• 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!

Match **** Liverpool v Tottenham Hotspur Sunday 4:30 ****

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

Have you ever made a quiche ?

  • Yes

    Votes: 38 23.5%

  • No

    Votes: 63 38.9%

  • None of your business

    Votes: 61 37.7%
  • Total voters
    162
Papafeels said:
It's not. There are specific use cases, unless you want t a football game to take 4 hours
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Very true, case in point for one of the 4 specific use cases,

Only "Clear and Obvious": For subjective decisions (like fouls), VAR should only intervene if the error is obvious. Factual decisions (like offside or if a foul was inside the penalty area) are corrected regardless of being "clear and obvious."

As the error was clearly obvious, when viewed via video as VAR do, it should have been corrected, no foul given and a Yellow card to the dipper for simulation.

Start using the system as it is meant to be used, then the game won't take 4 hours as players will stop diving if they know they'll get a Yellow for it.

It's not rocket science, but will continue to be overlooked as long as people like yourself make excuses for their ineptitude and corruption.
 
Nutter-Naylor said:

View: https://x.com/OngarSpurs/status/2033551700221432221?s=20
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


Never Mind Oh Dear GIF by Harborne Web Design Ltd
 
Ionman34 said:
Very true, case in point for one of the 4 specific use cases,

Only "Clear and Obvious": For subjective decisions (like fouls), VAR should only intervene if the error is obvious. Factual decisions (like offside or if a foul was inside the penalty area) are corrected regardless of being "clear and obvious."

As the error was clearly obvious, when viewed via video as VAR do, it should have been corrected, no foul given and a Yellow card to the dipper for simulation.

Start using the system as it is meant to be used, then the game won't take 4 hours as players will stop diving if they know they'll get a Yellow for it.

It's not rocket science, but will continue to be overlooked as long as people like yourself make excuses for their ineptitude and corruption.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Make excuses for corruption, get over yourself.

I don't want VAR looking at everything, because if you open it up to that, you have to do one for every foul a referee gives or misses. And with diving, it has to be very clear and obvious, if there's any contact whatsoever, you can't objectively say it was a dive, there's more nuance to it, and that'll take an age. The decision at the weekend wasn't a clear dive, there was very little contact, he bought the foul, like what happens 10/15 in any game. That would never have been overturned because it doesn't meet the threshold of being clear and obvious. A bullshit soft one, absolutely, never getting called back.

We already have it for goals, penalties, we're now getting it for corners at the end of next season in all likelihood. Do we really need a VAR check for a nothing foul in the middle of the pitch? Your saying we should.

Unless we go to some sort of challenge system like the NBA/NFL, there's just no way of checking for things like that, it'd take a year. We've already seen it take 5 minutes to decide on "clear and obvious" errors.

And the system is being used how it's meant to be, you're talking about expanding it. The people running it are incompetent, adding even more chances for them to show their incompetency isn't going to go the way you think it is.

I don't see how "using it like it was designed" now opens the door to any decision in football, and how that'd somehow take less time, but I guess I just don't have the brains you have. I think you're living it a fantasy world, but you do you.

From my point of view, VAR should be an independent body who has no emotional relationship with referees. Refs don't want to go against their buddy's, as we've heard, and that is the biggest point when it comes to big decisions and if they're right or wrong. I'd rather get rid of it full stop, but that's not feasible.
 
Papafeels said:
Make excuses for corruption, get over yourself.

I don't want VAR looking at everything, because if you open it up to that, you have to do one for every foul a referee gives or misses. And with diving, it has to be very clear and obvious, if there's any contact whatsoever, you can't objectively say it was a dive, there's more nuance to it, and that'll take an age. The decision at the weekend wasn't a clear dive, there was very little contact, he bought the foul, like what happens 10/15 in any game. That would never have been overturned because it doesn't meet the threshold of being clear and obvious. A bullshit soft one, absolutely, never getting called back.

We already have it for goals, penalties, we're now getting it for corners at the end of next season in all likelihood. Do we really need a VAR check for a nothing foul in the middle of the pitch? Your saying we should.

Unless we go to some sort of challenge system like the NBA/NFL, there's just no way of checking for things like that, it'd take a year. We've already seen it take 5 minutes to decide on "clear and obvious" errors.

And the system is being used how it's meant to be, you're talking about expanding it. The people running it are incompetent, adding even more chances for them to show their incompetency isn't going to go the way you think it is.

