*** OMT: Tottenham Hotspur vs Emirates Marketing Project (part 2/3) ***

[Kandi1977]

I said we got a bit of luck in some respect because whilst they were correct decisions Llorente handball one could easily of been given by another ref(especially if had seen the angle not shown to him) and even the offside was extremely close. Not everyone agrees that the Llorente decision was the correct one even if we do, it is very much a judgement call. Oh and try telling Eriksen he didn’t get lucky....

Those who think it was handball, obviously have no fudging clue about the rules. Getting a correct decision according to the rules, is not lucky. It's justice.

 

[spasm]

Victor and Dele looked absolutely shattered at the end...

Sent from my SM-J600G using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

 

[milo]

I said we got a bit of luck in some respect because whilst they were correct decisions Llorente handball one could easily of been given by another ref(especially if had seen the angle not shown to him) and even the offside was extremely close. Not everyone agrees that the Llorente decision was the correct one even if we do, it is very much a judgement call. Oh and try telling Eriksen he didn’t get lucky....

The offside was clear.

Most of the people claiming the Llorente decision was incorrect think that next year's rule changes are already in place. These are the current rules, again, it seems pretty clear cut:

Handling the ball involves a deliberate act of a player making contact with the ball with the hand or arm.

The following must be considered:

• the movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards the hand)
• the distance between the opponent and the ball (unexpected ball)
• the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an offence
• touching the ball with an object held in the hand (clothing, shinguard, etc.) is an offence
• hitting the ball with a thrown object (boot, shinguard, etc.) is an offence

The goalkeeper has the same restrictions on handling the ball as any other player outside the penalty area. Inside their penalty area, the goalkeeper cannot be guilty of a handling offence incurring a direct free kick or any related sanction but can be guilty of handling offences that incur an indirect free kick.

 

[Bedfordspurs]

The offside was clear.

Most of the people claiming the Llorente decision was incorrect think that next year's rule changes are already in place. These are the current rules, again, it seems pretty clear cut:

Handling the ball involves a deliberate act of a player making contact with the ball with the hand or arm.

The following must be considered:

• the movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards the hand)
• the distance between the opponent and the ball (unexpected ball)
• the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an offence
• touching the ball with an object held in the hand (clothing, shinguard, etc.) is an offence
• hitting the ball with a thrown object (boot, shinguard, etc.) is an offence

The goalkeeper has the same restrictions on handling the ball as any other player outside the penalty area. Inside their penalty area, the goalkeeper cannot be guilty of a handling offence incurring a direct free kick or any related sanction but can be guilty of handling offences that incur an indirect free kick.

Scary isn’t it...

You make your own luck in football and you need a competent ref...

The ref got every decision right on Wednesday and VAR helped him

I can get a photo that shows Kompany handling the ball in the area... he didn’t but on the angle of the photo it looks clear that he did and it’s why I have a major problem with people bringing in new angles after the event

 

[Gazza Dazzla]

View attachment 6480

Scary isn’t it...

You make your own luck in football and you need a competent ref...

The ref got every decision right on Wednesday and VAR helped him

I can get a photo that shows Kompany handling the ball in the area... he didn’t but on the angle of the photo it looks clear that he did and it’s why I have a major problem with people bringing in new angles after the event

 

[Glenda's Legs]

The offside was clear.

Most of the people claiming the Llorente decision was incorrect think that next year's rule changes are already in place. These are the current rules, again, it seems pretty clear cut:

Handling the ball involves a deliberate act of a player making contact with the ball with the hand or arm.

The following must be considered:

• the movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards the hand)
• the distance between the opponent and the ball (unexpected ball)
• the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an offence
• touching the ball with an object held in the hand (clothing, shinguard, etc.) is an offence
• hitting the ball with a thrown object (boot, shinguard, etc.) is an offence

The goalkeeper has the same restrictions on handling the ball as any other player outside the penalty area. Inside their penalty area, the goalkeeper cannot be guilty of a handling offence incurring a direct free kick or any related sanction but can be guilty of handling offences that incur an indirect free kick.

