Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Premier League 2019/20
Comments
-
Son showing himself up again as petulant.
Nice guy Facade has gone.1 -
Red card for me0
-
becoming a replay of the battle of the bridge0
-
Red card but Rudiger has got away with the punch in Son's back that preceded him kicking out0
-
definite penalty good to see it given , too many keepers get away with these challenges
in the same way over head kicks are allowed unless you put your head in the way and get it kicked off0 -
Especially so soon after the Gomes incident at Everton. Must admit, havent seen a replay and whether he was punched in the back beforehand but shouldnt have reacted. Should be fines 2 weeks wages for that.Laddick01 said:Son showing himself up again as petulant.
Nice guy Facade has gone.
Agree it was a pen but why does VAR not rule on the 3-4 rugby tackles at various points from corners?oohaahmortimer said:definite penalty good to see it given , too many keepers get away with these challenges
in the same way over head kicks are allowed unless you put your head in the way and get it kicked off
Forget the football, I'm beyond disgusted with the utter vermin that were making monkey noises at Rudiger.
My initial impression was it must have been mistaken as boos after the Son incident but sadly not. One of my Asian mates phoned me after the game to tell me he was considering given up his ST after hearing the abuse. He was subjected to it himself out in Barcelona last year from fellow Spurs fans who blatantly abused him and in front of me too, both of us were in shock but to hear it at WHL is another thing entirely.
Apparently the culprit(s) was hounded out by supporters around them and police rounded them up. The police were good as gold after apparently.
Glad Spurs had a statement out within minutes after FT and have promised the strongest action. No place for racism in football whatsoever.5 -
Oh there is John boy.JohnBoyUK said:
Especially so soon after the Gomes incident at Everton. Must admit, havent seen a replay and whether he was punched in the back beforehand but shouldnt have reacted. Should be fines 2 weeks wages for that.Laddick01 said:Son showing himself up again as petulant.
Nice guy Facade has gone.
Agree it was a pen but why does VAR not rule on the 3-4 rugby tackles at various points from corners?oohaahmortimer said:definite penalty good to see it given , too many keepers get away with these challenges
in the same way over head kicks are allowed unless you put your head in the way and get it kicked off
Forget the football, I'm beyond disgusted with the utter vermin that were making monkey noises at Rudiger.
My initial impression was it must have been mistaken as boos after the Son incident but sadly not. One of my Asian mates phoned me after the game to tell me he was considering given up his ST after hearing the abuse. He was subjected to it himself out in Barcelona last year from fellow Spurs fans who blatantly abused him and in front of me too, both of us were in shock but to hear it at WHL is another thing entirely.
Apparently the culprit(s) was hounded out by supporters around them and police rounded them up. The police were good as gold after apparently.
Glad Spurs had a statement out within minutes after FT and have promised the strongest action. No place for racism in football whatsoever.
When it's player on player it seems alleged racism is not so bad.
Over 2 months now and the Leeds alleged racism is still on going.
I emailed Charlton 10 days ago and am still awaiting a reply.
0 -
Moronic Spurs fans making monkey chants at Rudiger and then a few minutes later their team brings on Rose and Ndombele. They must've been chuffed. Brain dead.JohnBoyUK said:
Especially so soon after the Gomes incident at Everton. Must admit, havent seen a replay and whether he was punched in the back beforehand but shouldnt have reacted. Should be fines 2 weeks wages for that.Laddick01 said:Son showing himself up again as petulant.
Nice guy Facade has gone.
Agree it was a pen but why does VAR not rule on the 3-4 rugby tackles at various points from corners?oohaahmortimer said:definite penalty good to see it given , too many keepers get away with these challenges
in the same way over head kicks are allowed unless you put your head in the way and get it kicked off
Forget the football, I'm beyond disgusted with the utter vermin that were making monkey noises at Rudiger.
My initial impression was it must have been mistaken as boos after the Son incident but sadly not. One of my Asian mates phoned me after the game to tell me he was considering given up his ST after hearing the abuse. He was subjected to it himself out in Barcelona last year from fellow Spurs fans who blatantly abused him and in front of me too, both of us were in shock but to hear it at WHL is another thing entirely.
