Did VAR come into this?
I thought that prick of a referee saw the foul and thought 'That's a yellow card' then saw the injury and thought 'That's a red card'
-
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...
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
Did VAR come into this?
I thought that prick of a referee saw the foul and thought 'That's a yellow card' then saw the injury and thought 'That's a red card'
Never in a million years will they admit they fucked up
So does the ref now get a 3 match ban? What does it say for VAR? Surely the point of it is to overturn these wrong decisions before it costs a team 2 points?
They won't rescind it but the logic they've used to justify it opens a can of worms. I've seen players get nudged in the air by a defender, come down with their foot planted and torn an ACL, is that a red card too? Is a nudge endangering an opponent? Sanchez gave Gomes a bump in the chest and he stayed down winded for a minute, is that endangering an opponent? If you take a free kick and hit somebody in the balls, is that endangering an opponent? What about when Gomes caught Son in the face with his arm and drew blood? Every contact between opponents is theoretically endangering an opponent.
"The red card for Son was for endangering the safety of a player, which happened as a consequence of his initial challenge."
Isnt it amazing how this isnt applied in retrospect for the elbow to Sons face a minute earlier that could have permanantly blinded him if not for a cm or two and some luck..?
But clip someones ankles, and his studs get caught in the grass and the "initial challenge" put Gomez safety in danger.
So every foul should be a sending off then?
Isnt it amazing how this isnt applied in retrospect for the elbow to Sons face a minute earlier that could have permanantly blinded him if not for a cm or two and some luck..?
But clip someones ankles, and his studs get caught in the grass and the "initial challenge" put Gomez safety in danger.
So every foul should be a sending off then?
I get your point but the affects of the tackle shouldn't come into it.
There's many a reckless tackle that results in a yellow only, so unless the refs are going to red card everybody, regardless of the result, it should be a yellow only.
Atkinson should be held to account, fucking prick.
Oh look a poll! 
They fucking should but probably won't.
If it was a Liverpool player they would
If it was a Liverpool player they would
I would feel slightly less angry with the VAR and Ref's decision if they apologised and said in a statement "We made a mistake" but the silence is deafening.
My tackle certainly endangers safety, hit or miss. Lock up yer daughters.
This is absolutely the point - we have been robbed of 2 points by a system that is supposed to be a 'fail safe' to ensure that obviously incorrect decisions are not allowed to stand. Interesting that the review was by an independent panel - maybe that's how VAR should be run as they are clearly not afraid of overturning a referees decision.
Who are you trying to kid?
I had a dream that the FA did the right thing and rescinded Sonny's red card......it was a dream, wasn't it?
All adds to the drama for the Amazon documentary.
All adds to the drama for the Amazon documentary.
I see what you're saying but what if the foot was dislocated and not hanging at 90 degrees? What if it was a grotesque injury not clear to the naked eye? What if a tackle causes something internal to go wrong? What if someone eventually knows that making a meal of an injury will subsequently see one of the opposition sent of thus leaving his team with a numerical advantage? All someone would have to do is to get clattered, scream, get subbed and bang it's 11 vs 10 due to this newfound Sonny/Gomes rule.
It was a freak injury and it needs to be treated at such. To alter the rule book for one mental occurrence that nobody saw coming when that tackle was made opens up too many floodgates for other issues. It's a bit sinister yes but the way in which Gomes tries to steady himself caused the break, the tackle didn't it merely out Gomes in a position where he tried to steady himself.
The ironic thing is if the bloke does a swan lake and dives the leg doesn't break. It's shit luck but the negatives far outweigh the positives in letting the red stand. It was a poor challenge, one of yellow proportions, the aftermath made it look like a red but I challenge anyone watching that moment to pause it before we realise what's gone on and to say, first time of watching it that it's any more than a red. Tough one and I'm surprised they reversed it but the knock on effect of letting any foul that leads to bad injury become an automatic red is far too dangerous. Most of the time we don't know the severity of an injury until a day or so after the game so it's just too grey an area to have a set of rules for one thing and to let the others pass on by.
Three people believe in Santa Clause
This is not asking if they should rescind - of course they should - but instead, WILL they rescind it after the statement they gave explaining the decision?
I think they've left themselves in a position where they won't admit their statement was wrong and out of stubbornness will refuse to rescind the red card.
Twats.
P.S. This is my first attempt at a poll so I'm sorry if I fuck it up.
I think they've left themselves in a position where they won't admit their statement was wrong and out of stubbornness will refuse to rescind the red card.
Twats.
P.S. This is my first attempt at a poll so I'm sorry if I fuck it up.