From what I understand, even under next season’s rules, it would not necessarily be a handball offence. He would have to have gained or created an advantage/goal directly through the ball accidentally touching his arm. Given that it grazed his arm before landing on his hip without changing direction, this means the act of the ball hitting his arm has not in of itself created an advantage/goal.

Unfortunately I think there is going to be as much uncertainty and controversy with the new rules as there are now, even though the aim is to simplify the interpretation.

 

[Bedfordspurs]

View attachment 6481

I did wonder if City was gonna do their one VAR with “new” angles...

The problem is that once the new ones get published they actually seem to be the ones that people assume are right. The Chelsea ones at Wembley we’re dodgy as hell IMO yet people still say we scored a goal that shouldn’t have stood

 

[the dza]

I think the luck wasn't in the decisions (which were correct) but in Aguerro straying a little bit offside, which cancelled out the monumentally bad decision from Eriksen to try and pass that ball back instead of kicking it out of the stadium. Aguerro being in a different position by a few inches would have changed everything, it's not like we were looking to play offside at that point in the game. We were just fortunate that he was standing in ever so slightly the wrong place (from his perspective).

But we have had enough bad luck in these types of games over the years, we are due a lucky run all the way to lifting the trophy!

 

[Glenda's Legs]

I did wonder if City was gonna do their one VAR with “new” angles...

The problem is that once the new ones get published they actually seem to be the ones that people assume are right. The Chelsea ones at Wembley we’re dodgy as hell IMO yet people still say we scored a goal that shouldn’t have stood

I can’t see the point of new angles showing that it hit Llorente’s arm. I’m not seeing many people arguing that it definitely did not hit his arm.
What people are jumping to conclusions on is that this automatically makes it an offence, which it doesn’t.

 

[Bedfordspurs]

I can’t see the point of new angles showing that it hit Llorente’s arm. I’m not seeing many people arguing that it definitely did not hit his arm.
What people are jumping to conclusions on is that this automatically makes it an offence, which it doesn’t.

I know
The rules seems to have got too complicated
The alternative of course would be for all players to have their arms removed before they play now

 

[Bedfordspurs]

I think the luck wasn't in the decisions (which were correct) but in Aguerro straying a little bit offside, which cancelled out the monumentally bad decision from Eriksen to try and pass that ball back instead of kicking it out of the stadium. Aguerro being in a different position by a few inches would have changed everything, it's not like we were looking to play offside at that point in the game. We were just fortunate that he was standing in ever so slightly the wrong place (from his perspective).

But we have had enough bad luck in these types of games over the years, we are due a lucky run all the way to lifting the trophy!

Or was it bad positioning from him and great defending for our team to still be holding the line on 93 minutes?

 

[the dza]

Or was it bad positioning from him and great defending for our team to still be holding the line on 93 minutes?

Maybe. I think it was more luck than judgement.

 

[harr1984]

View attachment 6480

Scary isn’t it...

You make your own luck in football and you need a competent ref...

The ref got every decision right on Wednesday and VAR helped him

I can get a photo that shows Kompany handling the ball in the area... he didn’t but on the angle of the photo it looks clear that he did and it’s why I have a major problem with people bringing in new angles after the event

That was my point about the element of luck, we had a ref who made the correct calls. They are still judgement calls and there are definitely refs who would have swayed under pressure and said no goal. In the first leg I believe we were unlucky with the Rose penalty, even though that one was closer to handball with the arms in an unnatural position thing, I still don’t think it was handball and still think plenty of refs wouldn’t of given that as a handball. VAR gives you more opportunity to scrutinise big decisions, but it still doesn’t guarantee you will get the correct decision given....

 

[harr1984]

Or was it bad positioning from him and great defending for our team to still be holding the line on 93 minutes?

