• 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

****TOTTENHAM HOTSPUR vs west sham united************

scaramanga said:
More than the pass (which was very good) I was impressed with the movement to lose his man and get the ball.
Click to expand...

This.

I'd also add that Adrians goalkeeping (for our goal) was very poor. Rushed out and consequently got caught in no mans land and made it easy for Dier. Thats not to detract from Diers accomplished rounding of the keeper and tidy finish of course.
 
The club have decided not to appeal the red. Big shame; it now sets the precedent for giving these as reds which wasn't how the law was intended.
 
chicken_badge said:
The club have decided not to appeal the red. Big shame; it now sets the precedent for giving these as reds which wasn't how the law was intended.
Click to expand...

I think I understand their thinking though. If you watch the replays the trajectory of the shot was going for the top corner. So it was a pen but he also saved the shot. Although not on the goal line I believe that is why he was red carded. I think its harsh, very harsh. But I can see why he got the red and why they have decided not to appeal it.

If he was standing in front of the goal and it was a straight shot there would be no debate about this. But because of the angle it feels like it is not the same when it is. Again though its very harsh, he could not get out of the way, and his arms were raised before the shot was taken. So it was ball to hand. But by the letter of the law ( not the spirit ) he handled a goal bound shot and stopped a probable goal.
 
It may have been going over and Lloris may have stopped it.

Reds should be given for hand balls like Suarez in the 2010 World Cup.
 
I think it was wrong for Foy to red card Kyle when he missed the incident. But it may well be that the FA would see the shot as an 'obvious goalscoring opportunity' and thus the red would stand.

Anyway, Dier, Daws, Jan/Kab, Rose/Davies for me v Rangers and stick to having no high line. If we play a high line, whoever we start in the back four is liable to be embarrassed by Remy.
 
I think the whole handball thing needs looking at, unless its an obvious attempt to manipulate the ball with a hand it should be let go imo.
 
Rorschach said:
Anybody know what the official wording of the handball rule is?
Click to expand...

In FIFA's "Rules of the Game", page 37, Law 12 - Fouls and Misconducts - Sending-Off Offenses, it says;

A player, substitute or substituted player is sent off if he commits any of the following seven offences:
- denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area).

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/generic/81/42/36/lawsofthegame_2011_12_en.pdf
 
Daisuk said:
In FIFA's "Rules of the Game", page 37, Law 12 - Fouls and Misconducts - Sending-Off Offenses, it says;

A player, substitute or substituted player is sent off if he commits any of the following seven offences:
- denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area).

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/generic/81/42/36/lawsofthegame_2011_12_en.pdf
Click to expand...

Cheers.
 
Daisuk said:
A player, substitute or substituted player is sent off if he commits any of the following seven offences:
- denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area).
Click to expand...

That's the relevant bit for me. Unfortunately, its down to interpretation, rather than black and white. If Naughton's arms were not up, then would the ball have gone over? If so, then the red card was given wrongly. Lloris would probably have saved the shot (in my opinion) so again, according to one persons point of view it is not a red.

Even if you dilute Lloris's chances of saving the goal it was still a good possibility - rather than probability - so again, no red.

Regarding deliberately I have no sympathy there. You only put your arms up like that if you intend it to be a barrier to the ball. For me, the issue is trajectory. Same ball going parallel to the goal is often given as a penalty but no red.
 
chicken_badge said:
The club have decided not to appeal the red. Big shame; it now sets the precedent for giving these as reds which wasn't how the law was intended.
Click to expand...

Guess Poch was so impressed with Dier at RB he doesn't feel the need for the extra paperwork that the appeal would entail :-k

Graham Poll: Chris Foy right to give penalty for Kyle Naughton handball, but Tottenham should appeal his red card | Mail Online
Just what is handball? That must be the question for players, managers and fans after the first games of the new Premier League season.

Mike Dean was correct when he waved away Manchester United’s penalty appeals in the dying minutes of their defeat at home against Swansea when the ball hit Angel Rangel. The full back was very close to the opponent and had his body turned away so it really was a case of unintentional handball.

Down at West Ham Chris Foy and his assistant felt differently. Foy, after a long consultation with his assistant, gave a penalty for handball and dismissed Kyle Naughton for the denial of an obvious goalscoring opportunity.

Naughton was very close to Kevin Nolan as the West Ham man fired towards goal but as the Tottenham defender had his hands raised in what is termed as unnatural position I could see why a penalty was awarded.