Apparently the culprit(s) was hounded out by supporters around them and police rounded them up. The police were good as gold after apparently.
Glad Spurs had a statement out within minutes after FT and have promised the strongest action. No place for racism in football whatsoever.1 -
Thought it was pretty soft but obviously the red is for the intent, not the actual damage done. To me if you're going to get a red for it, you might as well boot him fucking properly!Laddick01 said:Son showing himself up again as petulant.
Nice guy Facade has gone.2 - Sponsored links:
-
Leicester make 9 changes including leaving out Vardy completely and still manage to win 2-1 at West Ham
Another win for Watford, Pearson engineering another great relegation recovery0 -
Var helping spurs again0
-
Something just has to change with how VAR is used, these millimetre calls are ridiculous.
5 -
Was a goal scoring part of Pukki even offside? Looked like his arm was the only part of his body that was beyond the last defender?0
-
The arm pit off side is crazy !
The law was changed a few years ago so if you were level, your on side.
0 -
I agree but he quit because he wasn’t playing. Personally I never support someone for not wanting to play for their country but I can’t imagine Vardy coming back to be 3rd choice.stoneroses19 said:
Never a bad idea to have a second style to drop back into if game isn’t going well. I’ve seen England crash out of plenty tournaments because we’ve had one way of playing and it’s not worked in a particular knock out game.cafcfan1990 said:Don’t think Vardy suits our style. Abraham definitely more like for like cover for Kane.0 -
Several decent goals disallowed today, it's not even the law which is at fault, but rather the way it's been interpreted at Stockley Park when no obvious "legal" part of the attacking player if offsideTalal said:Something just has to change with how VAR is used, these millimetre calls are ridiculous.0 -
Surely VAR has to move to some sort of “Umpire’s call” decision for close calls moving forward? If it’s too close to be able to tell easily, then we’ve just got to take the decision on the chin. It’s not like we haven’t had to do that up until now.
I don’t actually know where I stand on VAR. When you look at travesties such as Lampard’s goal against the Germans, then it’s hard to argue against it, but it seems a bit ridiculous to be overturning decisions based on the tip of your finger being beyond an opponent’s torso.1 -
VAR seems to work well in every other country that has it...........except here.
It should be a good thing for football, but currently it's absolutely ruining games. As i've said before it should be for clear and obvious errors (like the Lampard goal mentioned above) and if the VAR officials need to take 3-4 minutes drawing dotted lines across the pitch to see if someones ear lobe is offside then it shouldn't be offside.
The Brighton goal yesterday was the worst i've seen. Looked like 3mm of his arm was offside, you can't even score with your arm, so how on earth does a VAR official give that as offside. VAR isn't the problem, the idiots in charge of it are.5 -
I’m not certain it does work well in every other major league that uses it;Chris_from_Sidcup said:VAR seems to work well in every other country that has it...........except here.
It should be a good thing for football, but currently it's absolutely ruining games. As i've said before it should be for clear and obvious errors (like the Lampard goal mentioned above) and if the VAR officials need to take 3-4 minutes drawing dotted lines across the pitch to see if someones ear lobe is offside then it shouldn't be offside.
The Brighton goal yesterday was the worst i've seen. Looked like 3mm of his arm was offside, you can't even score with your arm, so how on earth does a VAR official give that as offside. VAR isn't the problem, the idiots in charge of it are.
https://twitter.com/dalejohnsonespn/status/1211040622288736257?s=21
0 - Sponsored links:
-
I think if the offside law was amended to requiring a their being daylight between the last defender and a goal scoring part of the attacker then we would have a very clear rule and VAR could very effectively measure whether there was a gap in the line between the two players?I genuinely thought the current rule was that it had to be a goal scoring part of you that was ahead of the last defender, so I don’t know why arms are being counted at the moment.0
-
I advocated this a few months ago but some felt it would be unfair to defenders. The game has become too defensive and anything that creates more opportunity for attacking play has to be a good thing. The Pukki "goal" being disallowed was ridiculous.se9addick said:I think if the offside law was amended to requiring a their being daylight between the last defender and a goal scoring part of the attacker then we would have a very clear rule and VAR could very effectively measure whether there was a gap in the line between the two players?I genuinely thought the current rule was that it had to be a goal scoring part of you that was ahead of the last defender, so I don’t know why arms are being counted at the moment.