Or was it great play by Eriksen who knew passing it to Bernardo would deflect it to Augero and he knew he was in an offside position?

 

[Bedfordspurs]

Maybe. I think it was more luck than judgement.

But it’s all subjective

You say luck

I’d say ultimately poor play from Aguero

Or did city get the luck that the ball went that way off eriksens pass

 

[Bedfordspurs]

That was my point about the element of luck, we had a ref who made the correct calls. They are still judgement calls and there are definitely refs who would have swayed under pressure and said no goal. In the first leg I believe we were unlucky with the Rose penalty, even though that one was closer to handball with the arms in an unnatural position thing, I still don’t think it was handball and still think plenty of refs wouldn’t of given that as a handball. VAR gives you more opportunity to scrutinise big decisions, but it still doesn’t guarantee you will get the correct decision given....

The offside was a clear call and wasn’t a judgement one

The hand ball wasn’t a clear and obvious error regardless of anything else so again was right

 

[the dza]

Or was it great play by Eriksen who knew passing it to Bernardo would deflect it to Augero and he knew he was in an offside position?

This is the obvious answer!

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

From what I understand, even under next season’s rules, it would not necessarily be a handball offence. He would have to have gained or created an advantage/goal directly through the ball accidentally touching his arm. Given that it grazed his arm before landing on his hip without changing direction, this means the act of the ball hitting his arm has not in of itself created an advantage/goal.

Unfortunately I think there is going to be as much uncertainty and controversy with the new rules as there are now, even though the aim is to simplify the interpretation.

I agree: this is next years rules.....

The changes mean gaining control or possession and then scoring as a consequence of handling the ball will not be allowed - neither will a goal scored directly from handling the ball, regardless of intent.

Another change to the laws of the game means that if the player's arms extend beyond a "natural silhouette", handball will be given, even if it is perceived as accidental.

Elleray says this is an effort to put an end to defenders placing their arms behind their backs in fear of giving away a free-kick.

"We've changed it to say the body has a certain silhouette," said Elleray. "If the arms are extended beyond that silhouette then the body is being made unnaturally bigger, with the purpose of it being a bigger barrier to the opponent or the ball.

"Players should be allowed to have their arms by their side because it's their natural silhouette."

Not sure where Llorente falls fouls of any of that.

The bizarre thing with the other night is the obsession with whether it hit his arm or not.......even if it did (i think it did) it still wasnt an infringement under the laws of the game. (and perhaps even next seasons, maybe a ref could tell us what would happen to LLorente goal if it was next season)

 

[scaramanga]

The offside was clear.

Most of the people claiming the Llorente decision was incorrect think that next year's rule changes are already in place. These are the current rules, again, it seems pretty clear cut:

Handling the ball involves a deliberate act of a player making contact with the ball with the hand or arm.

The following must be considered:

• the movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards the hand)
• the distance between the opponent and the ball (unexpected ball)
• the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an offence
• touching the ball with an object held in the hand (clothing, shinguard, etc.) is an offence
• hitting the ball with a thrown object (boot, shinguard, etc.) is an offence

The goalkeeper has the same restrictions on handling the ball as any other player outside the penalty area. Inside their penalty area, the goalkeeper cannot be guilty of a handling offence incurring a direct free kick or any related sanction but can be guilty of handling offences that incur an indirect free kick.

The ref got the decision right but for the wrong reasons. After watching the video he signalled that the ball had hit Llorente's hip, not his arm.

 

[FatBloke]

The ref got the decision right but for the wrong reasons. After watching the video he signalled that the ball had hit Llorente's hip, not his arm.

I'm not so sure. His interpretation could have been that it was a goal off Llorente's hip (which it was) rather than his arm (which was the question). The ball brushing his arm, which was in a perfectly natural position close to his body, was incidental and Llorente derived no advantage from it, nor was there any intent.