VAR

[Snowflake Royal]

VAR a disaster yet again. How on earth was Firmino offside?

I've not seen it, but heard it was given for his armpit being offside or something daft!

How close a call was it? These marginal decisions are still being made with technology that just isn't accurate enough to be able to make these calls with 100% confidence so I don't understand why it's being allowed.

I thought the lino flagged him off rather than VAR, but VAR checked it and I certainly couldn't see it, but maybe a millimetre at chest /armpit.

Almost nothing in it and I think it should have stood. Never seen one less obvious.

[Hoop Blah]

VAR a disaster yet again. How on earth was Firmino offside?

I've not seen it, but heard it was given for his armpit being offside or something daft!

How close a call was it? These marginal decisions are still being made with technology that just isn't accurate enough to be able to make these calls with 100% confidence so I don't understand why it's being allowed.

I thought the lino flagged him off rather than VAR, but VAR checked it and I certainly couldn't see it, but maybe a millimetre at chest /armpit.

Almost nothing in it and I think it should have stood. Never seen one less obvious.

I don't think it matters if the lino flagged it or not does it, once play went on and the goal was scored it was, as you say, checked by VAR which isn't accurate enough to adjudicate on such fine margins.

I'm not sure how that scenario is supposed to work though. Did the ref blow his whistle when the lino flagged? If so then the goal couldn't have stood anyway. If he didn't blow then the fact the lino put their flag up is surely irrelevant to the VAR decision as they're looking at it regardless.

[URZZZZ]

Can someone explain how Everton didn't get a penalty today when Alli handballed it? Thanks

[leon]

Can someone explain how Everton didn't get a penalty today when Alli handballed it? Thanks

No.i can’t.

[Jack Celliers]

Can someone explain how Everton didn't get a penalty today when Alli handballed it? Thanks

No.i can’t.

I thought it came off an Everton arm before it hit the upraised arm of Dele Alli. VAR is shit, but the rule change meaning that handball by an attacker doesn't have to be deliberate is worse.

[Old Man Andrews]

VAR needs to go immediately. This is not football.

[URZZZZ]

VAR needs to go immediately. This is not football.

I can’t see them getting rid of VAR in the Prem. Too stubborn and too proud to admit it’s failing. Hopefully I’m wrong

At least it’s not in the Championship yet. Although when we get promoted this season, it’ll be a problem for us...

[genome]

Can someone explain how Everton didn't get a penalty today when Alli handballed it? Thanks

No.i can’t.

It was a shambles all round.

Spurs probably should've had a pen (Son did "dive" but Mina took his leg out)
Everton should've had a penalty - notwithstanding the amount of time it took for the decision to be made
Son shouldn't have been sent off - VAR should've intervened

[URZZZZ]

To be fair, I think Son’s tackle (whilst wasn’t a bad tackle) was out of retaliation. Literally a minute or so before, Gomes flung his arms into Son’s face and nothing was given for it. Chances are it led to Son wanting to get his own back (obviously not intending what actually happened though). Some awful calls at Goodison yesterday and I don’t think it’s acceptable whatsoever given the pressure both Silva and Pochettino were under. It’s actually pretty disgraceful

[Old Man Andrews]

Can someone explain how Everton didn't get a penalty today when Alli handballed it? Thanks

No.i can’t.

It was a shambles all round.

Spurs probably should've had a pen (Son did "dive" but Mina took his leg out)
Everton should've had a penalty - notwithstanding the amount of time it took for the decision to be made
Son shouldn't have been sent off - VAR should've intervened

This is exactly the issue with VAR. Why is the referee not being told that it was only a yellow card for the cynical trip? The referee in fact went over to Son with the yellow card in hand until the full horror of the injury was seen. Yes it was a horrible injury but there was absolutely zero intent by Son to cause it. Whoever was reviewing the footage surely could see that as 99% of the viewers on TV could. Aurier diving in to a tackle on a player already going down was far more dangerous yet he received nothing to my knowledge.

Awful bad luck isn't a red card offence and I hope the 3 game ban is overturned, Son has suffered enough I think judging by his reaction.

[Sanguine]

'endangering the safety of an opponent' is not linked to intent in the laws of the game.

[Old Man Andrews]

'endangering the safety of an opponent' is not linked to intent in the laws of the game.

Why did the referee run over to Son with a yellow card in hand and then change his mind when he saw the injury? If we are going by your rule then surely Son was "endangering his opponent" the whole time and not just when the severity of the injury was seen?

Is any tackle made on a football pitch technically endangering your opponent? Could you not technically break someones leg by accident every time you make a tackle? Would you like tackling to be outlawed?

[Sanguine]

'endangering the safety of an opponent' is not linked to intent in the laws of the game.

Why did the referee run over to Son with a yellow card in hand and then change his mind when he saw the injury? If we are going by your rule then surely Son was "endangering his opponent" the whole time and not just when the severity of the injury was seen?

