• 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 Everton FC ***

Main thing I’m confused about is how all of a sudden it’s OK for an opponent to back into our GK at every single corner without ever being given as a foul - or even an obstruction. I understand that it IS still a contact sport. I also understand that Vicario has been very weak at several set plays. Nonetheless, it’s happening every single corner. I’d be willing to bet that this would be called as a foul elsewhere; for some reason, it being highlighted as a supposed weakness of Vicario means that refs appear to be allowing it. Truly bizarre.

I don’t like the over protection that GKs get. However, the rules MUST be applied uniformly. Therefore, if ‘over protection’ is the way it’s supposed to be, we should be getting that same level of cover. But we arent and it’s costing us.
 
Thought the Werner chance, offside as it was, was a hell of a save from Pickford, players are coached to put it near the keepers feet, as that’s the hardest spot to adjust to.
What was Pickford moaning about for Richi's second goal ?
 
Main thing I’m confused about is how all of a sudden it’s OK for an opponent to back into our GK at every single corner without ever being given as a foul - or even an obstruction. I understand that it IS still a contact sport. I also understand that Vicario has been very weak at several set plays. Nonetheless, it’s happening every single corner. I’d be willing to bet that this would be called as a foul elsewhere; for some reason, it being highlighted as a supposed weakness of Vicario means that refs appear to be allowing it. Truly bizarre.

I don’t like the over protection that GKs get. However, the rules MUST be applied uniformly. Therefore, if ‘over protection’ is the way it’s supposed to be, we should be getting that same level of cover. But we arent and it’s costing us.

There will be some instances where this blocking and jostling is over physical. I thought Vic was weak for the first goal.
 
Main thing I’m confused about is how all of a sudden it’s OK for an opponent to back into our GK at every single corner without ever being given as a foul - or even an obstruction. I understand that it IS still a contact sport. I also understand that Vicario has been very weak at several set plays. Nonetheless, it’s happening every single corner. I’d be willing to bet that this would be called as a foul elsewhere; for some reason, it being highlighted as a supposed weakness of Vicario means that refs appear to be allowing it. Truly bizarre.

I don’t like the over protection that GKs get. However, the rules MUST be applied uniformly. Therefore, if ‘over protection’ is the way it’s supposed to be, we should be getting that same level of cover. But we arent and it’s costing us.
He has an advantage of height, hands and can jump
There is no reason that he shouldn’t clear the ball in those situations. He uses a weird planing a way technique too
The city one was, IMO, a foul as he had no intent to oaky the ball and jumped after Vicario moved (which is why the Burnley Luton goal was allowed - keeper moved after the defender)
But yesterday the attacker moved towards vic… tickled him and he went down like he was really hit. Weak IMO
If he jumps he would get taken out and get fouls
 
Main thing I’m confused about is how all of a sudden it’s OK for an opponent to back into our GK at every single corner without ever being given as a foul - or even an obstruction. I understand that it IS still a contact sport. I also understand that Vicario has been very weak at several set plays. Nonetheless, it’s happening every single corner. I’d be willing to bet that this would be called as a foul elsewhere; for some reason, it being highlighted as a supposed weakness of Vicario means that refs appear to be allowing it. Truly bizarre.

I don’t like the over protection that GKs get. However, the rules MUST be applied uniformly. Therefore, if ‘over protection’ is the way it’s supposed to be, we should be getting that same level of cover. But we arent and it’s costing us.

I felt the same way, but once the mist was gone it was quite clear that the goal was good, as the current interpretation of the rules are.
My main gripe with it now, though, is the lack of consistency. I don't mind a bit less protection for the goalkeepers. Far from it, they are in many ways overprotected, overpapered crybabies who falls over if a striker jumps straight up next to them without even touching them, and they get free kicks for it. So I can understand why Vicario got confused when the Everton-players first stood pushing him, and next came running in from 6 yards to push him as soon as the whistle blew, without being penalised.

However, he did not handle it well. This was done to De Gea when he first arrived also, he was also a little lightweight and got easily flustered if the attackers were infringing his "personal space" on corners. He learned to cope, both by bulking up a little bit, but also by becoming a little smarter.

If you can't handle it yourself, you need to call in a defender to aid you. On several of the corners where Harrison were leaning into Vicario, he could have kept his feet on the ground, moved sideways and forced Harrison to either foul him or fall himself. I don't know too much about goalkeeping, but the one thing I do know is that you can't just jump after the ball like an over-eager Golden Retriever while someone is pushing you below your centre of gravity.

One thing that frustrated me even more yesterday was the moaning, anger and quite frankly absurdly stupid behaviour from both certain Evertonplayers and -fans. Everton invited to a certain dance. It was high energy, hard physicality, and there were tackles and challenges in the air. And I'm fine with that. For a long time we didn't dance. But for a period in the second half we did, and suddenly they were like we were totally, bang out of order! How DARED Richy touch Tarkowski with his elbow in a duel, even though the roles were reversed just before?
 
