What bit is illegal?Rules refer to illegal fainting. Do one, pal
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...
What bit is illegal?Rules refer to illegal fainting. Do one, pal
Now that I do agree with. It’s genuinely baffled me how Son could have been said to have “completed” his run up. He was a couple of yards away from the ball when he stopped for a millisecond.Ref Watch: Dermot Gallagher's verdict on decisions in Tottenham's win over Rochdale
While a stutter during a run-up to a penalty is allowed in the Laws of the Game, if a player is deemed to have feinted at the end of his run, the rules state a yellow card must be given and an indirect free-kick awarded to the opposing team.
"I'm not sure that the VAR was used there," added Gallagher. "It was certainly used to arrive at the penalty. It started outside the box, and finished inside, in the old days that would be a free-kick and is rightly a penalty today.
"Paul Tierney probably made that decision himself, and there's no evidence for me it came down to VAR. What I think is that Paul judged Son in his run-up had got too close to the ball, and therefore completed his run-up and that's why he disallowed the goal and gave an indirect free-kick, as per law."
if the stopping in the run up was not allowed then Gallagher would have said here - the fact he says its the end of the run up and the wording of the rule shows that the stop is allowed - ref fucked up.
The bit about unsportsmanship behaviourWhat bit is illegal?
Gallagher obviously wants VAR 12 decisions and 12 right - Except he says the Lamella one is right and discounts VAR for the Son one - i am sure he went to VAR after blowing his whistle for Son.Now that I do agree with. It’s genuinely baffled me how Son could have been said to have “completed” his run up. He was a couple of yards away from the ball when he stopped for a millisecond.
I’ve maintained from the offset that the ref got it wrong, even with his VAR. I’ve just not been sure what constitutes an illegal feint.
Goalies try to gain every advantage over the penalty taker but never get pulled for it. The penalty is given because the attacking team was offended against. It seems bloody unfair that the penalty taker isn’t then allowed to even the playing field by using a bit of smoke & mirrors. In this case, Sonny is carded for doing something he is perfectly entitled to do & it gave Rochdale a head of steam for a while. They must have thought it was game on when every decision was going their way.
Happily it didn’t affect the outcome, but if this is how the rule is going to be interpreted from now on, it re writes how penalties will be scrutinised.
If it was (hopefully) just another brain fart in a long list of brain farts from last night, then the ref needs to spend a few months in non league.
This is an example of an illegal penalty kick, the run-up is fine, the feint is in the process of kicking the ball, the action after the run-up.Now that I do agree with. It’s genuinely baffled me how Son could have been said to have “completed” his run up. He was a couple of yards away from the ball when he stopped for a millisecond.
I’ve maintained from the offset that the ref got it wrong, even with his VAR. I’ve just not been sure what constitutes an illegal feint.
Goalies try to gain every advantage over the penalty taker but never get pulled for it. The penalty is given because the attacking team was offended against. It seems bloody unfair that the penalty taker isn’t then allowed to even the playing field by using a bit of smoke & mirrors. In this case, Sonny is carded for doing something he is perfectly entitled to do & it gave Rochdale a head of steam for a while. They must have thought it was game on when every decision was going their way.
Happily it didn’t affect the outcome, but if this is how the rule is going to be interpreted from now on, it re writes how penalties will be scrutinised.
If it was (hopefully) just another brain fart in a long list of brain farts from last night, then the ref needs to spend a few months in non league.
Where does it say stopping the run up is unsportsmanlike?The bit about unsportsmanship behaviour
It was 6-1.I see 4:0 or 4:1 type of victory on the replay if Son and Moura get a chance to start together
No doubt at all in my mind. If that ref could have gone to VAR for a contentious throw in he would have done.Gallagher obviously wants VAR 12 decisions and 12 right - Except he says the Lamella one is right and discounts VAR for the Son one - i am sure he went to VAR after blowing his whistle for Son.
