• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

*** OMT Tottenham Hotspur v Arsenal FC ***

Mikey10 said:
Isn’t the point in this instance that VDV is adjudged to have been offside when the ball is played to him? He is therefore in an advantageous position when the ball drops to him. Isn’t everything that happens after that (i.e. the rebounds) by-the-by?
Click to expand...
Isn’t it a different phase of play though? Once the Goon player attempts to clear then it’s a new phase and VDV can’t be offside as its cleared on to his own player and in to the path of VDV.

It’s all to do with the interpretation of whether the ref or VAR thinks Tomiyasu (?) try’s to clear the ball or whether he was just trying to block it. They’ve obviously come to the conclusion it’s just ricocheting around and not an intentional action to clear or pass the ball away, in which case it’s the same phase of play and VDV is off (although we were never shown the lines annoyingly). That audio on the Chelsea pen that was released a few days ago opened up a whole new can of worms on that, but it’s another discussion, let’s just assume they chose the right frame and drew the lines from the right body parts!
 
Last edited:
Gazza Dazzla said:
Isn’t it a different phase of play though? Once the Goon player attempts to clear then it’s a new phase and VDV can’t be offside as its cleared on to his own player and in to the path of VDV.

It’s all to do with the interpretation of whether the ref or VAR thinks Tomiyasu (?) try’s to clear the ball or whether he was just trying to block it. They’ve obviously come to the conclusion it’s just ricocheting around and not an intentional action to clear or pass the ball away.
Click to expand...
No it’s to do with if they believe Tomy whatever his name had control of the ball. He never did.
It’s a daft rule
If it comes off the opposition it should just reset the phase
 
Bedfordspurs said:
No it’s to do with if they believe Tomy whatever his name had control of the ball. He never did.
It’s a daft rule
If it comes off the opposition it should just reset the phase
Click to expand...
If he’s trying to clear it then you could argue he has control of the ball, it’s different to a block, it’s not like he has to take a touch first to deem it’s under his control. That’s why I say it’s a judgment call and one I don’t necessarily disagree with by the way. I can see why they adjudged it an attempted block and not a clearance.
 
Gazza Dazzla said:
If he’s trying to clear it then you could argue he has control of the ball it’s different to a block, it’s not like he has to take a touch first to deem it’s under his control. That’s why I say it’s a judgment call and one I don’t necessarily disagree with by the way. I can see why they adjudged it an attempted block and not a clearance.
Click to expand...
The rules are clear on how then perceive control
Personally… I’d be more focussed on the lines and the fact we know they can’t get them accurate
 
Bedfordspurs said:
The rules are clear on how then perceive control
Personally… I’d be more focussed on the lines and the fact we know they can’t get them accurate
Click to expand...
Indeed, I edited my post a couple back to mention that, the Chelsea audio gave zero confidence on the process for when it’s close, so much margin for error. Hopefully the AI improves that next season but would like to understand the process on that.
 
Posted in the VAR thread, but thought I’d share it here too.

In my opinion, it's a case of a subjective view in a definitive ruling...

Was VDV in offside positon when Porro struck the ball - Yes, therefore he was offside.

However, where is became subjective is whether Tomiyasu deliberately played the ball or whether it was a deflection. If a deliberate action then it's a new 'phase' and where VDV is standing when Porro kick it becomes irrelevant. The second touch y Gabriel is a deflection. Therefore, to be given offside the VAR officials have deemed the first touch was accidental.
 
