it is quite embarrassing how they have such a higher standard of referring

Fact is as said above they are backed up by technology and authority given to them by the governing bodies.