Is any tackle made on a football pitch technically endangering your opponent? Could you not technically break someones leg by accident every time you make a tackle? Would you like tackling to be outlawed?

I'd suggest it wasn't evident from Atkinson's initial view the danger that Son's trip had put Gomes in. The yellow card was ready for the cynical foul, it was quickly evident that more had occurred.

By the way, it's not 'my rule', it is football's laws.

And no, every tackle is not 'endangering an opponent', that's a facetious and slightly strange statement given what occurred at Goodison Park. In fact you highlight how/why Atkinson dealt with this correct - endangerment can become more evident on the understanding of the whole of an incident.

[Old Man Andrews]

'endangering the safety of an opponent' is not linked to intent in the laws of the game.

Why did the referee run over to Son with a yellow card in hand and then change his mind when he saw the injury? If we are going by your rule then surely Son was "endangering his opponent" the whole time and not just when the severity of the injury was seen?

Is any tackle made on a football pitch technically endangering your opponent? Could you not technically break someones leg by accident every time you make a tackle? Would you like tackling to be outlawed?

I'd suggest it wasn't evident from Atkinson's initial view the danger that Son's trip had put Gomes in. The yellow card was ready for the cynical foul, it was quickly evident that more had occurred.

By the way, it's not 'my rule', it is football's laws.

But Atkinson only saw it once, he didn't go for a second look at it. How can he change his mind without looking at it again? He changed his mind based on the severity of the injury which isn't thing, you cannot do that.

Why was Aurier not punished for diving into a tackle with an opponent already going down from the foul by Son? Is that a more dangerous thing to do?

[Sanguine]

Why did the referee run over to Son with a yellow card in hand and then change his mind when he saw the injury? If we are going by your rule then surely Son was "endangering his opponent" the whole time and not just when the severity of the injury was seen?

Is any tackle made on a football pitch technically endangering your opponent? Could you not technically break someones leg by accident every time you make a tackle? Would you like tackling to be outlawed?

I'd suggest it wasn't evident from Atkinson's initial view the danger that Son's trip had put Gomes in. The yellow card was ready for the cynical foul, it was quickly evident that more had occurred.

By the way, it's not 'my rule', it is football's laws.

But Atkinson only saw it once, he didn't go for a second look at it. How can he change his mind without looking at it again? He changed his mind based on the severity of the injury which isn't thing, you cannot do that.

Why was Aurier not punished for diving into a tackle with an opponent already going down from the foul by Son? Is that a more dangerous thing to do?

You don't seem to understand the laws of the game. First, the referee can change his mind whenever he likes, even if OMA says he can't. Second, I'd suggest that as Atkinson got a better understanding of the situation, probably with an assistant in his ear too, he made a different judgement.

[Sanguine]

Why was Aurier not punished for diving into a tackle with an opponent already going down from the foul by Son? Is that a more dangerous thing to do?

And this is another weird statement. Play was rapid and fluid - Aurier was going in for the tackle, and Gomes would have gone into it too had Son not tripped him. We can't make a judgement on an Aurier tackle that didn't happen as it might have.

[Old Man Andrews]

I'd suggest it wasn't evident from Atkinson's initial view the danger that Son's trip had put Gomes in. The yellow card was ready for the cynical foul, it was quickly evident that more had occurred.

By the way, it's not 'my rule', it is football's laws.

But Atkinson only saw it once, he didn't go for a second look at it. How can he change his mind without looking at it again? He changed his mind based on the severity of the injury which isn't thing, you cannot do that.

Why was Aurier not punished for diving into a tackle with an opponent already going down from the foul by Son? Is that a more dangerous thing to do?

You don't seem to understand the laws of the game. First, the referee can change his mind whenever he likes, even if OMA says he can't. Second, I'd suggest that as Atkinson got a better understanding of the situation, probably with an assistant in his ear too, he made a different judgement.

You're talking complete bollocks aren't you? You are aware that 99% of the population, ex professional referees and ex professional footballers disagree with what you are saying? Are they all wrong and you're right? Classic Sanguine.

[Sanguine]

I'm giving you my opinion. The only 'classic' here is your condescension. You took a break last time you couldn't help keep putting people in their place here. Consider another if that's your schtick again.

[URZZZZ]

I'm giving you my opinion. The only 'classic' here is your condescension. You took a break last time you couldn't help keep putting people in their place here. Consider another if that's your schtick again.

+1

I actually agree with his opinion here. But he has to act like a knob about it all the time. It’s actually a shame because he wasn’t like that when he first came back after his break. Sad existence

[stealthpapes]

The wording is "careless, reckless or using excessive force".

I think it is really not hard to imagine a ref reassessing the amount of force involved.

FWIW, I think Aurier's follow-up tackle definately should have been punished - reckless/careless don't begin to sum it up.