Thracian Posted 10 January 2016 Posted 10 January 2016 If he couldn't see anything why did he give it? Are you saying that he guessed that some incident had happened and he just got lucky? There's no proven reason. He may have reacted to the crowd. Or to some gesture by a Spurs player. Either way that's not just totally wrong but unforgivable. The pictures suggest he couldn't see and even if he could he certainly couldn't have seen anything that amounted to a penalty. I'd be very interested to hear what he did have to say and how he arrived at his decision. Football in this country is dominated by two cities - London and Manchester. The very places which are the centre of the media in the south and the north. Coincidence? Biggest cities and therefore most money? I don't necessarily believe it. I believe there's a bias because the pressure on referees is greater when it comes to the main city teams. Remember Fergie and his watch-pointing? Manchester United got more extra-minutes than anyone else I can remember. Are people seriously saying no referee was ever intimidated? If there'd been playback today there'd never have been a controversy. But if the referee didn't see that incident - or didn't see it clearly - but instead responded to the crowd or one of the Spurs player's reactions that is quite simply not fair and not the way games should be governed. I hope the evidence eventually makes the right or wrong clear. But, either way playbacks are needed and fast. There's nothing to fear from my point of view. I'm passionate about my club but I don't want to win unfairly. One of the things I'm so proud of is that we seem to approach the game properly and try to win within the rules. It doesn't make us soft. But it does make us honest.
Webbo Posted 10 January 2016 Posted 10 January 2016 For me this all raises the question of playbacks once more. Recognising how shamefully corrupt FIFA has been shown to be and how many players have been involved in various scandals over the years I've long failed to understand why football is so damned reluctant to allow video playbacks as a means of deciding uncertain situations. And yet they are. Why? Rugby and tennis use playbacks and it seems to work wonderfully. I'm not saying it guarantees the fair outcome but it helps enormously. So why not in football. Today's issue could have been sorted in seconds and we'd have doubtless been through to the next round as we'd deserved assuming Spurs didn't fashion something else in those closing minutes which didn't seem likely and which was very unlikely from the situation in which they were given a free goal. Have you watched rugby on the telly? Waiting 2-3 minutes everytime there's a decision to be made and then it's not always clear.I was watching the tigers yesterday and it added 10 minutes to each half. There's no proven reason. He may have reacted to the crowd. Or to some gesture by a Spurs player. Either way that's not just totally wrong but unforgivable. The pictures suggest he couldn't see and even if he could he certainly couldn't have seen anything that amounted to a penalty. I'd be very interested to hear what he did have to say and how he arrived at his decision. Football in this country is dominated by two cities - London and Manchester. The very places which are the centre of the media in the south and the north. Coincidence? Biggest cities and therefore most money? I don't necessarily believe it. I believe there's a bias because the pressure on referees is greater when it comes to the main city teams. Remember Fergie and his watch-pointing? Manchester United got more extra-minutes than anyone else I can remember. Are people seriously saying no referee was ever intimidated? If there'd been playback today there'd never have been a controversy. But if the referee didn't see that incident - or didn't see it clearly - but instead responded to the crowd or one of the Spurs player's reactions that is quite simply not fair and not the way games should be governed. I hope the evidence eventually makes the right or wrong clear. But, either way playbacks are needed and fast. There's nothing to fear from my point of view. I'm passionate about my club but I don't want to win unfairly. One of the things I'm so proud of is that we seem to approach the game properly and try to win within the rules. It doesn't make us soft. But it does make us honest. You're entitled to your opinion but I disagree.
Thracian Posted 10 January 2016 Posted 10 January 2016 Even if video playback was in place, that "handball" is still open to interpretation. Yes it was involuntary, but it did move the ball away out of his path. Personally I think it was harsh. For me it would have shown there was no intention whatsoever because Dyer hadn't the faintest idea where the ball was in any case.
Thracian Posted 10 January 2016 Posted 10 January 2016 Have you watched rugby on the telly? Waiting 2-3 minutes everytime there's a decision to be made and then it's not always clear.I was watching the tigers yesterday and it added 10 minutes to each half. You're entitled to your opinion but I disagree. From fans I've spoken to they quite like the drama of the playbacks. And a small amount of time is a small price to pay for the right decision, given that no referees I've ever come across seem able to consistently make the right decisions on their own. It's not as if penalty controversies are rare. We had one in the last game against Bournemouth when Vardy seemed to be clearly pushed in the box. Again, a playback might have helped. I don't think the referee gave it because he'd given us one penalty already and was inclined to be lenient the second time. But, while I've some sympathy, it wasn't (in my view) the right decision. Penalties are meant to be given in respect of the laws not on the basis some sort of "do they deserve it" analysis. Playbacks would help achieve that.
MC Prussian Posted 10 January 2016 Posted 10 January 2016 Unless you were stood where he stood you don't know what he could see. You may want to watch the replay on TV, then.
richardsfoxes Posted 10 January 2016 Posted 10 January 2016 Really hope we murder them in the replay, Spurs fan's are by far one of the most arrogant set of fans ive come across.
deep blue Posted 10 January 2016 Posted 10 January 2016 The ref doesn't get 16 replays, he has to make an instant decision. It was probably the wrong decision but it was an honest mistake. The summarises all agreed that the ref's view of the ball was blocked by the 2 players involved. If he can't see the incident clearly, then to give a pen is not an honest mistake but a dishonest (and incorrect) decision.
