Wolves 0-1 Tottenham: Verdict Thread

[SSB]

One thing that boiled my piss yesterday was the handful of utter cunts booing the knee.

There was a barmy army chant that was going at the time that drowned out a few by us.

 

[The Saturday Boy]

Not according to the new guidelines which make it clear that contact does not automatically mean it is a foul. From the Billy Wright I thought it was a stonewall penalty but watching it back it is clear Alli initiates the contact. Atkinson on VAR would be able to see that clearly so should have overturned it.

Sorry, I may not have explained myself clearly. There was contact and the on field referee decided it was worthy of a penalty and that decision should take precedence. If there is no contact, it is a clear and obvious error, but if there is contact then VAR should not overturn it. Likewise, if the on field referee thinks there has been no contact or minimal contact (Semedo) and decides no penalty then it has to be pretty conclusive for VAR to over turn it.

Clear and obvious has to mean that the on field referee should assumed to be correct unless it is absolutely clear they are not. What I have seen with regards the given penalty and Semedo's which was not is differing opinions which suggests it isn't clear and obvious.

Atkinson was right, in my opinion, to defer to the on field referee.

 

[Carsy]

Disagree 100% not gold tinted specs at all, Alli instigates the contact, which the authorities said they were trying to eliminate. Semedo there was actual contact, thigh on thigh (minimal but knocked him off balance) neither were pens for me but if one is given, the other should be too

Think it’s or because they are borderline the on field decision stands. VAR is there to eliminate the ‘obvious mistakes’ seeing as lots of different opinions amongst ourselves, it’s not clear and obvious, is it.

 

[Throbber3]

Well the appointment of Attwell as a premier league referee is a clear and obvious error but that’s not getting overturned either.
I am still snaky about it .

 

[Wilf Wolf]

Sorry, I may not have explained myself clearly. There was contact and the on field referee decided it was worthy of a penalty and that decision should take precedence. If there is no contact, it is a clear and obvious error, but if there is contact then VAR should not overturn it. Likewise, if the on field referee thinks there has been no contact or minimal contact (Semedo) and decides no penalty then it has to be pretty conclusive for VAR to over turn it.

Clear and obvious has to mean that the on field referee should assumed to be correct unless it is absolutely clear they are not. What I have seen with regards the given penalty and Semedo's which was not is differing opinions which suggests it isn't clear and obvious.

Atkinson was right, in my opinion, to defer to the on field referee.

If you watch Alli veer into Sa it looks pretty bloody clear and obvious the on field ref has been conned.

 

[Carsy]

Well the appointment of Attwell as a premier league referee is a clear and obvious error but that’s not getting overturned either.
I am still snaky about it .

Really? Thought you’ve been quite impartial on your opinion of Attwell tbf

 

[The Saturday Boy]

If you watch Alli veer into Sa it looks pretty bloody clear and obvious the on field ref has been conned.

I watched it. And although I agree that Alli went looking for it I don't think it was sufficient to overturn an on field decision. I feel the same about the Semedo one, which I think is more of a penalty. It could be described as poor refereeing decisions but not enough for VAR to overturn in my opinion...either of them.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

In rugby VAR world they would ask "is there any reason why I can't give a penalty".

And the answer is yes, Dele Alli jumped into the goalkeeper, rather than the goalkeeper fouling him. No penalty.

The Semedo one isn't a penalty either, didn't look it in real time, doesn't now.

 

[PuntsWolf]

No one can honestly look at the Alli one from the TV gantry and say it doesn’t look a pen?

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Neither Attwell nor Atkinson only have that view though, do they?

I'm happy to say when it's a penalty against us, I thought it was yesterday in real time but I'm 90 yards away and a mile up in the sky. He's clearly jumped into the goalkeeper there. Which is stupid to be honest, if he'd just carried on running rather than cheating (as he did all afternoon, the dickhead) there'd probably have been a foul anyway.

 

[Kenny]

No one can honestly look at the Alli one from the TV gantry and say it doesn’t look a pen?

Already said at the game I thought it was a nailed on penalty. For me if the VAR have that angle available then they should be asking the ref on the pitch to have another look at it.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Our South Bankers never properly called it out though...

Clearly they don't watch the game properly. The inferior stand. At least we couldn't see.

 

[Throbber3]

Really? Thought you’ve been quite impartial on your opinion of Attwell tbf

I may have to be a little more direct when talking about the bunglec##t then

 

[leon0286]

For years and year and years, every Match of the Day or similar post-game punditry programme, constantly brought up one area of criticism regarding refereeing..... 'Consistency'.

VAR last season, with regards to offside decisions, for example, brought definitive 'Consistency' to decisions.
Offside was in fact offside, now of course there was times when decisions were so marginal and tight that it did chalk off goals....But it brought 'Consistency' that people wanted.

But now we're returning to subjectivity again.
And we know what that likely means, one side getting screwed over in a game, more than the opposition.

"A toenail being offside" was something that some pundits used to suggest the rule needed changing.
But at least "Every toenail being offside" was being given as offside. No doubts across this season, we will see offside decisions which are not being given, despite being 'More offside' than one which has already been given, earlier in the season.