I don't see how "using it like it was designed" now opens the door to any decision in football, and how that'd somehow take less time, but I guess I just don't have the brains you have. I think you're living it a fantasy world, but you do you.

From my point of view, VAR should be an independent body who has no emotional relationship with referees. Refs don't want to go against their buddy's, as we've heard, and that is the biggest point when it comes to big decisions and if they're right or wrong. I'd rather get rid of it full stop, but that's not feasible.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
A whole lot of nothing there. Good effort.

It was clear and obvious. I mean, you start off banging on about how it's for set procedures, you're then shown it meets one of the set procedures, then you do a complete u-turn.

Quality.

At least we agree that we should bin it off completely but, as they obviously won't, use it as it's meant to be used, to remove the "clear and obvious" errors made by referees.

There was no contact btw. It wasn't a "bought foul," it was a dive.
 
If they wanted to stamp out diving, without risking lots of additional VAR reviews, they could probably do so just by issuing post match fines. They just don't care.

And regarding the Pool call, it was a clear dive in my opinion. Their may or may not have been the slightest of contact, but the key point is McAllister locks his legs after any possible contact is over and falls to the ground entirely on his own doing. Whether there was any contact is easily distinguished from what McAllister does only after the possibile contact is completely over.

It's very similar to Gabriel's dive disallowing the RKM goal. Gabriel jumps in the air well after all contact has ended and the proceeds to arch his back and throw his arms in the air. It's against the laws of physics that motion could be considered anything other than simulation.
 
Dixiefish61 said:
Nah. Need to play the same formation. Same players as far as possible and get a positive result at home. We aren’t going through most likely but a strong performance, even a draw sets us up for the tricky trees at the weekend.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Can’t be playing Souza wide right play Porro there Spence rb and the lb. What’s so difficult about that? Porro can then cross the ball for dom and Richi.
 
Ionman34 said:
A whole lot of nothing there. Good effort.

It was clear and obvious. I mean, you start off banging on about how it's for set procedures, you're then shown it meets one of the set procedures, then you do a complete u-turn.

Quality.

At least we agree that we should bin it off completely but, as they obviously won't, use it as it's meant to be used, to remove the "clear and obvious" errors made by referees.

There was no contact btw. It wasn't a "bought foul," it was a dive.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It was clear and obvious. I mean, you start off banging on about how it's for set procedures, you're then shown it meets one of the set procedures, then you do a complete u-turn.

Nowhere did I say it met the procedures, I stated the contrary. It was for a 50/50 call, 30 yards out from goal, VAR isn't used for challenges that are yellow cards even, nevermind common fouls like this. If Liverpool had have scored directly from there (a set pieces isn't the same sequence so wipes that out), then they would look to see if it was a dive.... And the goal would've stood because there is undeniable contact. Basic, basic stuff

There was contact, he looks for the contact, but to say there's none is just objectively wrong. It was a little amateur moment for a player who's new to the league, he dangled a leg out and McAllister being very experienced, knew to go down. Our players do this several times a game. Every player that goes to the corner flag does it, defenders shepherding the ball do it.
Even though I agree it shouldn't have been a free kick, it's never getting overturned on the basis of 'clear and obvious ' because it's not an obvious mistake, and never in a million years is he getting booked for a dive.

Like I said, it already takes the clowns minutes to decide on replays that are clear and obvious and should take 10 seconds to clear, and they still get it wrong. Doing that 20 times a game is just silly. It'll never happen because it's very stupid and despite what you say, every game would last hours. What would be the point in having a referee in that case if every small thing is going to be decided on VAR? Just because they have the technology, doesn't mean they have to be over reliant on it, takes the human element away from it.
 
Papafeels said:
Make excuses for corruption, get over yourself.

I don't want VAR looking at everything, because if you open it up to that, you have to do one for every foul a referee gives or misses. And with diving, it has to be very clear and obvious, if there's any contact whatsoever, you can't objectively say it was a dive, there's more nuance to it, and that'll take an age. The decision at the weekend wasn't a clear dive, there was very little contact, he bought the foul, like what happens 10/15 in any game. That would never have been overturned because it doesn't meet the threshold of being clear and obvious. A bullshit soft one, absolutely, never getting called back.