Years ago I also suggested that we got rid of the offside law but was told that all that would happen is that teams would get 11 behind the ball and retreat into their own penalty box. Well we see this in every game now anyway.
The actual goals per game average has gone up in recent years to 2.8 but that is only because the likes of Man City and Liverpool are regularly thrashing teams, Outside the top 7, the most any team averages is 1.32 goals per game and that is Arsenal.
Surely it is time to encourage positive play and reducing the necessity to refer every goal to VAR either by introducing the "clear gap" rule or by getting rid of the offside Law totally.0 -
Continue drawing the lines but draw them to the foot only. None of this armpit leaning to one side nonsense.
boot to boot would make it clear to everyone what the rule was and it’s a clear position on the pitch too.3 -
Addick Addict said:
I advocated this a few months ago but some felt it would be unfair to defenders. The game has become too defensive and anything that creates more opportunity for attacking play has to be a good thing. The Pukki "goal" being disallowed was ridiculous.se9addick said:I think if the offside law was amended to requiring a their being daylight between the last defender and a goal scoring part of the attacker then we would have a very clear rule and VAR could very effectively measure whether there was a gap in the line between the two players?I genuinely thought the current rule was that it had to be a goal scoring part of you that was ahead of the last defender, so I don’t know why arms are being counted at the moment.
Years ago I also suggested that we got rid of the offside law but was told that all that would happen is that teams would get 11 behind the ball and retreat into their own penalty box. Well we see this in every game now anyway.
The actual goals per game average has gone up in recent years to 2.8 but that is only because the likes of Man City and Liverpool are regularly thrashing teams, Outside the top 7, the most any team averages is 1.32 goals per game and that is Arsenal.
Surely it is time to encourage positive play and reducing the necessity to refer every goal to VAR either by introducing the "clear gap" rule or by getting rid of the offside Law totally.I've also considered abolishing the offside law and would like to see it trialed. It would though, I believe, fundamentally change the dynamics of the game beyond all recognition - whether that change would be good or bad from the spectacle point of view could be tested in a trial, but I fear it would be negative.Pukki's goal should have been given though - it was not a clear and obvious offside. Way too close and a 'clear gap' interpretation may improve the situation. As for the earlier reported 'was in an offside position when the attack commenced' is of course absolute bullshit and goes contrary to the 'active' element of play. Pukki was clearly not active until the point at which the ball left his team mate's foot on its way to him. They changed that interpretation very quickly!1 -
That's exactly how I think it should be applied.stackitsteve said:Continue drawing the lines but draw them to the foot only. None of this armpit leaning to one side nonsense.
boot to boot would make it clear to everyone what the rule was and it’s a clear position on the pitch too.0 -
The Ball is Round (best book ever written on the history of football) goes into detail on the development of the offside rule. Essentially at the time that football was still being codified from a number of different rule sets to leave us with what eventually ended up with football and rugby being able to pass the ball forwards with no restriction was seriously damaging how enjoyable the game was and meant that being able to pass the ball wasn't a necessary skill. Football solved it through the offside rule, rugby through the less aesthetically pleasing no forward pass rule. One of the reasons (there are a few) why football went on to become the worlds most popular sport whilst rugby is only the most popular sport for tiny, sheep shagging, nations.bobmunro said:Addick Addict said:
I advocated this a few months ago but some felt it would be unfair to defenders. The game has become too defensive and anything that creates more opportunity for attacking play has to be a good thing. The Pukki "goal" being disallowed was ridiculous.se9addick said:I think if the offside law was amended to requiring a their being daylight between the last defender and a goal scoring part of the attacker then we would have a very clear rule and VAR could very effectively measure whether there was a gap in the line between the two players?I genuinely thought the current rule was that it had to be a goal scoring part of you that was ahead of the last defender, so I don’t know why arms are being counted at the moment.
