Spurs Away thread

[Harv]

No idea, that's what I think.

No one had hold of Jones, he went in leaning back and with his leg up - he's not in control at all. It wasn't reckless or violent but it wasn't in control either.

Yes I've changed my mind.

eh? He was in total control until his foot bounced off the ball and into the shin. His leg wasn't up either. It was on top of the ball Literally defies physics and human anatomy for it to be "up".

What's being missed here also is that in the VAR guidelines they're not supposed to be looking at slow motion replays for these incidents. They make these look far worse than they are. Im sure someone posted a snippet of the guideline earlier. Which should've been our argument. They literally went against their own rules.

In full speed (and showing the entire replay, unlike the VAR showed) it wasn't anywhere near worthy of a red. It wasn't a forceful, aggressive tackle that could've broken a leg. It was a routine tackle, foot down, that just unluckily finished high through a freak bounce of the foot off the ball.

If that was a Spurs player on one of ours it would've just been a FK. Our players are clearly refereed to different standards. The stats don't lie.

LFC need to not back down here. This game was a farce. Theres so many bad calls that the ****ing hatchet job by that Dutch prick on Gomez isn't even being brought up. Stonewall penalty, missed the ball completely and goes through both legs....nothing. But Curtis gets a red because a still image of his foot bouncing off the ball and into the shins, with **** all force is worthy of straight red and a 3 match ban.

[Rigadon]

No idea, that's what I think.

No one had hold of Jones, he went in leaning back and with his leg up - he's not in control at all. It wasn't reckless or violent but it wasn't in control either.

Yes I've changed my mind.

I disagree. So did the club. But the referees know best.

[ame="https://twitter.com/TimD2704/status/1708246601888649230"]https://twitter.com/TimD2704/status/1708246601888649230[/ame]

[Mr Pink]

eh? He was in total control until his foot bounced off the ball and into the shin. His leg wasn't up either. It was on top of the ball Literally defies physics and human anatomy for it to be "up".

What's being missed here also is that in the VAR guidelines they're not supposed to be looking at slow motion replays for these incidents. They make these look far worse than they are. Im sure someone posted a snippet of the guideline earlier. Which should've been our argument. They literally went against their own rules.

In full speed (and showing the entire replay, unlike the VAR showed) it wasn't anywhere near worthy of a red. It wasn't a forceful, aggressive tackle that could've broken a leg. It was a routine tackle, foot down, that just unluckily finished high through a freak bounce of the foot off the ball.

If that was a Spurs player on one of ours it would've just been a FK. Our players are clearly refereed to different standards. The stats don't lie.

LFC need to not back down here. This game was a farce. Theres so many bad calls that the ****ing hatchet job by that Dutch prick on Gomez isn't even being brought up. Stonewall penalty, missed the ball completely and goes through both legs....nothing. But Curtis gets a red because a still image of his foot bouncing off the ball and into the shins, with **** all force is worthy of straight red and a 3 match ban.

The other thing- it’s not like the ball was at Bissouma’s feet and Curtis went in out of control- the ball was there to be won and both players stuck a foot in for it. The only reason that his foot bounced over the ball was cos Bissouma got his foot on the ball stopping it, essentially moving it under jones’ foot. I’m not saying it’s not a red if an opposition player touches the ball or whatever, but just saying it was very unlucky- he didn’t lead with his studs or anything.

The foul itself, I think could go either way, I’d like the ref to give him the benefit of the doubt, early in the match and all (even if that shouldn’t make a difference). Maybe book him and tell him it was borderline and he’ll be gone for a soft one, so tread lightly…

In terms of the appeal, if it’s true that proper protocol wasn’t followed by var, showing the slow motion/freeze frames, then I think that should be enough to have it overruled. Especially as the on field decision was a yellow card. It almost doesn’t matter about the foul at that point- in the end of the day, if the ref said it was a yellow, and var didn’t follow the correct protocol, to overrule the ref, then it shouldn’t stand. Protocols by nature aren’t optional/suggestions. They need to be followed.

[Exiled_red]

The Jones appeal is an interesting one we supposedly appealed on the basis that VAR guidance seemingly wasn't followed. I said as soon as we appealed that it wouldn't be judged objectively it would be a pawn in a bigger strategy linked to the goal, if they were backing the VAR team he would still be suspended, if they were hanging them out to dry the red would be overturned. Unsurprisingly PGMOL have gone into 'protect their own mode'

[S-RED]

https://twitter.com/ynwamatt/status/1708242899568132451

Posted on page 16. Looks like the ref was informed.

I reckon 4th official Oliver who is constantly in touch with vAR is telling Hooper of the **** up; that audio needs releasing

[S-RED]

my best guess is he wanted spurs to win by 3 or 4 goals, so that people stop focusing on the one goal which was not given. He did not expect us to be so resilient in the second half.

this

[BG1973]

I disagree. So did the club. But the referees know best.

https://twitter.com/TimD2704/status/1708246601888649230

Bissouma equally off balance, in fact he should also have got a straight red for having the audacity to go for the ball and endangering Curtis' toenails.