Bedfordspurs said:
I can’t agree
Reya doesn’t come for any corners
They deal with them because their system works
Vucario is outstanding but having a moment. Remember when de gea came in and people identified his weakness. It got fixed (although he was still a vampire keeper)
Vic has lost his confidence at coming for corners. Our record before Emirates Marketing Project was very good. They fouled him and got away with it (not all the ones are fouls on him)
Yesterday was quite extreme though. Ben white trying to undo his gloves FFS.
What Vic needed to do was smash him in the face before the ball is kicked and see how the ref deals with it
Click to expand...
With a red card for Vicario
 
Gazza Dazzla said:
Indeed, I edited my post a couple back to mention that, the Chelsea audio gave zero confidence on the process for when it’s close, so much margin for error. Hopefully the AI improves that next season but would like to understand the process on that.
Click to expand...
I’ve posted it before but when it came in there was a few articles published about its accuracy
Margin of error was 6”…
 
Gazza Dazzla said:
Isn’t it a different phase of play though? Once the Goon player attempts to clear then it’s a new phase and VDV can’t be offside as its cleared on to his own player and in to the path of VDV.

It’s all to do with the interpretation of whether the ref or VAR thinks Tomiyasu (?) try’s to clear the ball or whether he was just trying to block it. They’ve obviously come to the conclusion it’s just ricocheting around and not an intentional action to clear or pass the ball away, in which case it’s the same phase of play and VDV is off (although we were never shown the lines annoyingly). That audio on the Chelsea pen that was released a few days ago opened up a whole new can of worms on that, but it’s another discussion, let’s just assume they chose the right frame and drew the lines from the right body parts!
Click to expand...
I’m lost with it all tbh - which underlines the problem, I suppose.

I would ask why any defending player, whose job it is to block incoming passes and shots, can be adjudged to be accidentally touching the ball in their own area during an attack by the opposition, though. Isn’t that the whole point of them being there?
 
Finney Is Back said:
The first corner we conceded from yesterday also came because he played a terrible ball in behind (I think it was) VDV, putting him into real trouble. At that point when you can’t pass to the defenders feet or in front of him you have to go long…. The attempted ball there should’ve been long and towards our left wing for Werner to chase. Worst result is a throw in to Arsenal or the ball back with their keeper.
Click to expand...
I do agree with the general principle. But I also believe that there is a higher reward when breaking a press that is putting us in that position, because then you are catching the opposition completely off guard. At this stage of the development there are times that we will not get away with it. But as we continue doing it over and over and bring in better players, we will reap the rewards more often than not.

It's frustrating, but it's probably also necessary for us to evolve. And it won't happen overnight, so we have to be patient with it.
 
alekaras said:
I do agree with the general principle. But I also believe that there is a higher reward when breaking a press that is putting us in that position, because then you are catching the opposition completely off guard. At this stage of the development there are times that we will not get away with it. But as we continue doing it over and over and bring in better players, we will reap the rewards more often than not.

It's frustrating, but it's probably also necessary for us to evolve. And it won't happen overnight, so we have to be patient with it.
Click to expand...
Also Ben Davies slipped in that moment so that passing option was gone
 
alekaras said:
Yes, if you have actually controlled the game, created more than them, and didn't get the rub of the green by millimeters. And if one of their goals should have been pulled back and a pen awarded to you on the other end.
Click to expand...
One team was clinical, canny and totally professional; the other one wasn’t.
 
Mikey10 said:
I’m lost with it all tbh - which underlines the problem, I suppose.

I would ask why any defending player, whose job it is to block incoming passes and shots, can be adjudged to be accidentally touching the ball in their own area during an attack by the opposition, though. Isn’t that the whole point of them being there?
Click to expand...
A ball that deflects off a defenders block has always been considered as offside. It would be onside if he purposely played the ball to someone. I don't think it's difficult tbh.
 
Bishop said:
.

Hah someone has actually posted it in this very thread. Maybe I should read the entire thread before I comment sometimes. But yeah it's like I thought, their goal was exactly the same and it was given. Hmmmmmmmm
Click to expand...
He looks onside to me when the initial shot was taken?
 
Finney Is Back said:
For ‘smashing him in the face’ as you said in your post. That would be a red card.
Click to expand...
For what?
Ball not in play
So violent conduct
Ref would have to be 100%
And that’s not really something they are very good at
When white was undoing his glove for example an elbow in a kinda get off me way would be fine
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back