Goal line technology is considered 'definitive'.
We never have the debate about allowing scenarios where the ball is only 95% over the line, to 'Allow more goals'.

We're just returning to more subjectivity, which will simply bring back the whole 'Big club bias' debate back.
The better sides in the league create more chances, and are therefore more likely to benefit from 'narrow' offside decisions being ignored.

 

[PuntsWolf]

Already said at the game I thought it was a nailed on penalty. For me if the VAR have that angle available then they should be asking the ref on the pitch to have another look at it.

From my seat in the NB it looked exactly like what happened. Alli was looking for it, Sa over commits, Alli obliges by ensuring contact.

As Bear said, he doesn’t “Jump into him”, just his momentum. He certainly jumps and is already going down before the contact. The gantry camera shows that. It also shows Sa moving towards him.

Sa’s position as Alli shifts it


Sa’s position as they come together


It’s a pen whether Alli is looking for it or not.

Look where Alli took the ball, let him go round you. He was never trying to score, simply win a pen. So if you stay out his way he’s fucked it up.

They ask the ref to have another look, see the gantry angle and Sa wipe him out - pen. The other angle is deceptive and makes it look like he’s jumped 90 degrees into him, he hasn’t.

 

[PuntsWolf]

For years and year and years, every Match of the Day or similar post-game punditry programme, constantly brought up one area of criticism regarding refereeing..... 'Consistency'.

VAR last season, with regards to offside decisions, for example, brought definitive 'Consistency' to decisions.
Offside was in fact offside, now of course there was times when decisions were so marginal and tight that it did chalk off goals....But it brought 'Consistency' that people wanted.

But now we're returning to subjectivity again.
And we know what that likely means, one side getting screwed over in a game, more than the opposition.

"A toenail being offside" was something that some pundits used to suggest the rule needed changing.
But at least "Every toenail being offside" was being given as offside. No doubts across this season, we will see offside decisions which are not being given, despite being 'More offside' than one which has already been given, earlier in the season.

Goal line technology is considered 'definitive'.
We never have the debate about allowing scenarios where the ball is only 95% over the line, to 'Allow more goals'.

We're just returning to more subjectivity, which will simply bring back the whole 'Big club bias' debate back.
The better sides in the league create more chances, and are therefore more likely to benefit from 'narrow' offside decisions being ignored.

There’s no subjectivity on the offsides. They’ve just changed it to a 5mm leeway. They said that fixes 2/3s of the close calls. But 6mm offside is still going to be stupidly tight, and players/fans/managers are still going to be pissed - Wilson/Newcastle/Bruce

 

[Paul]

From my seat in the NB it looked exactly like what happened. Alli was looking for it, Sa over commits, Alli obliges by ensuring contact.

As Bear said, he doesn’t “Jump into him”, just his momentum. He certainly jumps and is already going down before the contact. The gantry camera shows that. It also shows Sa moving towards him.

Sa’s position as Alli shifts it
View attachment 4251

Sa’s position as they come together
View attachment 4252

It’s a pen whether Alli is looking for it or not.

Look where Alli took the ball, let him go round you. He was never trying to score, simply win a pen. So if you stay out his way he’s fucked it up.

They ask the ref to have another look, see the gantry angle and Sa wipe him out - pen. The other angle is deceptive and makes it look like he’s jumped 90 degrees into him, he hasn’t.

Doesn't those photos reiterate what everyone else was saying, Look at Allis position in relation to the 6 yard box in the top picture and then the bottom one a split second later he's moved to his right, looking for the contact ?

 

[VanWolfie]

Doesn't those photos reiterate what everyone else was saying, Look at Allis position in relation to the 6 yard box in the top picture and then the bottom one a split second later he's moved to his right, looking for the contact ?

Yes, the next frame shows him turning to the right into Sa.

 

[PuntsWolf]

Doesn't those photos reiterate what everyone else was saying, Look at Allis position in relation to the 6 yard box in the top picture and then the bottom one a split second later he's moved to his right, looking for the contact ?

Which is what I said…even above, and in every post!

Think in my first post on the matter I said “they meet in the middle”. That’s literally what happens.

We (everyone) can keep ignoring science if you want. But Sa’s movement is perpendicular to Alli. Alli kicks the ball away and jumps in the air the natural momentum means they meet in the middle.

It we pretend that Sa doesn’t move and momentum isn’t a thing then yeah - no pen. Sadly Alli can’t change direction in mid air

Yes, the next frame shows him turning to the right into Sa.

It doesn’t. See above

 

[VanWolfie]

Which is what I said…even above, and in every post!

Think in my first post on the matter I said “they meet in the middle”. That’s literally what happens.

We (everyone) can keep ignoring science if you want. But Sa’s movement is perpendicular to Alli. Alli kicks the ball away and jumps in the air the natural momentum means they meet in the middle.

It we pretend that Sa doesn’t move and momentum isn’t a thing then yeah - no pen. Sadly Alli can’t change direction in mid air

It doesn’t. See above

The next frame(s) are not above.