• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

OMT: Tottenham vs Everton

Man of the match

  • Total voters
    41
  • Poll closed .
Benny_Lad said:
Is that in the rules?
Click to expand...

Abbeyspur said:
No it isn't and the red card should definitely be rescinded. Just have a feeling that the speed in which this statement was issued suggests that the powers that be will set out to justify the red card this week, particularly as it was given by one of their 'top' refs. No way this was a red card and if the severity of injury is taken into account, this creates a dangerous precedent for the future.

On this basis should Delph have been red carded for his challenge on Kane in the Champions League quarter final and Jones red carded for his challenge on Kane at Wembley?
Click to expand...

Benny_Lad said:
I thought Atkinson acted with haste. In a situation with such emotion he should have taken 10 seconds to himself to establish protocol and then proceed.

I think everything I've heard from the authorities since then has been an effort to back up his hasty decision. Something I doubt they will now renege on.
Click to expand...

Bedfordspurs said:
Apparently it is
But it’s never knowing been applied form what I’ve read
I mean who knew if a sub touches a ball on the pitch it’s a penalty (that happened in Germany recently)
Click to expand...

According to the Guardian match report the yellow was changed to a red by the VAR official because of the severity of the injury the challenge led to. It seems a weird interpretation of the rules to me, even an innocuous challenge could lead to a serious injury, surely how dangerous the challenge is should be the only factor.
 
braineclipse said:
Injury, red card VAR and referee aside we were so poor. We "created" one good chance, all it took was Everton gifting us a good opportunity.

Some positives from Ndombele and Davies. We were reasonably solid at the back, though that might just be Everton being poor as well.

Can't understand how Eriksen stayed on the pitch for that long. Can't understand not bringing on Winks or Dier when we went down to ten men. Strange decisions from Pochettino that don't work out is the new normal.
Click to expand...

This, really could’ve done with some fresh legs whilst our 10 men tried to hold on to the 1-0 lead and can’t help but think that an energised Winks would’ve done a better job of preventing Mina from playing the ball in to Digne than a knackered Dele or languid Eriksen...

9944C494-C294-4FDB-A40D-846C52B25171.jpeg
 
Last edited:
scaramanga said:
I sincerely hope he's made of sterner stuff than that.

Gomes is an inconsequential player in an inconsequential team - doesn't warrant or deserve a second though from Son.
Click to expand...

Son is not a dirty player but he was tinkled before he made that challenge and he was looking for a bit of retribution hence the rash tackle- in the heat of the moment you could see how distraught he was when he saw how injured Gomes was.

No matter the quality of the player at the time it probably looked like a career ending tackle. And he will feel guilty and sick that his actions led to that. It will leave a mark on Sonny, who you don’t see slide tackling that much.

Other players used to slide tackling know that sometimes it (the tackle) can end up in an injury if mistimed but that would not have been in Sons mind. I seriously think Son will need counselling and it will effect his game in the short term- it will weigh on him until Gomes is back playing or at the very least recuperating from his injury. His mind will not be fully committed to playing Cos there will be that thought of guilt in back of his mind.
 
superfaisty said:
Son is not a dirty player but he was tinkled before he made that challenge and he was looking for a bit of retribution hence the rash tackle- in the heat of the moment you could see how distraught he was when he saw how injured Gomes was.

No matter the quality of the player at the time it probably looked like a career ending tackle. And he will feel guilty and sick that his actions led to that. It will leave a mark on Sonny, who you don’t see slide tackling that much.

Other players used to slide tackling know that sometimes it (the tackle) can end up in an injury if mistimed but that would not have been in Sons mind. I seriously think Son will need counselling and it will effect his game in the short term- it will weigh on him until Gomes is back playing or at the very least recuperating from his injury. His mind will not be fully committed to playing Cos there will be that thought of guilt in back of his mind.
Click to expand...
That's a concern if Son needs that.

Far better that he just stops caring, appeals the card and gets on with his season.
 
This is a minor point considering the general awful level of our performance and the Gomes incident but I had really wanted us to sign Richarlison prior to Everton doing so; Games like yesterday make me glad we didn't. He's obviously talented but the theatrics are pretty shameful and to me it seems odd as in years gone by you wouldn't expect Everton to have that kind of player.