Mike Oxlong Posted 10 January 2016 Posted 10 January 2016 Unless you were stood where he stood you don't know what he could see. Fair point Danny Rose has a gloryhole in his back.
Webbo Posted 10 January 2016 Posted 10 January 2016 The summarises all agreed that the ref's view of the ball was blocked by the 2 players involved. If he can't see the incident clearly, then to give a pen is not an honest mistake but a dishonest (and incorrect) decision. Were the summarisers on the pitch? Nobody knows what the ref saw except the ref. A still from 150 feet away from totally the wrong angle proves nothing. I know I'm not convincing anyone and tbh I don't care. What's done is done and I can accept that.
Webbo Posted 10 January 2016 Posted 10 January 2016 Alright..calm down I'm calm it's everybody else who can't accept a different opinion.
deep blue Posted 10 January 2016 Posted 10 January 2016 A penalty is a harsh punishment for that offence, deliberate or not. Should be a indirect free kick for handballs unless obviously deliberate. You need to read the FA rules. It's easy enough to do online. It is only an offence if handling of the ball is deliberate.
Mike Oxlong Posted 10 January 2016 Posted 10 January 2016 I'm calm it's everybody else who can't accept a different opinion.
Collibosher70 Posted 10 January 2016 Posted 10 January 2016 It was aimed at everyone...it's gone...let's smash em up here
Larry_LCFC Posted 10 January 2016 Posted 10 January 2016 Wasyl needs to start on Wednesday just to 2 foot Rose.
Webbo Posted 10 January 2016 Posted 10 January 2016 It was aimed at everyone...it's gone...let's smash em up here
Izzy Posted 10 January 2016 Posted 10 January 2016 Have you watched rugby on the telly? Waiting 2-3 minutes everytime there's a decision to be made and then it's not always clear.I was watching the tigers yesterday and it added 10 minutes to each half. From fans I've spoken to they quite like the drama of the playbacks. And a small amount of time is a small price to pay for the right decision, given that no referees I've ever come across seem able to consistently make the right decisions on their own.I would guess the Leicester players spent a good two minutes remonstrating with the ref after he awarded the pen. Personally, I'd rather the ref went straight upstairs to get a decision during that time instead. I don't think the introduction of referring key decisions in either cricket or Rugby has weakened those sports as a spectacle. We need to do something in football to help the refs as the pace of the game gets faster and faster. The technology is available so we should embrace it IMO.
Thracian Posted 10 January 2016 Posted 10 January 2016 Really hope we murder them in the replay, Spurs fan's are by far one of the most arrogant set of fans ive come across. I hope so too but it won't right the wrong.
Webbo Posted 10 January 2016 Posted 10 January 2016 I would guess the Leicester players spent a good two minutes remonstrating with the ref after he awarded the pen. Personally, I'd rather the ref went straight upstairs to get a decision during that time instead. I don't think the introduction of referring key decisions in either cricket or Rugby has weakened those sports as a spectacle. We need to do something in football to help the refs as the pace of the game gets faster and faster. The technology is available so we should embrace it IMO. I think there was some talk of trialling it in Scotland next season. I don't have a problem with trying it out but I don't think it'll work.
Fez of Mahrez Posted 10 January 2016 Posted 10 January 2016 Such a shame given how comfortable we looked. Kane was on the pitch 25 minutes and didn't have a sniff. I'd have chucked on Simpson at RB and put RDL on the wing with 10 minutes left though. Our right side was the weak link all game.
Thracian Posted 10 January 2016 Posted 10 January 2016 A draw was a fair result in the context of possession and chances created over 90 mins Move along nothing to see here Since when have football matches been decided on chances created, free-kicks conceded, minutes in possession of the ball etc. They're supposed to be decided by the number of goals scored by each team. Goals donated by the referee are not supposed to come into it either!
Guest Col city fan Posted 10 January 2016 Posted 10 January 2016 Really proud of em. Especially the young left back, Gray and Shinji for that magic goal. Truth is though, a replay is what neither side really needed I guess.
Fez of Mahrez Posted 10 January 2016 Posted 10 January 2016 Oh and how bad was the BBC director? Only saw about 60 minutes of the game with all the extended close-ups and replays from ten angles. Amateur hour.
Number 6 Posted 10 January 2016 Posted 10 January 2016 Don't mind a replay. Gives fringe players game time and a chance to stay match fit. Shocking decision but don't like the idea of video replays. Watched some rugby world cup games and it absolutely killed it. Ref had given a try and actually reversed decision when shown on replay. Refs don't trust themselves and revert to replays all the time. Has to be a challenge system if it is to be used at all.
Guest ttfn Posted 10 January 2016 Posted 10 January 2016 Oh and how bad was the BBC director? Only saw about 60 minutes of the game with all the extended close-ups and replays from ten angles. Amateur hour. Thank goodness somebody else thought this. Think I've had enough of replays for a while.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.