• The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...

    Get involved!

Player James Maddison

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

Shadydan said:
lmao wtf, how was either of them conclusive?

The amount of times both were replayed will tell you that, it doesn't even look like Tel even touched him in the replay, what are we going here 🤣
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Didn't Ampadu have stud marks in his forehead in his post-match interview? I thought it was a clear penalty and I couldn't believe the commentators took so long to acknowledge it tbh. If that was Neville, it would be a stream of "ooooooooooooh, that's a penalty".
 
Shadydan said:
lmao wtf, how was either of them conclusive?

The amount of times both were replayed will tell you that, it doesn't even look like Tel even touched him in the replay, what are we going here 🤣
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Seriously, doesn’t look as if he touched him.
He has a mark the size of a snooker ball slap bang in middle of his forehead,where Tel caught him.
I assume any delay, I can’t tell how why it took long as was not seeing live pictures as at ground, was to decide what disciplinary action to give Tel, if any.

You can lead a horse to water, can’t make them drink it.
But fucking hell you have got some selective vision
 
Trotter said:
Seriously, doesn’t look as if he touched him.
He has a mark the size of a snooker ball slap bang in middle of his forehead,where Tel caught him.
I assume any delay, I can’t tell how why it took long as was not seeing live pictures as at ground, was to decide what disciplinary action to give Tel, if any.

You can lead a horse to water, can’t make them drink it.
But fucking hell you have got some selective vision
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Haha You don't get to see marks on players head in real time, we only found out that mark on Ampadu's head in the interview after, that doesn't mean it was conclusive in any way shape or form.

The delay literally took 4 fekin mins to resolve, that generally means they were undecided, why do you think it took so long?

But you seem to have some super 8k eyesight that's better than actual cameras which is pretty impressive I'll grant you. 😆
 
Trotter said:
But they were both totally conclusive.

Tel kicked their player in the head.
That was conclusive, and left a massive mark on their players head. Don’t know what more conclusive evidence you need than our players kicking theirs in the head 6 foot in the air, after their player headed the ball.

The tackle by their player in the box clearly got the ball, again what more conclusive evidence than him playing the ball and it changing direction do you need
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
But then why the difference in how they were reviewed?

They looked at Tels one for what seemed an age, angle after angle. In one angle it looked like a foul, the other it looked like there was no contact. So rightly, they told the ref to go look at it.

For Maddison’s they checked it for literally what seemed like 10 seconds before deciding no pen check complete. No review from the ref, even though similarly, one angle looked a foul, the other not so much.

It’s the biggest issue with VAR, it’s the way it’s used and not the technology itself. There’s no consistency or standardisation of how incidents are reviewed and it leaves it far too open to bias, subjectivity and human error.
 
TomHotspur said:
But then why the difference in how they were reviewed?

They looked at Tels one for what seemed an age, angle after angle. In one angle it looked like a foul, the other it looked like there was no contact. So rightly, they told the ref to go look at it.

For Maddison’s they checked it for literally what seemed like 10 seconds before deciding no pen check complete. No review from the ref, even though similarly, one angle looked a foul, the other not so much.

It’s the biggest issue with VAR, it’s the way it’s used and not the technology itself. There’s no consistency or standardisation of how incidents are reviewed and it leaves it far too open to bias, subjectivity and human error.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
No. They didn't tell the referee to go and look at it because it was inconclusive. That is not the process.
They told the referee to look at it because they felt it was conclusive that the referee had made an obvious error. Literally everybody apart from a very very few minority Spurs fans agree it was totally correct decision to award the penalty.

For Maddison's referee gave no foul, VAR within 10 seconds, if that is how long it took, came to correct conclusion that he was correct and the ball had been played, so had no reason at all to send the referee to the monitor.


I really cannoit see the issue here at all.
Referee made obvious error in first decision, he is sent to monitor to correct it
Referee did not make any error on second decision, he is not sent to monitor.

VAR has many issues, but none of the decisions it made yesterday were wrong, although some opposition are saying the offside given when Udogie would have given away the penalty, and potentially been sent off, one frame before and one frame after, he was onside in both, so was that VAR favouring the bigger club by selectively picking that specific frame to use. I am not into that conspiracy theory, not any of the ones that VAR is against us either.
 
Trotter said:
No. They didn't tell the referee to go and look at it because it was inconclusive. That is not the process.
They told the referee to look at it because they felt it was conclusive that the referee had made an obvious error. Literally everybody apart from a very very few minority Spurs fans agree it was totally correct decision to award the penalty.

For Maddison's referee gave no foul, VAR within 10 seconds, if that is how long it took, came to correct conclusion that he was correct and the ball had been played, so had no reason at all to send the referee to the monitor.


I really cannoit see the issue here at all.
Referee made obvious error in first decision, he is sent to monitor to correct it
Referee did not make any error on second decision, he is not sent to monitor.

VAR has many issues, but none of the decisions it made yesterday were wrong, although some opposition are saying the offside given when Udogie would have given away the penalty, and potentially been sent off, one frame before and one frame after, he was onside in both, so was that VAR favouring the bigger club by selectively picking that specific frame to use. I am not into that conspiracy theory, not any of the ones that VAR is against us either.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Agree, we've had some rotten decisions this year but both were correct last night
 
100% should of been a penalty, defender got faintest of touches of the ball, but swiped Maddisons legs preventing him from gaining control of the now "loose ball"
 
Last edited:
JimothyCF14 said:
The cheer when he took his bib off was almost as loud as for Tels goal. Properly excited to have him to back.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We used to have such great players in Son and Kane, who the crowd were treated to when they were coming on for us...

The cheer for Madders last night was something so greatly missed for us, because we have none of such influential and a star of a player since. And TBH, Madders is not even that star of a player. It just showed how much weaker our squad is now that he's our best player.

Pathetic squad building from Vinai, Lange and Frank cunts.
 
FYI there were 49 seconds between the challenge and VAR deciding it wasn't a pen.

They spent nearly 4 and a half minutes on the Raya/Pablo one. And about the same on the Tel/Ampadu pen call.
 
Trotter said:
But they were both totally conclusive.

Tel kicked their player in the head.
That was conclusive, and left a massive mark on their players head. Don’t know what more conclusive evidence you need than our players kicking theirs in the head 6 foot in the air, after their player headed the ball.

The tackle by their player in the box clearly got the ball, again what more conclusive evidence than him playing the ball and it changing direction do you need
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The fact that there was the slightest touch in the ball was conclusive. Whether it was still a penalty isn't that black and white. There's no rule that says the slightest contact the ball excuses taking out the player when they still have a play on the ball.

After some thought, I believe falls within the call in the field stands category. If it was called a pen, VAR also shouldn't have been overruled.
 
Ironic tackle said:
The fact that there was the slightest touch in the ball was conclusive. Whether it was still a penalty isn't that black and white. There's no rule that says the slightest contact the ball excuses taking out the player when they still have a play on the ball.

After some thought, I believe falls within the call in the field stands category. If it was called a pen, VAR also shouldn't have been overruled.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I just know if it were Saka or Salah or just about anyone against us going to ground there at 1-1 in added time, they call it on the field and say VAR deemed it not a clear and obvious error.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top