[Jas]

The other thing- it’s not like the ball was at Bissouma’s feet and Curtis went in out of control- the ball was there to be won and both players stuck a foot in for it. The only reason that his foot bounced over the ball was cos Bissouma got his foot on the ball stopping it, essentially moving it under jones’ foot. I’m not saying it’s not a red if an opposition player touches the ball or whatever, but just saying it was very unlucky- he didn’t lead with his studs or anything.

The foul itself, I think could go either way, I’d like the ref to give him the benefit of the doubt, early in the match and all (even if that shouldn’t make a difference). Maybe book him and tell him it was borderline and he’ll be gone for a soft one, so tread lightly…

In terms of the appeal, if it’s true that proper protocol wasn’t followed by var, showing the slow motion/freeze frames, then I think that should be enough to have it overruled. Especially as the on field decision was a yellow card. It almost doesn’t matter about the foul at that point- in the end of the day, if the ref said it was a yellow, and var didn’t follow the correct protocol, to overrule the ref, then it shouldn’t stand. Protocols by nature aren’t optional/suggestions. They need to be followed.

in my opinion Curtis was favourite to win the ball until he got that little tug on him which is why he was a split second late getting to the ball, without that tug, no foul and no red card so them not playing the whole incident ****ed us over again

[BG1973]

Doesn't matter about what started it. The rules are saying as soon a player knows he's not in complete control then he should not bother going for the ball.

So despite the tug Curtis should have just stopped because it was so clear and obvious to him that by trying to nick the ball the following events would ensue. Sure.

Every single aerial duel has the potential to go wrong with worse consequences. Yet unless it's a blatant elbow they are never reprimanded with collisions seen as part of the game.

[Kenneth]

Fundamentally, the rules exist to stop players getting badly hurt. Now it’s not strict liability, you can’t get sent off for a freak accident, but it’s the player’s responsibility not to put other players at risk. This incident lead to an impact that could have seriously injured the other player, it happened as part of a tackle that Jones made deliberately and whilst the bounce off the ball wasn’t entirely predictable, it was a direct result of the motion that jones made (we don’t need ‘clear and obvious’ bs here). It’s important that players are discouraged for making motions that might end up as this did. I understand why people feel aggrieved about the circumstances, but again, player safety is more important that harshly apportioned blame and such incidents should end in a red card as part of that focus on player welfare.

That said, I think the appeal had merits, if correct protocol was not followed then the punishment should not be enforceable as the goal of improving the fairness of the judgement process is also important.

[rudedog]

The thing that sticks in the throat is that the last time we played Spurs, a very similar incident occurred between Diaz and Skipp. In that challenge, Skipp came in late but got something on the ball but caught Diaz with a studs up challenge on the shin:



We didn’t even get a free kick for this!

When you hear the reason why it wasn’t given and compare it to the Jones tackle, it just boils the piss:

[ame]https://twitter.com/TheSportsman/status/1653012511334039552[/ame]

[RichC]

It comes back to consistency doesn't it or the lack of it. It doesn't help the likes to Gallagher being rolled out to explain why/why not it's a red.

[Kenneth]

The thing that sticks in the throat is that the last time we played Spurs, a very similar incident occurred between Diaz and Skipp. In that challenge, Skipp came in late but got something on the ball but caught Diaz with a studs up challenge on the shin:



We didn’t even get a free kick for this!

When you hear the reason why it wasn’t given and compare it to the Jones tackle, it just boils the piss:

https://x.com/TheSportsman/status/1653012511334039552

Yep, Gallagher is a dickhead, that’s a red for all of the reasons that Jones’s was. He endangers the players through his own actions, stonewall red.

[rudedog]

Fundamentally, the rules exist to stop players getting badly hurt. Now it’s not strict liability, you can’t get sent off for a freak accident, but it’s the player’s responsibility not to put other players at risk. This incident lead to an impact that could have seriously injured the other player, it happened as part of a tackle that Jones made deliberately and whilst the bounce off the ball wasn’t entirely predictable, it was a direct result of the motion that jones made (we don’t need ‘clear and obvious’ bs here). It’s important that players are discouraged for making motions that might end up as this did. I understand why people feel aggrieved about the circumstances, but again, player safety is more important that harshly apportioned blame and such incidents should end in a red card as part of that focus on player welfare.

That said, I think the appeal had merits, if correct protocol was not followed then the punishment should not be enforceable as the goal of improving the fairness of the judgement process is also important.

Don’t agree with this at all - if you followed that logic, pretty much every 50/50 challenge could result in an injury as you never quite know what’s going to happen when you have two players trying to kick a ball (at speed).

Football matches would be ****e, like life size sabuto

[RedReet]

So once the mistake is realised, both the Replay operator and the PGMOL comms repeatedly implore Darren England to tell the on field ref to delay the game.

And he just refuses, saying there’s nothing he can do.

Who is it saying 'can't do anything'? England.

That first response he almost sounds gleeful, certainly dismissive. The other ones are clearly worried about the wrong decision and he's just 'nah **** it, can't do anything'.

And who's talking at at start? 'Delaying, delaying, just coming back for the offside'.

Is that the linesman talking or at least him they are talking about. Delaying putting up his flag, then calling for a check on the offside? Why did they think it was given?