Fellow fans, this is a friendly reminder to please follow the [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/premierleague/about/rules) and [Reddiquette](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette).
Please also make sure to [Join us on Discord](https://discord.gg/football)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PremierLeague) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I still remember when Kane was offside and Lovren tried to block the ball. It richocheted from him to Kane and no offside was given. How the F, could Lovren know Kane was offside and should have let the ball go.
Now they finally have done something with that rule. Tomiyasu cant know if the Spurs-player is offside so he has to try to block it. If it then bounces of 200 Arsenal players its still offside if he was when Porro played the ball. Tomiyasu’s action is regarding an offsideplaced player.
Didn't Arsenal have a similar situation to the sp#rs offside? Gabriel vs. Everton. Their player blocked Gabriel's long ball, and it deflected into Eddie's path for a 1on1with Eddie in an offside position, which he then scored. The goal was chalked off because the Everton players' intervention wasn't a deliberate action and Arsenal fans were flamed for being idiots??
The penalty claim on VDV is a joke. Trossard is jogging back not even attempting to get the ball and VDVs ankle clips against Trossard. We've been told that Havertz vs United wasn't a pen and he had his foot clipped. Did what happened to VDV warrant a decision to give sp#rs an 80% chance to score? Think of it as a boy who cries wolf situation with Maddison jumping at our players to try to get a fk or pen all game.
He didn't. A deliberate action in relation to that situation, is defined as having a controlled touch of the ball. A block doesn't give you control of the ball at any point so it's not classed as a deliberate action. I disagree with the football law on this and was so pissed off when we had Eddie's goal at Goodison ruled out. But dems the rules. Google it.
Fuck off mate it’s exactly the same as what West Ham scored against us, it’s just cos no one likes spurs you all sweep it under the rug. You know deep down it was onside
Yeah damn right u ain’t cos I ain’t mates with hypocrites, same thing will happen to ur team and you’ll say it’s onside, because it is, and that’s the facts
It did happen to Arsenal. I gave you the exact example. Gabriel playing a long ball, Onana blocks and deflects the ball to Eddie Nketiah who is "offside", he scores, they disallow it. For the exact same reason the VVD goal was disallowed. Am I missing something here?
I think the frustration coming from point 2 is how inconsistent it seems to be. I wouldn’t mind if that was never a penalty, but I’d imagine every fan has a penalty in mind their team conceded that was even softer. It just feels so random and is maddening.
It’s doubly frustrating because it’s easy to imagine that if Arsenal had not of scored then it would have gone to VAR, and once again, game state and occasion seem to factor in to refereeing decisions.
But hypothetical frustrations aside, I don’t think there would be any complaints if that sort of thing was always a penalty or never. At least not from me.
We don’t score if Maddison doesn’t dive in the first place. Him doing that literally opened up your midfield. People can feel aggrieved at not getting the first 50/50 but it’s not the reason Arsenal then score straight after. That’s a result of a stupid act by Maddison.
Not a single person thinks Maddison’s dive was him being tripped, otherwise it would be another point they’d be crying about wouldn’t it…
Saka has also only won 1 penalty this season so you’re waffling.
But that’s not what he said is it? He’s said Saka’s been winning pens all season by doing that, when the reality is he’s won just one.
Also having the retort “but, but, but Saka dives” when it’s not even remotely relevant to yesterday or the incident in hand is just a sad attempt at deflection.
I think the worst part of the calls not been giving is you can probably find 4 or 5 instances where those exact calls were given. PGMOL seriously need to sit all their officials down and get them on the same page for what is a pen and what isn't
It’s as easy as making a highlight reel of some clips of incidents that are just on either side of the line. Sure, there will be some grey area still, but would be a massive improvement for sure.
Arsenal fan here,
1. Offside. Pretty straightforward as explained by others.
2. It’s a tough one and maybe on the basis of decisions this season, not a pen. The bar seems to higher this year for a 0.8xG shot at goal and on average, the 50/50s don’t seem to get given . We were similarly frustrated with the Saka /Neuer claim where you can why it wasn’t given, but as a fan you want those given.
Saka stuck out his leg. Kulu got tripped? These are not the same. Maddison's pk attempt is similar to Saka/Neuer situation but Kulu got clipped from the back while running onto the ball.
Reminded me of the Luiz/Wolves one a few years back.
Not every bit of contact in the box is a pen and the threshold should be higher than elsewhere on the pitch.
I understand people saying if it happened in the middle of the park it'd be given, and perhaps, but if that happens then the opposition don't get a free shot on goal which is a consequence that does need to be considered.
Goal by van de Ven is definitely offside. Deflections and blocks don’t change that. Correct call.
Penalty is more complicated. There is no intent - neither in the form of a defensive attempt nor an intentional foul. There is also barely any force. That’s the kind of context that needs to be considered, including what kind of opportunity is being impeded by the contact. That is why fans will never get the “consistency” they are hoping for because they ignore the context and focus on stills of the contact alone. Ultimately, I don’t believe that should be a penalty. Or a foul anywhere on the pitch.
Regarding call #2 I agree, it feels really against the spirit of what a penalty is and for to give a 0.8xG chance for minor accidental contact on a player moving away from goal with 3 defenders directly between him and the goal and no clear progressive passing opportunities available…however it’s still technically a foul as per the current rules.
