*** OMT Tottenham Hotspur v Sporting CP ***

[Hotshot-Tottenham]

That blurry image proves nothing. Can’t even see the ball properly. Has the ball reached Emerson yet? If he has already made contact then the line is drawn too late in the phase of play and needs to go back a frame = Kane further back. You can’t even see where the entire foot of the defender behind Kane is - could he be level with Kane? It has been said before, but the refresh rates of the tv pictures simply aren’t high enough to make these incredibly tight decisions viable.

maybe one day VAR really will be perfect and faultless. But all the fans will be long gone by then. It’s beyond farcical.

Totally right about the refresh rate.

The ball is an elongated blur in the image, so is it arriving on Royal’s head or leaving it? We don’t know.

 

[P.D.]

no, nothing is subjective or a matter of opinion, everything can be measured accurately if you put enough time and effort into it

In this type of scenario I'm not sure it can, you're talking milliseconds here and with the frame rate of filming there's always the tiniest bit of doubt in decisions like this. I thought they were reviewing it a while back to stick with on field decision or give the attacker the benefit of the doubt.

 

[glasgowspur]

So if the direction of travel of the ball is irrelevant why don't defending teams stand at the half way line for corners?
Ball has to go backwards but as soon as it moves everyone is offside

 

[FatBloke]

Totally right about the refresh rate.

The ball is an elongated blur in the image, so is it arriving on Royal’s head or leaving it? We don’t know.

This is my biggest single gripe about VAR. How can you make decisions based on a couple of cm when a player could move double that between frames? But the way TV treats it is as though the frame is always taken from exactly the right moment, when it's clearly not sometimes.

 

[braineclipse]

So if the direction of travel of the ball is irrelevant why don't defending teams stand at the half way line for corners?
Ball has to go backwards but as soon as it moves everyone is offside

Because the attackers would be behind the ball and thus not offside. Unlike Kane.

Also because there's no offside for corners, goal kicks and throw ins.

 

[DubSpur]

So if the direction of travel of the ball is irrelevant why don't defending teams stand at the half way line for corners?
Ball has to go backwards but as soon as it moves everyone is offside

Because the players are behind the ball when it is played, therefore not in an offside position.

 

[FatBloke]

So if the direction of travel of the ball is irrelevant why don't defending teams stand at the half way line for corners?
Ball has to go backwards but as soon as it moves everyone is offside

There are qualified refs on here who probably know better but, AFAIK, an attacking player cannot be offside from a corner as he will by definition be coming from behind the ball. It's only if there's a second phase, e.g. a flick-on, that offside comes into play.

 

[P.D.]

Despite all that it does mask what was a turgid performance for 60 minutes and could easily have gone 2-0 down. We can't just say it's because Kulu is missing, we don't appear able to move the ball quickly unless it's a counter attack and there's no off the ball movement. A lot of that is usually down to a lack of confidence but feels like we've been playing this way the whole season.

 

[Gazza Dazzla]

So if the direction of travel of the ball is irrelevant why don't defending teams stand at the half way line for corners?
Ball has to go backwards but as soon as it moves everyone is offside

Because it’s about whether the player is in front of the ball or not, rather than direction of travel. At a corner all players will be behind the ball because it’s taken on the goal line.

 

[braineclipse]

We were chasing an equaliser so i would bloody well hope we would push them at home, there was no quality and frankly we were lucky not to have been 2 down before the equaliser.

Only because they were lucky to be ahead at that time. At push, take risks, brick happens. Though I do think a couple of players lost their heads a bit in a couple of situations.

Felt quite confident that we would get at least a goal back.

 

[Gazza Dazzla]

Because the attackers would be behind the ball and thus not offside. Unlike Kane.

Also because there's no offside for corners, goal kicks and throw ins.

Have you got different footage or stills to the rest of us?

 

[Hotshot-Tottenham]

This is my biggest single gripe about VAR. How can you make decisions based on a couple of cm when a player could move double that between frames? But the way TV treats it is as though the frame is always taken from exactly the right moment, when it's clearly not sometimes.

Yep.

There needs to be a “demilitarized zone” between the lines of the width of a ball to allow flexibility and give the advantage to the attacker.

 

[braineclipse]

I cannot believe you thought that first half wasn’t bad. We looked clueless….

We obviously see things differently.

As the game pans out we can see the difficulties we get when going behind so Conte obviously plays it pretty safe from the start. I think that's fine.

Thought we played some really good football at times in that first half. Not often enough to be a good half, but often enough not to be a bad half.

 

[glasgowspur]

Because the attackers would be behind the ball and thus not offside. Unlike Kane.

Also because there's no offside for corners, goal kicks and throw ins.

I know there's none for a throw, wasn't aware of the goal kick rule.
Not speaking specifically about the incident tonight buy some saying that direction of travel is immaterial, which is not how i understood the rule.

 

[billyiddo]

Andros Townsend. Absolutely spot on with how every football fan feels I would say

"The bottom line for me, whether it's offside or onside is irrelevant. I don't like VAR for this reason. As a football fan, you're killing the raw emotion of the game. You've seen Conte running on the pitch, injured players are running on the pitch.

Harry Kane has gone mad, the fans have gone mad. And then 10 minutes later the goal gets disallowed. This is not what football is about. Football is about raw emotion. Slowly VAR is dragging out the raw emotion of the game we love."

You shouldn't not try to get the decisions right because it ruins the drama - it seems like it was the right call going by the talk that Kane was ahead of the ball.

Only because they were lucky to be ahead at that time. At push, take risks, brick happens. Though I do think a couple of players lost their heads a bit in a couple of situations.

Felt quite confident that we would get at least a goal back.

Why were they lucky to be ahead? They kept us at arms length and capitalised on the chance that came their way.

 

[AjaxDeSuperYids]

Can we lose in Marseille and still go through?

 

[Baleforce]

Yep.

There needs to be a “demilitarized zone” between the lines of the width of a ball to allow flexibility and give the advantage to the attacker.

Why should the attacker get the advantage?

 

[billyiddo]

Can we lose in Marseille and still go through?

I don't think so - a draw in the other game would leave the 3 of us on 7 with Marsielle top and Lisbon would have the better head to head. Either team wins the other game and they are above on points.


Tonight was a terrible result

 

[Finney Is Back]

Despite all that it does mask what was a turgid performance for 60 minutes and could easily have gone 2-0 down. We can't just say it's because Kulu is missing, we don't appear able to move the ball quickly unless it's a counter attack and there's no off the ball movement. A lot of that is usually down to a lack of confidence but feels like we've been playing this way the whole season.

I actually disagree with that. The first half was rather turgid but not the second…. I was pleased to see the urgency I our second half performance as it showed me what I have always believed and that is that our lack of attacking prowess is because of our manager’s tactics and not the players.

 

[Hotshot-Tottenham]

Why should the attacker get the advantage?

Because the game is entertainment and its currency is goals.

I don’t think a goal should be ruled out in a situation like this when the attacker hasn’t gained a material advantage that has unduly affected the outcome.