Scum (A) 24/09- 2PM - SUPER ANGE 🥰

  • 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!

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

I can understand why they gave the handball but the problem is the inconsistencies. A lot of stuff Woolwich did went unchecked. Same with Sheffield United.
As I've mentioned before, in seasons past they'd issue guidance on being more or less strict with handballs. A few seasons ago it was zero tolerance. Last season it was "well we can't expect defenders to have their arms amputated."

I just don't know what the fuck the rule is anymore.
 
As I've mentioned before, in seasons past they'd issue guidance on being more or less strict with handballs. A few seasons ago it was zero tolerance. Last season it was "well we can't expect defenders to have their arms amputated."

I just don't know what the fuck the rule is anymore.
The rule that made most sense to me was basically it is handball if it is deemed intentional handball, stopping a clear goalscoring opportunity, or the hand is in an unnatural position.

I could only put that handball down as stopping a clear goalscoring opportunity, which was unfortunate, and not intentional or in an unnatural position.

The problem with the Sissoko handball in the CL final was his hand was away from his body and they deemed it zero tolerance, and our players had fair warning that was the rule. even if it is a stupid rule.

I agree this just leads to players intentionally crossing or shooting the ball, hoping for a deflection or a handball, as opposed to it actually being a handball worth penalising.
 
The rule that made most sense to me was basically it is handball if it is deemed intentional handball, stopping a clear goalscoring opportunity, or the hand is in an unnatural position.

I could only put that handball down as stopping a clear goalscoring opportunity, which was unfortunate, and not intentional or in an unnatural position.

The problem with the Sissoko handball in the CL final was his hand was away from his body and they deemed it zero tolerance, and our players had fair warning that was the rule. even if it is a stupid rule.

I agree this just leads to players intentionally crossing or shooting the ball, hoping for a deflection or a handball, as opposed to it actually being a handball worth penalising.
Like when I was a kid- it had to be intentional - ie the player made an obvious attempt to handle the ball - the simpler the game/rules are the better it is for everyone- law makers trying to be too clever when your average referee (indeed most) is as thick as shite let alone capable of critical thinking or rational decision making.
 
Like when I was a kid- it had to be intentional - ie the player made an obvious attempt to handle the ball - the simpler the game/rules are the better it is for everyone- law makers trying to be too clever when your average referee (indeed most) is as thick as shite let alone capable of critical thinking or rational decision making.
Yeah, but the problem always comes when someone handballs on the line and it isn't intentional. I remember Robbie Keane got sent off doing it for us, I think it was against Bolton in a 3-1 win at home, but it was a long long time ago before any of these rules. But it clearly wasn't intentional. His hand just got in the way, cleared the ball off the line (where his body was anyway) and it was a harsh sending off, and pen, and goal to concede.

But even then it was at the refs discretion, and you could understand his decision, even if it was a bit poor and pointless because the game was over and it was 3-0 to Spurs at the time and Keane didn't benefit anything by doing it intentionally.
 
Last edited:
I was intrigued to see how this game played out as, for me, it was hard to call before the game. Two coaches with similar intentions, them much further down the line with development and recruitment, us at an early stage of development.

First 30 minutes they were well on top of us, not so much with the ball, but their work off the ball, both in tactical approach and the application of that approach. We struggled to get out of our half. For all that, Woolwich didn't actually turn any of it into tangible quality chances, and were pretty fortunate (based on quality of chances) to go 1-0 up due to a really poor piece of football. Kulusevski has time and space and just decides to piss away the ball and then doesn't try hard enough to chase it back, Udogie and Johnson then make a real dogs dinner of defending and to round it off Romero slices a shit shot into his own net.

I wasn't particularly impressed by Johnson, thought his lack of technical smarts wasn't helping us play out (and Son isn't exactly great at receiving under pressure either) and for that first 30 minutes of Arse pressure, our midfielders really struggled to break the second layer, when we'd worked hard to break the first. He also only seemed capable of running in straight vertical lines and also didn't contribute without the ball enough. Our forward players are the weak link when faced with a hard collective press. Kulusevski was marginally more press resistant than Johnson and Son. Sarr's got a great engine and works hard, but he can be a little technically wanting at times and Porro isn't always brilliant under pressure either. Udogie however, is a really cool fucker under pressure, with the ball if not always without it.

A combination of us starting to break the press and Arse scoring saw (and maybe fatigue) saw their high press start to shell backwards, and from the half hour mark (ish) we started to control the game with the ball, and give or take the odd moments, this lasted until the 80th minute and Ange's second round of substitutions.

I thought we looked better with Soloman, who was more capable of helping us work the ball in and out of tight spaces.