The games now are averaging an extra 9 minutes over both halves so 10% more playing time
Indeed. Much more chance of a late goal if you're going up to 98 minutes rather than 94.

Including first half injury time, football matches are now getting played to 100+ minutes rather than 93-95. That's a significant leap, with players getting that much more tired and therefore that much more prone to making mistakes.

Add the extra subs, meaning that there are likely to be a couple more fresh players on either side to capitalise, and up go the scorelines.

I've not got time to go stat-hunting, but I wouldn't be surprised if this season featured 2-3 times as many late goals as the previous Prem average.
 
I'd really like an explanation for that decision. For me it looked a penalty all day long.

I think for every VAR decision involving possible red cards or penalties, the VAR team should issue a written explanation after every game. The explanations should be published online, along with video footage of the incidents, in a searchable database.

The PL needs more and better public scrutiny, accountability and transparency about its VAR decisions. This will force refs to emphasise consistency in their decisions, reduce speculation and conspiracy theories, and possibly add a bit of humility about wrongful decisions (for all teams, not just when Liverpool is involved).

It's not hard. The PL could have this up and running by next season at a minimal cost - if they wanted to.

Essentially the edge decisions are deduced by the on-field ref. Almost pointless having var as they won’t overturn/ recommend the monitor. If it had been given it wouldn’t have been overruled either.
 
We don’t moan enough, for those tussles off the ball in the box, Ange should be all over the fourth official, scaring them into getting VAR involved.
 
Essentially the edge decisions are deduced by the on-field ref. Almost pointless having var as they won’t overturn/ recommend the monitor. If it had been given it wouldn’t have been overruled either.
Which is exactly why we need VAR referees to explain why they didn't overrule.

Now we have no idea whether they didn't interfer because of some obscure rule, a detail we all missed, a conspiracy against Spurs or the VAR refs forgetting their glasses at home.

It should take them a few minutes to write it down, max. Given how quickly they seemingly de decided against interfering, there can't have been much deliberation.
 
Which is exactly why we need VAR referees to explain why they didn't overrule.

Now we have no idea whether they didn't interfer because of some obscure rule, a detail we all missed, a conspiracy against Spurs or the VAR refs forgetting their glasses at home.

It should take them a few minutes to write it down, max. Given how quickly they seemingly de decided against interfering, there can't have been much deliberation.
It’s that stupid clear and obvious thing. They are not asking “was that a foul”, they have to ask themselves “is it reasonable that the ref didn’t give it”.
 
Which is exactly why we need VAR referees to explain why they didn't overrule.

Now we have no idea whether they didn't interfer because of some obscure rule, a detail we all missed, a conspiracy against Spurs or the VAR refs forgetting their glasses at home.

It should take them a few minutes to write it down, max. Given how quickly they seemingly de decided against interfering, there can't have been much deliberation.

How do you make the call to the send the ref to the monitor? Or explain that decision? As that’s the next step on the scale.

You could put decisions into categories. Clear. Debatable. How you referee the edge ones is key. And there was a bit of home bias yesterday imo. The crowd making the call on a few edge cases that didn’t favour us.
 
How do you make the call to the send the ref to the monitor? Or explain that decision? As that’s the next step on the scale.

You could put decisions into categories. Clear. Debatable. How you referee the edge ones is key. And there was a bit of home bias yesterday imo. The crowd making the call on a few edge cases that didn’t favour us.

Why not just give the VAR officials with the repays the authority to make the decisions at any time. Go back to the earliest incident missed on the timeline and restart the clock and the game from there.
 
How do you make the call to the send the ref to the monitor? Or explain that decision? As that’s the next step on the scale.

You could put decisions into categories. Clear. Debatable. How you referee the edge ones is key. And there was a bit of home bias yesterday imo. The crowd making the call on a few edge cases that didn’t favour us.
I just want the VAR refs to explain their reasoning for whatever decision they make - be that doing nothing, sending the ref to the monitor or overruling the ref. It's not complicated.

When the VAR refs rewatch any incident, they make a decision based on what they see. I just want them to explain what they saw that made them come to their conclusion.
 
Sorry if someone’s already posted this, but the laws of the game are pretty clear on obstruction being a foul.

Don’t understand why pundits never actually reference the rules when talking about decisions (or indeed fudging referees!)
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1093.png
    IMG_1093.png
    189.1 KB · Views: 20
Last edited:
Sorry if someone’s already posted this, but the laws of the game are pretty clear on obstruction being a foul.

Don’t understand why no-one ever actually references the rules when talking about decisions (seemingly including fudging referees!)

"playing distance" makes that law a bit wooly
 
Back