Then never bring up Nani's goal again or any other instance where we've been screwed over by the refs. Shocking
''What constitutes “unsporting behavior” is not clear, but has generally been interpreted as running right up to the ball, pausing for the keeper to move in one direction, and then kicking it in the other direction. That kind of move was rampant for many years before this rule was clarified as stated above. However, “feinting” in the run-up is fine and dandy, and it happens all the time when there are penalty kicks in football.
Son runs up towards the ball and clearly hesitates in his run-up, however he then takes another full step before shooting the ball. Notably, the keeper does not take the bait — Josh Lillis in fact takes a small step forward before Son takes the kick, but does not look at all imbalanced. He does go the wrong direction, but it’s difficult to make the argument that Son’s stopping his run is what made him guess incorrectly.''
Sums it up nicely.
Yep, load of old shit. But that's what it was apparently written up as. The penalty was fine.LOL unsporting behavior by trying to score a penalty fuck me
this was shown earlier
WATCH: Dutch Super Cup hit by VAR controversy as Feyenoord have goal ruled out and referee awards Vitesse penalty
this is VAR working correctly - err no thanks.
No not really.
I don't have anyone on ignore what so special about you that I got to start.
You ramble so much as usual bitch would you pls get off my dick this morning
Oh, hello everyone. I'm Daniel.
LOL unsporting behavior by trying to score a penalty fuck me
Could there be a place for a challenge method as in tennisEven if the decisions are right there's no place for it. Can't stop start a game that's designed to flow.
The thing is the decisions are still open to interpretat, so even with VAR there is debate about the interpretation, "excessive force" is open to interpretation of the ref, and every week having had multiple replays and slow-mo's there isn't always agreement.
For the record I love goal-line tech, it's fully automatic, it's confirmed within seconds of the ball crossing the line and it's definitive as it's checking a measurement, did the whole of the ball cross the line? yes by 1mm, no by 1mm. There is no interpretation, I trust it.
I said it earlier. Take the poxy 'up for misinterpretation' rule awayNow that I do agree with. It’s genuinely baffled me how Son could have been said to have “completed” his run up. He was a couple of yards away from the ball when he stopped for a millisecond.
I’ve maintained from the offset that the ref got it wrong, even with his VAR. I’ve just not been sure what constitutes an illegal feint.
Goalies try to gain every advantage over the penalty taker but never get pulled for it. The penalty is given because the attacking team was offended against. It seems bloody unfair that the penalty taker isn’t then allowed to even the playing field by using a bit of smoke & mirrors. In this case, Sonny is carded for doing something he is perfectly entitled to do & it gave Rochdale a head of steam for a while. They must have thought it was game on when every decision was going their way.
Happily it didn’t affect the outcome, but if this is how the rule is going to be interpreted from now on, it re writes how penalties will be scrutinised.
If it was (hopefully) just another brain fart in a long list of brain farts from last night, then the ref needs to spend a few months in non league.
This is an example of an illegal penalty kick, the run-up is fine, the feint is in the process of kicking the ball, the action after the run-up.
Imagine a review in the hands of Tony Pullis or Mourinho. Also when do you review, when the ball goes out of play, when the other team have won the ball back are are now on a counter-attack 4vs2? If you change how the game is officiated then you change how it's played, even worse is you now have two codes of the game, the pro game and the game without VAR. The beauty of the game is even in the park the laws of the game can be applied to a kick about with your mates, but more importantly our kids will not be playing the same game.Could there be a place for a challenge method as in tennis
I'm not sure about giving either side as many as 3 each ... maybe just 2 each
This way fans can relax and enjoy the football with emotions fully engaged knowing that the game won't repeatedly go to into question
But if team is certain that on obvious injustice has been carried out that has effected them severely i.e. a goal scored/not scored or player sent off/allowed to remain ...... that this can be rectified
If the team itself cannot spot an incident that later proves to have gone against them then it can be considered within the tolerance of human error and we can all agree that tolerance is acceptable
If a grievance happens once the challenges have been used..., tough .... the flow of the game and the nature of football has to be considered and protected
Just throwing it out there