Maddison continues to impress me, but not for the things I expected him to do, but for some of the other stuff. He's braver than I thought interns of showing for the ball in deeper areas to help us break press, he's also more pressure resistant, and his work without the ball is better than I thought too. With the ball, his work to set up both goals was quality. Son's finishes were also excellent.

Bissouma needed to acclimatise, but once he did he got better and was really good, with and without the ball. Udogie is really good in this system.

The second round of subs really weakened us. I get the Maddison one, we didn't want to take a chance on this injury. The Son one was strange, we weren't crossing the ball much and Son was playing pretty well. Either way, the subs definitely left us weaker and Arse got back into the game and finished the last 15 minutes the stronger team.

The ref was really fucking poor, again. Missed a clear yellow for White and a stone wall red for Nketiah, which even if he missed, VAR refs should have made him look at, and there were a few other poor calls.

I've got no problem with the penalty. That is actually one of the clearest examples of what a hand ball pen should look like, Romero has his arm out and stops a goal bound shot from close, which could well have been a goal if it doesn't hit his hand, accidental or not, and regardless of it being close to him.
For their first goal we actually had the ball in their third. If you watch it back kulu dribbles all the way across but has no one to pass to and loses the ball. Now this is where if you have 3CMs plus full backs tucking leaves us short. If porro sticks out wide then May be kulu has a pass on. But porro is nowhere to be seen so kulu has to run with the ball and ends up losing it. Just wish we have a bit more width. When teams like goons press it’s no point flooding the midfield all the time it gets congested and more often than not there is not an easy pass on. If FBs stay wide then there is at least some out all option.
 
Would have liked to have won, felt like it was an opportunity missed. They were missing Trossard, Partey, Timber and Martinelli, and then Rice went off at half time.


Rice was bought to replace Partey and he’s always injured anyway. Timber just got here and hasn’t played enough to say for sure he makes them better, he’s very small and limited with the ball.

Martinelli and Trossard were missing, the rest is excuses.
 
The rule that made most sense to me was basically it is handball if it is deemed intentional handball, stopping a clear goalscoring opportunity, or the hand is in an unnatural position.

I could only put that handball down as stopping a clear goalscoring opportunity, which was unfortunate, and not intentional or in an unnatural position.

The problem with the Sissoko handball in the CL final was his hand was away from his body and they deemed it zero tolerance, and our players had fair warning that was the rule. even if it is a stupid rule.

I agree this just leads to players intentionally crossing or shooting the ball, hoping for a deflection or a handball, as opposed to it actually being a handball worth penalising.

Yeah I don't have a problem with giving the Romero handball on Sunday, it was different to the one against Utd as this was probably going in and the one against Utd was going high and probably over.

Different rules in Europe though which makes it even more confusing because it seems like any ball to hand is handball regardless of cirsunstsnce or context, the Eriksen one last week against Bayern didn't make any sense.
 
Yeah I don't have a problem with giving the Romero handball on Sunday, it was different to the one against Utd as this was probably going in and the one against Utd was going high and probably over.

Different rules in Europe though which makes it even more confusing because it seems like any ball to hand is handball regardless of cirsunstsnce or context, the Eriksen one last week against Bayern didn't make any sense.
Didn't one of the Goons handball it first any way, so if it had went in instead of hitting Romero's Hand the goal technically wouldn't have been allowed ?
 
Not only did MotD show it, with repeated replays, but it was a major talking point in the chitchat part with all concerned - including Ian Wright - agreeing that N-Word should have been sent off

Nick Young Wtf GIF
 
I’m not sure how he stayed on ‘by the letter of the law’

Studs up
High
Out of control
Dangerous

Neville commentated if he’d made proper contact with vicario he would’ve been off

How does missing ….. and not breaking a leg’ excuse intent ?
Indeed that is what I said should make any diff if he made contact. Does that mean you can make flying dangerous tackles and as long as you don’t make contact it’s only a yellow.
 
Only gripe for me is withdrawing Son for Ricky who offered next to nothing, would have liked to see Sonny have a chance to write his name in the history of this rivalry in a big way with a third
Based on Richarlison's 1+1 last game after he was subbed on, it's hard to argue it was a bad decision (at the moment of the decision). Also replacing Maddison with Højbjerg might have been the bad decision.
 
Based on Richarlison's 1+1 last game after he was subbed on, it's hard to argue it was a bad decision (at the moment of the decision). Also replacing Maddison with Højbjerg might have been the bad decision.

Maddison went down clutching his knee though so i reckon it was also precautionary.

He is integral to our first XI so need to keep him fit
 
Back
Top Bottom