Player Watch Player Watch: Cristian Romero

[philll]

Did you know that VAR have access to the sky sports commentary. These are Gary Neville’s words during the review:


Gary Neville called it a “mad challenge” and “mayhem” in commentary for the game’s UK broadcaster Sky Sports, and it is hard to disagree.

“Trust me, as a defender, that is not a natural follow-through,” former Manchester United and England full-back Neville added. “He knows what he’s doing.”

Now surely that can’t be helpful and must sway the video referees. I wouldn’t mind hearing the audio of this one and whether their comments mirror Neville’s.

Even if VAR have access to the broadcaster commentary (and I don't know that they do because why would they?) they surely have better things to do in the limited time they have than listen to it.

 

[Tucker]

Did you know that VAR have access to the sky sports commentary.

Is this true? Where did you hear this? Doesn’t sound right to me.

 

[spursfan77]

Even if VAR have access to the broadcaster commentary (and I don't know that they do because why would they?) they surely have better things in the limited time they have than listen to it.

yeah maybe but human nature and the fact that we know it isn’t exactly the most professionally approached.

Is this true? Where did you hear this? Doesn’t sound right to me.

I’m sure is was discussed on here. Happy to be told otherwise.

 

[Tucker]

yeah maybe but human nature and the fact that we know it isn’t exactly the most professionally approached.



I’m sure is was discussed on here. Happy to be told otherwise.

Just doesn’t seem realistic given the chaotic nature of the communication that we’ve listened too, they’re too busy talking to each other, the referee, the replay operator and the fourth official. Doubt there’s room in there for them to listen to what Gary Neville is saying.

And why would they have the sky audio and not the default premier league audio, which has a different set of commentators. They aren’t sat there rewinding it on a sky plus box.

 

[rossdapep]

In my view, he did nothing wrong on the tackle. Won the ball clean. His follow through was unfortunate, but not intended. His knee was already planted on the ground, there was no way he could side foot clear the ball ,with the power that was required in such a situation, and not have his leg on that position. Short of breaking his ankle such that his studs point downwards. It is just not physically possible. It was a 50-50 and the nature of 50-50s is that the one late to the ball by milliseconds tends to get legs flying into em. Unfortunate, but it’s the nature of the game. A game for men. Or at least it was.

Even if it were to be pulled back. And regardless of the decision to award a yellow or red for dangerous play. There was no foul committed. He legally won the ball 100%. So shldnt it be like an indirect free kick in the box then? Not a penalty.

I’m just flabbergasted at all the injustice I saw in the game. Don’t get me started on the offsides. Both son’s and caicedo’s goals shld hv stood imo. It was too close a call and the cameras can’t get 100% accuracy for offsides. They had to switch the camera angle on son’s goal before they could call it offside. There needs to be a margin of error factored in such that both son’s and caicedo’s disallows goals wld hv been legal.

And if Caicedo’s goal had been given, I don’t think they wld hv scrutinised the Romero incident so incisively such that he gets sent off. So much wrong with VAR.

Sorry for the rant. Had to get it off my chest.

I feel exactly the same and said this yesterday.

They are actively trying to find fault with a goal or foul.

This goes against the spirit of the game which is to entertain.

Of course you then have to balance that against fair play and abiding the rules etc but when the rules start to limit the fun of the game I think you have a problem.

When Caicedo scored, I accpeted the goal and didn't see anything. Chelsea celebrated and Spurs knew they had a game now.

When they pulled it back I was genuinely baffled as I didn't see anything wrong with it. I don't think anyone did either.

Had they not pulled that back, I am certain hardly anyone would have complained about Romero's challenge and Spurs fans wouldn't have complained about the Chelsea goal. Everyone would 'crack on'.

There needs to be more common sense.

For a start, they could limit VAR calls to just one per sequence. The last action.

A foul in the build up and a potential offside = just check the offside.

The sequence in the Newcastle v Arsenal game and ours has just eft a bitter taste to be honest.

 

[Gilzeanking]

The problem for VAR is that TV is there and each decision will be re-checked anyway on TV.

