Fa Cup fifth round- rochdale afc v tottenham hotspur

  • 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!

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

“We got the job done under shambolic circumstances through the game.

“An absolute disgrace, waiting around for I don’t know how many minutes to get a decision.

“It’s just laughable. It just ruined it a little bit.”
Danny Rose
 
Now that I do agree with. It’s genuinely baffled me how Son could have been said to have “completed” his run up. He was a couple of yards away from the ball when he stopped for a millisecond.
I’ve maintained from the offset that the ref got it wrong, even with his VAR. I’ve just not been sure what constitutes an illegal feint.
Goalies try to gain every advantage over the penalty taker but never get pulled for it. The penalty is given because the attacking team was offended against. It seems bloody unfair that the penalty taker isn’t then allowed to even the playing field by using a bit of smoke & mirrors. In this case, Sonny is carded for doing something he is perfectly entitled to do & it gave Rochdale a head of steam for a while. They must have thought it was game on when every decision was going their way.
Happily it didn’t affect the outcome, but if this is how the rule is going to be interpreted from now on, it re writes how penalties will be scrutinised.
If it was (hopefully) just another brain fart in a long list of brain farts from last night, then the ref needs to spend a few months in non league.
I feel like it's about consistency also. I've seen many, many penalties taken the way Sonny did so last night, and NEVER seen one disallowed, let alone the player booked! As you say, it's either a mistake or a re-writing of the rules.
 
And my point is we were screwed over three times with VAR anyway so Nanis goal may well have stood.

That's my point. It's been WORSE than human error, because it's unfathomable how they can STILL get it wrong.
Just because one VAR got it wrong doesn’t mean they all will. Ridiculous logic
 
I thought VAR would be good for the game but if all it is used for is to scrutinise goals and find a reason to rule out then that is not good. If all goals are looked at and it took ages in the first half, how come the 2nd half goals seemed to be all agreed quickly. Without VAR the first goal would have stood and we would not have a penalty but free kick. In cricket they have something called Umpires decision. That means that they only overrule the Umpire if it is clearly wrong. If it takes a couple of minutes like the first goal disallowed then it is close and the decision should stay with the referee.
 
LOL unsporting behavior by trying to score a penalty fuck me
Well that's not true is it? He was carded because of the refs interpretation that he used ungentlemanly conduct to gain an advantage to fool the keeper, which the law says he (the ref) is entitled to do.
All the ex refs back him up and they are supposed experts in those laws.
It's all immaterial now though I suppose
 
The elders should introduce a VAR type system on here to mediate or clerfiy an argument. Any ideas of a name?
My idea would be...
Clarifying Understanding Negotiating Translator?
 
I'm defending myself, he's always the one that attacks first. I'd never respond to him if he never attacks me.


As I’m slightly older than Mick I don’t appreciate the ageist stuff either

So you’re saying that he always attacks you first?
 
Well that's not true is it? He was carded because of the refs interpretation that he used ungentlemanly conduct to gain an advantage to fool the keeper, which the law says he (the ref) is entitled to do.
All the ex refs back him up and they are supposed experts in those laws.
It's all immaterial now though I suppose
But that's what I mean......the law claims tricking the keeper is unsporting and worthy of a booking. May as well pass it back slowly into his arms.
 
But is it even a rule? The rule says you can feint on the run up.
I think the interpretation is that a "run up" has to be continuous. So if at any point if a player stops that means the run is completed. Any movement after that is classed not as the original run up.
Of course the refs have the extra tool in the bag by saying, "ungentlemanly conduct" "trying to circumvent the rules"
"goes against the spirit if the game" which are all subjective.
Agree rules are vague
 
Well that's not true is it? He was carded because of the refs interpretation that he used ungentlemanly conduct to gain an advantage to fool the keeper, which the law says he (the ref) is entitled to do.
All the ex refs back him up and they are supposed experts in those laws.
It's all immaterial now though I suppose

He was carded because the ref decided he was the run-up was complete, that's what Gallagher said.
 
So what would constitute a “legal feint” then?
In fact, what is a “feint”?
The rule isn’t at all clear because it allows the ref to determine what is a legal or illegal feint. And that will vary from ref to ref or VAR to VAR.
And during a penalty, it’s a very important, potentially game changing moment, which can see a player like Sonny booked for unsporting conduct! Sonny!!??!!
:deledoubt:
It’s an interesting discussion.
(If you’re a boring cunt like me)
Also, as you said the encroachment happened first, my only question on that after looking again is, did the ref/var decide a spurs player encroached first ?
 
Haha I've no problem because in the laws of the game there is nowhere where it says stopping your run is not allowed. I would have a problem I think if I imagined that the laws said that you weren't allowed to stop your run-up. If you can show me this law that says you can't stop your run-up I concede I'm wrong.
Hi Guido, not taking sides here, but found this (don't know if it's still valid)
https://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/refereeing/law_14_the_penalty_kick_en_47369.pdf
On page 7 it says
"Feinting to take a penalty kick to confuse opponents is permitted as part of football.
However, if in the opinion of the referee, the feinting is considered an act of unsporting behavior the player shall be cautioned."
 
As I’m slightly older than Mick I don’t appreciate the ageist stuff either

So you’re saying that he always attacks you first?
Actually, what I do is ridicule his posts that I believe to be foolish, inaccurate or embarrassing. I only ever respond personally to his continued abusive remarks about my intellectual capacity, insults about my age and mental health, his obsession with medical requirements and his incessant obsession with the idea that I have somehow learned nothing about changes in the sport that I have spent over 50 years watching.
I now appear to have upset people over my defence of myself, as I am now under warning for a ban.
I have put him on ignore and will leave him be from now on. It's not worth the grief.
 
Back
Top Bottom