That kind of player needs monitoring and given stern warnings about making the most of absolutely any contact. Sure you could say we have players that go down easy but not at the level of rolling around in agony after any slight bit of contact time and time again. Of the games I watched over the weekend, Richarlison and James of Utd stood out as two players whose games are based around this dark art and it takes joy out of the sport for me..

As for the game, pretty sure everything that can be said about the son / gomes /aurier incident has been, I'm still full of sympathy for all involved but equally bewildered by the red card decision. Sky commentary didn't seem to question it once for the rest of the game which I thought was mighty odd but I guess they didn't want to commit one way or another.

Still it's another poor away performance and just generally a bad game of football all round in my opinion, one where we could have clung on to three points to get back on some sort of momentum but sadly wasn't to be.
 
yiddo37 said:
Richarlison one?
I thought so on first viewing but seeing the replay he just stands his ground and Richarlison stands on his foot and falls over so not a penalty IMO.
Click to expand...

I'd have screamed for it the other way to be honest.

Although I did thoroughly enjoy his shoulder tackle on that big fudging blouse. Richarlison spent a lot of time on the floor for fudge all so it was nice when Sanchez gave him a proper reason to hit the deck.
 
Jon said:
Yes, sorry it was. Someone kept mentioning Lord of the Flies. I thought they must be a fan so I thought I’d roll with a reference.

GHod, I hated that book at school. So boring.
Click to expand...

:)

Nothing like an indirect free-kick.

Love the book. Timeless. But as I mentioned above, if you wanted to aim one back (and fair game for sure) Ralph would’ve been more accurate.
 
thfcsteff said:
:)

Nothing like an indirect free-kick.

Love the book. Timeless. But as I mentioned above, if you wanted to aim one back (and fair game for sure) Ralph would’ve been more accurate.
Click to expand...
Ah sorry, was it you? Wasn’t meant to be an indirect free kick, I was just late spotting the notification to respond to and then couldn’t be bothered to trawl back pages (especially with all the ads of yesterday!)
 
Finney Is Back said:
I had no problems with his defending but his control is terrible, wait till all teams have realized this and specifically target him with their press.
Click to expand...
That's why you need a good defensive midfielder to take the ball from him early. Ideally the press resistant one.
 
Jon said:
Ah sorry, was it you? Wasn’t meant to be an indirect free kick, I was just late spotting the notification to respond to and then couldn’t be bothered to trawl back pages (especially with all the ads of yesterday!)
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I still think Ralph is a bit fairer!! ;-)
 
milo said:
According to the Guardian match report the yellow was changed to a red by the VAR official because of the severity of the injury the challenge led to. It seems a weird interpretation of the rules to me, even an innocuous challenge could lead to a serious injury, surely how dangerous the challenge is should be the only factor.
Click to expand...

So we are appealing a decision that’s already been reviewed and altered/corrected by VAR?

It’s right that we are but what an absolute shambles. If they rescind they are basically saying VAR doesn’t know the laws.

Regarding the appeal it will take some intricate words on their part whichever way they swing it.
 
Benny_Lad said:
So we are appealing a decision that’s already been reviewed and altered/corrected by VAR?

It’s right that we are but what an absolute shambles. If they rescind they are basically saying VAR doesn’t know the laws.

Regarding the appeal it will take some intricate words on their part whichever way they swing it.
Click to expand...

Apparently the PL confirmed it did not go to VAR. However there doesn’t seem to be any actual quote from the PL or PGMOL to that effect, only relayed second hand - I saw it stated on Football London and somewhere else that the PL had said this.
 
Glenda's Legs said:
Apparently the PL confirmed it did not go to VAR. However there doesn’t seem to be any actual quote from the PL or PGMOL to that effect, only relayed second hand - I saw it stated on Football London and somewhere else that the PL had said this.
Click to expand...

What an absolute shambles that 2 days after the incident we have nothing official to say who gave the decision or why.

So do we think Atkinson gave the red, and then VAR had a look behind the scenes to clarify and didn’t see anything ‘clear and obvious’ to overrule? The only fail in process being that we weren’t notified of that by Sky or the stadium screens?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back