• 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 vs Arsenal ***

also, I bet that had Sanchez kicked it against Son at the other end nobody would be arguing with the no penalty call ;)
 
also, I bet that had Sanchez kicked it against Son at the other end nobody would be arguing with the no penalty call ;)
It doesn't matter what fans argue we are always bias. The interpretation is now if your hand is in an unnatural position and you gain an advantage, it is deliberate. If you watch Sanchez, his arms are above his head when the ball hits his arm. The arms are in an unnatural position and he gained an advantage by them being in that position. Therefore by the IFAB interpretation that was a penalty.

But then who cares we won...
 
the rule isn't based on intent, it's based on the hand deliberatly being used to intercept the flight of the ball

if they worded the law to something like "moved arm with intent to impede the ball" then yes it would be a foul

the laws of the game are probably the most studied text in human history, it's taken over a hundred years to distill this law to its current wording
To me deliberate and intentional is the same, but that's maybe because English isn't my first language, and there are some subtle nuances that I don't know of. What I mean and what you wrote is the same.
 
the cheer when we got the penalty was louder than when Kane actually scored it.

When Kane went down, all eyes were on the ref, who struck a stance legs apart and seem to take ages thinking about what he had just seen, before punching a finger at the spot that John Travolta would've been proud of. Bloody drama queen, but I think this is why the cheer was so loud/instantaneous.
 
Redknapp is Liverpool as far as I'm concerned.

Maybe so but he's still an ex Spurs player. He's no less an ex Spurs player than Gareth Bale is now or Luka Modrc/Berbatov etc. For the most part I think he's quite fair about Spurs, yes he tells some home truths about us selling our best players in the past but what do people want him to say? We didn't actually sell Modric and Bale for big money, they're still Spurs players, it's just the media and everyone else is lying to us that they moved to Real Madrid. It's not like he's Jason Cundy who clearly doesn't like us and seems to have forgotten that he played for us and we paid his wages.
 
Maybe so but he's still an ex Spurs player. He's no less an ex Spurs player than Gareth Bale is now or Luka Modrc/Berbatov etc. For the most part I think he's quite fair about Spurs, yes he tells some home truths about us selling our best players in the past but what do people want him to say? We didn't actually sell Modric and Bale for big money, they're still Spurs players, it's just the media and everyone else is lying to us that they moved to Real Madrid. It's not like he's Jason Cundy who clearly doesn't like us and seems to have forgotten that he played for us and we paid his wages.
Yeah, I'm referring to bias.
 
Liverpool over Spurs. I'd say that panel represented Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool.

Well that's a different issue. I agree that panel + the commentators (Smith and Tyler, both massive gooners) was a complete joke. Nothing like the tossfest West Ham got when they left their dump of a ground.
 
Maybe so but he's still an ex Spurs player. He's no less an ex Spurs player than Gareth Bale is now or Luka Modrc/Berbatov etc. For the most part I think he's quite fair about Spurs, yes he tells some home truths about us selling our best players in the past but what do people want him to say? We didn't actually sell Modric and Bale for big money, they're still Spurs players, it's just the media and everyone else is lying to us that they moved to Real Madrid. It's not like he's Jason Cundy who clearly doesn't like us and seems to have forgotten that he played for us and we paid his wages.

Watched Arsenal TV last month and Cundy was interviewed in a Chelsea shirt. He did predict that we would finish above Arse though.
 
Maybe so but he's still an ex Spurs player. He's no less an ex Spurs player than Gareth Bale is now or Luka Modrc/Berbatov etc. For the most part I think he's quite fair about Spurs, yes he tells some home truths about us selling our best players in the past but what do people want him to say? We didn't actually sell Modric and Bale for big money, they're still Spurs players, it's just the media and everyone else is lying to us that they moved to Real Madrid. It's not like he's Jason Cundy who clearly doesn't like us and seems to have forgotten that he played for us and we paid his wages.

To be fair to Cundy, he was always a Chelsea fan and came through their academy before leaving them to play for us. He is usually very fair with his comments/appraisal of us. He also had a bet with Robbie from Arsenal FanTV back when Chelsea beat Arsenal in February that we would finish above Arsenal and that we are a FAR better team; even last year he said them leapfrogging us on the last day was papering over their cracks. He gives Arsenal far more criticism than he gives us.
He is Chelsea through and through but he is fair in how he talks about us; in fact he often defends us when his sidekick Goldstein tries to put the boot in to how we 'bottle it', 'play crap at Wembley', 'don't way the wages' etc

Watched Arsenal TV last month and Cundy was interviewed in a Chelsea shirt. He did predict that we would finish above Arse though.

Indeed
 
Michael Cox covers some of what we were discussing about the fluidity of our formation in his column today.

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...ier-versatility-tottenham-flexibility-arsenal

Saw that, it was exactly the point I was making though. I don't agree that we've often changed from 3-4-3 to 4-2-3-1 mid-half before. We've altered at half time, and maybe have made subtle tweaks, and the 4-2-3-1 has always had Dier dropping in to the middle of the 3 when he's played in midfield, but what I saw was different. It was subtle, but we very obviously shifted Toby along, put Dier on the right side, and had Eriksen dropping in. It lasted for about 5 minutes when I first mentioned it, at the point when Redknapp was discussing our formation as 4 at the back.

We don't disagree on anything here really - I've been hoping for a while that we get to a point of fluidity that means we can switch formation before the opposition can figure us out. A lot of our bad CL performances this year, and our run of draws including away at Bournemouth, were when our 4-2-3-1 had become way too predictable and easy to figure out. The patterns of play were obvious and easy to shut down. Now, we're at a point where we can ostensibly start with a 4-2-3-1 against a 3-4-3 (which should be tougher for us as the 3-4-3 has a space advantage over the 4-2-3-1) but because of our confidence in all areas we can still make it work.

The only thing that would give me more confidence is getting Wanyama trained as a capable right sided centre back in the 3. Otherwise we are too reliant on Dier staying fit in order to have the flexibility which is a key advantage.
 
22 years of them finishing above us and they even invented a day for it yet we're small time for celebrating finishing above them hahahaah

Simply ridiculous. They're such sore losers it's funny. Yet another reason to rrrrreeaally rub it in, in my opinion. Going to a stag night on Saturday where the best man is a Gooner, going to do my best to keep winding him up all evening, haha (he hasn't replied to a single of my texts since we won).
 
Back