Tottenham manager Mauricio Pochettino agreed, as I did with him when he felt the red card that followed was harsh. The offence defines that the opportunity must be obvious and I cannot see an angle which shows that the ball was definitely on target or that Hugo Lloris might not have saved the effort. Where doubt exists the referee really should not dismiss a player and I think Spurs have a case to appeal the red card.
Click to expand...
 
I agree with Poll, as I've said before, how can Foy red card someone when he missed the incident. Doubt must have existed.

But I can see why we didn't appeal. IF Lloris had been red carded for whatever,and there was doubt, I bet we'd appeal that. I hope we don't play Dier v AEL, let him and Ade have a rest.
 
I think there needs to be an element of though about it, Suarez in the WC for example (which I fully back as the right thing for a player in that position to do) was a considered act, the pen against hulls Chester for example was rediculous, hands were (so he thought) put the way

the game is fo
 
I think there needs to be an element of thought about it, Suarez in the WC for example (which I fully back as the right thing for a player in that position to do) was a considered act, the pen against hulls Chester for example was rediculous, hands were (so he thought) put out of the way

the game is football, why are brushes against a bicep worse than a brush against a misplaced ****?

unless it's an obvious reach id let it go
 
chicken_badge said:
That's the relevant bit for me. Unfortunately, its down to interpretation, rather than black and white. If Naughton's arms were not up, then would the ball have gone over? If so, then the red card was given wrongly. Lloris would probably have saved the shot (in my opinion) so again, according to one persons point of view it is not a red.

Even if you dilute Lloris's chances of saving the goal it was still a good possibility - rather than probability - so again, no red.

Regarding deliberately I have no sympathy there. You only put your arms up like that if you intend it to be a barrier to the ball. For me, the issue is trajectory. Same ball going parallel to the goal is often given as a penalty but no red.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't be much interpretation necessary for the deliberate part. It didn't look like he was putting his arms up or out deliberately to block the ball. Sometimes when you throw yourself or your feet forward to block your arms go up/out. The shot came from about a yard away and was pretty hard, he had no time to react and it was not a deliberate hand ball for me.

galeforce said:
I think there needs to be an element of thought about it, Suarez in the WC for example (which I fully back as the right thing for a player in that position to do) was a considered act, the pen against hulls Chester for example was rediculous, hands were (so he thought) put out of the way

the game is football, why are brushes against a bicep worse than a brush against a misplaced ****?

unless it's an obvious reach id let it go
Click to expand...

I agree for red cards. That's where there has to be an element of thought about it.

However I think the penalty was fine and should be given. When your arms are that far out from your body and you gain a big advantage (stopping a goal bound shot) then some punishment is in order.

The difference between this and the Suarez instance is clear as day. One is deliberate and one is not. The difference in punishment should be clear enough too imo. Both are penalties, but one is a clear red card the other is not. As this was judged by the referee both those offenses have been punished in exactly the same way with a penalty and a red card, that for me seems instinctively wrong as the situations are so clearly different.
 
chicken_badge said:
That's the relevant bit for me. Unfortunately, its down to interpretation, rather than black and white. If Naughton's arms were not up, then would the ball have gone over? If so, then the red card was given wrongly. Lloris would probably have saved the shot (in my opinion) so again, according to one persons point of view it is not a red.

Even if you dilute Lloris's chances of saving the goal it was still a good possibility - rather than probability - so again, no red.

Regarding deliberately I have no sympathy there. You only put your arms up like that if you intend it to be a barrier to the ball. For me, the issue is trajectory. Same ball going parallel to the goal is often given as a penalty but no red.
Click to expand...

Playing devil's advocate, but you could argue that a goal scoring opportunity has nothing to do with the trajectory of the ball and the fact that it is an opportunity is decided before the ball is actually struck. Even if Lloris was likely to make the save, the opportunity to score a goal was still there.

I've got no sympathy for Naughton either, daft to jump in like that with his arms in the air in the box.
 
Superted said:
Disagree - it's exactly how it's intended. He had his arms outstretched and blocked the shot.
Click to expand...

Its a natural reflex, have you had a ball blasted at you from close distance? Can guarantee your arms would go up.

Dont understand why we wouldnt appeal as what do we have to lose? Or does suspension go on for longer period if you appeal?
 
yeah poor decision on the club. seems like they're afraid of upsetting the FA or something. fergie, mnourinho heaps tons of pressure directly or indirectly on the FA and seem to be doing all they can to ensure a favourable result. we just seem to bend backward and let them do what they want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back