We already have it for goals, penalties, we're now getting it for corners at the end of next season in all likelihood. Do we really need a VAR check for a nothing foul in the middle of the pitch? Your saying we should.

Unless we go to some sort of challenge system like the NBA/NFL, there's just no way of checking for things like that, it'd take a year. We've already seen it take 5 minutes to decide on "clear and obvious" errors.

And the system is being used how it's meant to be, you're talking about expanding it. The people running it are incompetent, adding even more chances for them to show their incompetency isn't going to go the way you think it is.

I don't see how "using it like it was designed" now opens the door to any decision in football, and how that'd somehow take less time, but I guess I just don't have the brains you have. I think you're living it a fantasy world, but you do you.

From my point of view, VAR should be an independent body who has no emotional relationship with referees. Refs don't want to go against their buddy's, as we've heard, and that is the biggest point when it comes to big decisions and if they're right or wrong. I'd rather get rid of it full stop, but that's not feasible.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
TLDR all of it.
But VAR could work. It could work really well.
It just needs to be run by a different body to the refs on the pitch. Ideally one that is staffed by people who are morons.
No bias. No backing up their mates. A different perspective on how things are viewed. Some common sense over an irrational desire to enforce a rule to the enth degree.
Ironic tackle said:
If they wanted to stamp out diving, without risking lots of additional VAR reviews, they could probably do so just by issuing post match fines. They just don't care.

And regarding the Pool call, it was a clear dive in my opinion. Their may or may not have been the slightest of contact, but the key point is McAllister locks his legs after any possible contact is over and falls to the ground entirely on his own doing. Whether there was any contact is easily distinguished from what McAllister does only after the possibile contact is completely over.

It's very similar to Gabriel's dive disallowing the RKM goal. Gabriel jumps in the air well after all contact has ended and the proceeds to arch his back and throw his arms in the air. It's against the laws of physics that motion could be considered anything other than simulation.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I don't think it was a dive, but it also wasn't a foul.
MacAlister ran into Souza's foot.

There's a few things that would eradicate diving and feigning injury.
Automatic suspension if a replay proves a player dived. Not a fine. Ban them. Each time they get caught the ban doubles.
If you're injured - you're off. End of. Go down, roll around, act as though you're injured then off you go. Subbed. End of the game for you sunshine.
Imagine how fucked off a coach would be if his star player had to come off because he dived and feigned injury.
All that said, refs not ignoring actual fouls might stop players trying to get a VAR review in the first place.
 
Just watched MOTD and concluded that Vicario was at fault for their first which wasn’t a free kick in the first place!

Vicario made amends with a good save from Gatpo I think where he pushed his shot on to a post!

Richy got the equaliser we richly deserved after VVD fouled him earlier which should have resulted in a penalty for us!

After we equalised we went after the winner but left ourselves open to the counter where they had four on two and I noticed Simons just jogging back and Etikete nearly scored

The little wanker had come on as a Sub so he should have had plenty of energy but he just couldn’t be bothered 😕

I thought that at the time but today’s viewing confirmed it!

Get rid ASAP!!
 
Matt1882 said:
TLDR all of it.
But VAR could work. It could work really well.
It just needs to be run by a different body to the refs on the pitch. Ideally one that is staffed by people who are morons.
No bias. No backing up their mates. A different perspective on how things are viewed. Some common sense over an irrational desire to enforce a rule to the enth degree.


I don't think it was a dive, but it also wasn't a foul.
MacAlister ran into Souza's foot.

There's a few things that would eradicate diving and feigning injury.
Automatic suspension if a replay proves a player dived. Not a fine. Ban them. Each time they get caught the ban doubles.
If you're injured - you're off. End of. Go down, roll around, act as though you're injured then off you go. Subbed. End of the game for you sunshine.
Imagine how fucked off a coach would be if his star player had to come off because he dived and feigned injury.
All that said, refs not ignoring actual fouls might stop players trying to get a VAR review in the first place.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Agreed. I saw another angle, and it wasn't as bad as I originally thought. He certainly sells the contact it though.
 
As I was originally watching, I was very rough on Dragusin. And he was poor.

But his effort on that last break was immense. Forget about the block. Watch that break again and look at the ground he covers. A full out sprint of desperation, got there w good positioning, so the actual block was easy.

THAT is the effort we need.
Now if he could play a bit better the other 94 minutes!

But seriously, kudos to him for putting it on the line. Woulda been easy to jog back there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top