Take VAR away and the refs/linos are in for a regular kicking from TV due to microscopic issues that can only be seen by TV but at least the game would flow. Cheering as a goal went in was such fun.

 

[newbie]

I feel exactly the same and said this yesterday.

They are actively trying to find fault with a goal or foul.

This goes against the spirit of the game which is to entertain.

Of course you then have to balance that against fair play and abiding the rules etc but when the rules start to limit the fun of the game I think you have a problem.

When Caicedo scored, I accpeted the goal and didn't see anything. Chelsea celebrated and Spurs knew they had a game now.

When they pulled it back I was genuinely baffled as I didn't see anything wrong with it. I don't think anyone did either.

Had they not pulled that back, I am certain hardly anyone would have complained about Romero's challenge and Spurs fans wouldn't have complained about the Chelsea goal. Everyone would 'crack on'.

There needs to be more common sense.

For a start, they could limit VAR calls to just one per sequence. The last action.

A foul in the build up and a potential offside = just check the offside.

The sequence in the Newcastle v Arsenal game and ours has just eft a bitter taste to be honest.

If our second goal had stood it was game over

Chelsea got away with fouling us constantly, there was one in the first minute on Kulusevski, nothing, that set the tone.

 

[newbie]

I feel exactly the same and said this yesterday.

They are actively trying to find fault with a goal or foul.

This goes against the spirit of the game which is to entertain.

Of course you then have to balance that against fair play and abiding the rules etc but when the rules start to limit the fun of the game I think you have a problem.

When Caicedo scored, I accpeted the goal and didn't see anything. Chelsea celebrated and Spurs knew they had a game now.

When they pulled it back I was genuinely baffled as I didn't see anything wrong with it. I don't think anyone did either.

Had they not pulled that back, I am certain hardly anyone would have complained about Romero's challenge and Spurs fans wouldn't have complained about the Chelsea goal. Everyone would 'crack on'.

There needs to be more common sense.

For a start, they could limit VAR calls to just one per sequence. The last action.

A foul in the build up and a potential offside = just check the offside.

The sequence in the Newcastle v Arsenal game and ours has just eft a bitter taste to be honest.

There was a foul before there first goal

 

[tevezito]

Typical Cuti performance for Argentina last night in loss to Uruguay, probably their best player. Just staying on the right side of the edge, which is probably easier to do in a South American qualifier than in a Premier League due to the quality and consistency of the refereeing.

 

[spurs mental]

 

[Cochise]

Sounds a bit like George Best dribbling in a two touch game by just bouncing the ball off his opposition.

 

[mark87]

 

[Hoddle&Waddle]

Cost us 9 points.

 

[agrdavidsfan]

Cost us at least 6 points I am not so keen of welcoming him back with open arms, as I wouldn’t be surprised if he gets sent off next week either

 

[spurs mental]

Cost us at least 6 points I am not so keen of welcoming him back with open arms, as I wouldn’t be surprised if he gets sent off next week either

He can't play next week anyway, he's back for West Ham.

 

[GetKaned]

Cost us 9 points.

If his absence cost us 9 points then his presence must have won us 26

 

[agrdavidsfan]

He can't play next week anyway, he's back for West Ham.

Ahhh thought the ban was up

 

[soflapaul]

One would haveto think that while the red card hurt us badly short term, there may be a silver lining that lasts years. Watching that game in jeans knowing that his absence probably cost us 3 points had to be very sobering. His behavior improved after given the armband so you know that the 3 game ban is going to weight heavily on him.

 

[Freddie]

If his absence cost us 9 points then his presence must have won us 26

Well, yes. His presence is what he's paid for. We know he's a great defender. What he did against Chelsea was idiotic.

 

[Spursmatty87]

Cost us at least 6 points I am not so keen of welcoming him back with open arms, as I wouldn’t be surprised if he gets sent off next week either

Whilst I’m not happy with what he did. The fact spurs didn’t sign two cb’s in the summer has cost us the points not Romero.