Villa 2 Tottenham 1 post-match thread

[Brazilian Villain]

Such are the limitations of ChatGPT, autocorrect or my frazzled neurones. :-(

Ah, thought it might have been the post-Eurovision party hangover. Évidemment not.
 

[Brazilian Villain]

That black fella must be a paid actor.

He's definitely a monumental bellend.

He's a Spurs fan, ergo....

[FatSam]

To reiterate what I wrote on another thread, the issue with the penalty comes down to the rules of the game. If the rules are that any contact with an attacker in the box is a penalty, then it was technically the correct decision. This is completely ruining the game though, and encourages cheating. The rule should be that the defending team needs to have gained an advantage from the incident for it to constitute a foul. Yesterday’s incident wouldn’t have been a penalty because Kane basically kicked it out of play in order to be in a position to receive minimal contact from Martinez - contact that was in no way sufficient to cause him to lose balance. How can it be fair that a player who has kicked the ball out of play is rewarded with an 85% chance of scoring a goal?

[Rudy Can't Fail]

Some Tottenham man children for your amusement.

That black fella must be a paid actor.

More a comedian.. and not a very happy one. Some hilarious ranting here

[The Edge]

To reiterate what I wrote on another thread, the issue with the penalty comes down to the rules of the game. If the rules are that any contact with an attacker in the box is a penalty, then it was technically the correct decision. This is completely ruining the game though, and encourages cheating. The rule should be that the defending team needs to have gained an advantage from the incident for it to constitute a foul. Yesterday’s incident wouldn’t have been a penalty because Kane basically kicked it out of play in order to be in a position to receive minimal contact from Martinez - contact that was in no way sufficient to cause him to lose balance. How can it be fair that a player who has kicked the ball out of play is rewarded with an 85% chance of scoring a goal?

I don't think the rules state that any contact with an attacker in the box is a penalty? A foul is a foul anywhere on the pitch. Kane gets preferential treatment from the officials due to his anointment as King of English football.

[Bad English]

Such are the limitations of ChatGPT, autocorrect or my frazzled neurones. :-(

Ah, thought it might have been the post-Eurovision party hangover. Évidemment not.

I had a night worse than watching Eurovision. I was at a traditional 50's jazz concert.

[paul_e]

To reiterate what I wrote on another thread, the issue with the penalty comes down to the rules of the game. If the rules are that any contact with an attacker in the box is a penalty, then it was technically the correct decision. This is completely ruining the game though, and encourages cheating. The rule should be that the defending team needs to have gained an advantage from the incident for it to constitute a foul. Yesterday’s incident wouldn’t have been a penalty because Kane basically kicked it out of play in order to be in a position to receive minimal contact from Martinez - contact that was in no way sufficient to cause him to lose balance. How can it be fair that a player who has kicked the ball out of play is rewarded with an 85% chance of scoring a goal?

I don't think the rules state that any contact with an attacker in the box is a penalty? A foul is a foul anywhere on the pitch. Kane gets preferential treatment from the officials due to his anointment as King of English football.

That how it oftens gets officiated though, maybe the laws don't say that but there is a misguided common belief that any contact is enough to justify the attacker gonig down and if he does it's a penalty. If the authorities were serious about fair play they'd have dealt with it years ago. On the same subject watching Kane walk after the ref shouting ''oi, oi, oi" for about 30 seconds was a perfect example of why the whole 'respect the referee' thing is bullshit, they get shit because they do nothing to stop it until it's far too late. As someone else said PGMOL is a fucking embarrassment and need to be replaced.

[Bad English]

I thought the noise levels were amazing today.

that chap from south of France doesn't seem to agree, can you put him right please?

Ears full of cheese.

OK! It was really noisy. I believe you. My hearing aids must have been turned down. ;-)

[Matt C]

Watching it back, McGinn really was outstanding yesterday. Did such a good stifling job on Kane in the deeper positions.

[Skerra]

Bottom line is that if that was a Villa player that had been offside and then deliberately tripped over their keeper, we wouldn’t have got the penalty. Doubt it would even have got VAR involved as it was not a clear and obvious error.

[Toronto Villa]

And it would have been brought back for offside for sure. How that isn’t reviewed is mind boggling.

[Somniloquism]

Bottom line is that if that was a Villa player that had been offside and then deliberately tripped over their keeper, we wouldn’t have got the penalty. Doubt it would even have got VAR involved as it was not a clear and obvious error.

With Kanes "oh my god, my leg has been wrenched off" reaction until he realised he hadn't been automatically given it, the Villa player would have been booked as well.

[ChicagoLion]

The ref was all over the place.
How come it took 3 minutes to work out a clear and obvious error for the penalty, once VAR sends them to the monitor you know the twats are duty bound to follow instructions.

[Somniloquism]

And it would have been brought back for offside for sure. How that isn’t reviewed is mind boggling.

it supposedly was reviewed, they just never bothered drawing the lines to show us down to the millimetre. I wonder what took the longest time, the offside review, or the "did martinez touch it" review. 

[Drummond]

To reiterate what I wrote on another thread, the issue with the penalty comes down to the rules of the game. If the rules are that any contact with an attacker in the box is a penalty, then it was technically the correct decision. This is completely ruining the game though, and encourages cheating. The rule should be that the defending team needs to have gained an advantage from the incident for it to constitute a foul. Yesterday’s incident wouldn’t have been a penalty because Kane basically kicked it out of play in order to be in a position to receive minimal contact from Martinez - contact that was in no way sufficient to cause him to lose balance. How can it be fair that a player who has kicked the ball out of play is rewarded with an 85% chance of scoring a goal?

I don't think the rules state that any contact with an attacker in the box is a penalty? A foul is a foul anywhere on the pitch. Kane gets preferential treatment from the officials due to his anointment as King of English football.

That how it oftens gets officiated though, maybe the laws don't say that but there is a misguided common belief that any contact is enough to justify the attacker gonig down and if he does it's a penalty. If the authorities were serious about fair play they'd have dealt with it years ago. On the same subject watching Kane walk after the ref shouting ''oi, oi, oi" for about 30 seconds was a perfect example of why the whole 'respect the referee' thing is bullshit, they get shit because they do nothing to stop it until it's far too late. As someone else said PGMOL is a fucking embarrassment and need to be replaced.

My lad said this morning that there should be a sin bin in place for that sort of backchat and pressure on the ref.

Tackles can be mistimed and lead to a yellow but a sin bin would be a bit harsh, sin bin though may just cause teams to focus more and sort out some of that behaviour.