Years ago I also suggested that we got rid of the offside law but was told that all that would happen is that teams would get 11 behind the ball and retreat into their own penalty box. Well we see this in every game now anyway.
The actual goals per game average has gone up in recent years to 2.8 but that is only because the likes of Man City and Liverpool are regularly thrashing teams, Outside the top 7, the most any team averages is 1.32 goals per game and that is Arsenal.
Surely it is time to encourage positive play and reducing the necessity to refer every goal to VAR either by introducing the "clear gap" rule or by getting rid of the offside Law totally.I've also considered abolishing the offside law and would like to see it trialed. It would though, I believe, fundamentally change the dynamics of the game beyond all recognition - whether that change would be good or bad from the spectacle point of view could be tested in a trial, but I fear it would be negative.Pukki's goal should have been given though - it was not a clear and obvious offside. Way too close and a 'clear gap' interpretation may improve the situation. As for the earlier reported 'was in an offside position when the attack commenced' is of course absolute bullshit and goes contrary to the 'active' element of play. Pukki was clearly not active until the point at which the ball left his team mate's foot on its way to him. They changed that interpretation very quickly!0 -
se9addick said:
The Ball is Round (best book ever written on the history of football) goes into detail on the development of the offside rule. Essentially at the time that football was still being codified from a number of different rule sets to leave us with what eventually ended up with football and rugby being able to pass the ball forwards with no restriction was seriously damaging how enjoyable the game was and meant that being able to pass the ball wasn't a necessary skill. Football solved it through the offside rule, rugby through the less aesthetically pleasing no forward pass rule. One of the reasons (there are a few) why football went on to become the worlds most popular sport whilst rugby is only the most popular sport for tiny, sheep shagging, nations.bobmunro said:Addick Addict said:
I advocated this a few months ago but some felt it would be unfair to defenders. The game has become too defensive and anything that creates more opportunity for attacking play has to be a good thing. The Pukki "goal" being disallowed was ridiculous.se9addick said:I think if the offside law was amended to requiring a their being daylight between the last defender and a goal scoring part of the attacker then we would have a very clear rule and VAR could very effectively measure whether there was a gap in the line between the two players?I genuinely thought the current rule was that it had to be a goal scoring part of you that was ahead of the last defender, so I don’t know why arms are being counted at the moment.
Years ago I also suggested that we got rid of the offside law but was told that all that would happen is that teams would get 11 behind the ball and retreat into their own penalty box. Well we see this in every game now anyway.
The actual goals per game average has gone up in recent years to 2.8 but that is only because the likes of Man City and Liverpool are regularly thrashing teams, Outside the top 7, the most any team averages is 1.32 goals per game and that is Arsenal.
Surely it is time to encourage positive play and reducing the necessity to refer every goal to VAR either by introducing the "clear gap" rule or by getting rid of the offside Law totally.I've also considered abolishing the offside law and would like to see it trialed. It would though, I believe, fundamentally change the dynamics of the game beyond all recognition - whether that change would be good or bad from the spectacle point of view could be tested in a trial, but I fear it would be negative.Pukki's goal should have been given though - it was not a clear and obvious offside. Way too close and a 'clear gap' interpretation may improve the situation. As for the earlier reported 'was in an offside position when the attack commenced' is of course absolute bullshit and goes contrary to the 'active' element of play. Pukki was clearly not active until the point at which the ball left his team mate's foot on its way to him. They changed that interpretation very quickly!
The trouble is that the game of football has evolved to the extent that more balls are passed sideways and backwards now than ever was the intention!0 -
If you're going to have it this technical, put a chip in the ball and chips in the end of every players boot and make the rule if your foot is ahead you're offside... As is it is pointless... Would rather scrap it all together and go back to how it was.0
-
Weird - did the referee blow his whistle there before Mane shot?Edit - he didn’t, he blew immediately after the ball crossed the line0
-
Have that you bin dipping thieving cunts 1 10