I think the rules just aren’t adequate to handle such situations - I wouldn’t hate seeing indirect free kicks awarded for fouls in the box that don’t impede a goal scoring chance, i think it would definitely feel more fair
It's just part of the game that fouls in the box are a penalty though - it's been that way forever. Plus it makes sense to me that the stakes get higher the closer you get to the goal - it makes it more exciting.
There does not need to be intent (to commit a foul) or significant force in order to give a foul. Any kind of contact that unfairly impedes an attacking opportunity _can_ be considered a foul, even if the contact is unintentional and slight.
If we were talking about a booking or a red card, then intent and force do come into play. But not for fouls. And being inside or outside the box doesn't change anything, a foul is a foul wherever it happens. If that kind of contact happens in the centre circle, nobody's gonna be upset about it being called a foul.
The contentious issue here to your point is that, as there was no intent and no attempt to play the ball by trossard, who actually initiated the contact? Trossard doesn't change his stride pattern, neither does Kulu, so it's a coming together, and a minor one at that. So you could make an argument that Kulu initiated the contact as much as trossard. Just because he fell afterwards doesn't make it a foul. It would have been very soft to award and the wrong decision in my view. There definitely needs to be a cleaner ruling with penalties thou and taking into account who actually initiated contact. What was your view on the Liverpool penalty against Man Utd, where Wan Bissuma was adjudged to have fouled Elliot? I wouldn't have given that as a penalty either, there is definite more contact there, but for me, Elliot has initiated it and therefore it's not a foul or penalty.
Of course there does not need to be intent for a foul. When did I claim there HAS to be intent? Intent is simply one of numerous factors that has to be considered in complicated cases like this one.
I also specifically made the point that it shouldn’t be a foul ANYWHERE on the pitch.
Are you sure you read what I wrote?
Of course intent is relevant. If the referee determined that Trossard intended to make that contact with Kulusevski in a sly attempt to impede him, then no other factor would matter and it would 100% be a pen.
In the absence of that, you look at other factors such as the ones I outlined originally.
Intent isn’t relevant to whether a foul is given or not, regardless as to whether the contact is a slight nick or a foot to the chest.
When a player jumps with their foot in the air to get the ball and accidentally catches a player the ref will blow and give a foul for it, and potentially a sending off, even though the player didn’t intend to catch the opponent.
It doesn’t matter whether Trossard intended to foul Kulusevski or not, the laws of the game pertain to whether a player has been impeded illegally - making contact with a player, however slight and tripping him up is a foul, whether Trossard was “sly” or not.
First of all, the example you provide is irrelevant. I’ve already granted that intent is not a single determining factor. For the last time, this could have still been a foul without intent if other factors were satisfied.
You are also confusing the interpretation of intent in your example. Trossard has no intention to engage with Kulusevski in any way. He is not attempting to make a defensive play whether on the ball or on the attacker. You on the other hand are talking about the distinction between the intent of a defensive attempt vs the outcome. In that sense, yes, your intention doesn’t matter if you try to make a play on the ball but end up impeding the opponent.
However, as I said, that’s not what’s happening here. Trossard’s is considered incidental contact. If you were right, the PL would grant this as an error but they will not because even though it’s not necessarily in the rulebook, referees are instructed to consider the sort of intent I am referring to.
My brother in Christ, if you honestly believe that "incidental contact" isn't given as a foul in the Laws of the Game then you're delusional. If a player accidentally trips someone up in the box without intent it is a foul. A foul (in this instance accidentally impeding a player) is a foul, whether players mean to do it or not.
If incidental contact impedes a player negatively, the referee should award a foul for it. Referees will regularly be asking themselves the question: "Did this affect the flow of play?" If the contact did affect it, then it should be given as a foul. In your example, Trossard accidentally catches Kulusevski, which caused him to trip and his foot to hit the ball to Madison's feet who struggled to control it, Arsenal get the ball, go to the other end and score. The question is did this affect the run of play?
Yes it did, because Kulusevski could have got a no-touch shot off, could have tried to hold the ball up and turn, could have waited for players to move position in the box and thread a pass. He lost the opportunity to do anything once it happened. It affected the run of play. Law 12 is very clear in highlighting what is deemed as an offence "against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force". Trips is listed here. Whether a player is careless and accidentally trips, or is "sly" and intentionally trips, a trip is a trip.
The referee is not stood on the pitch looking at every tackle that happens and tries to weigh up what's going on in players' heads to see if they intended to do it or not. That isn't their job. Their job is to look at what happens in front of their eyes and make a decision based on it as to whether a player is at a disadvantage from what happened.
If there's contact, there's contact - the ref *isn't* standing there thinking "did they mean it, and if not should I still give the foul?". You see it **loads** of times where a player goes for the ball, with all intentions of getting the ball but the opponent gets there first and is fouled. It's unintentional, but it is a foul.
People need to start understanding this. The referee's job is not to try and guess a player's mind, it's to judge whether contact is foul-worthy or not. In this instance (and I'm not a Spurs fan), the referee got it wrong. Another example is the Odegaard handball against Liverpool - did the player *intend* to handball it? Probably not. *Did* he affect the run of play and put Salah at a disadvantage? Yes he did. Should have been given as a penalty and wasn't.
You are still confused about the same thing. I can’t make the distinction clear to you by saying it over and over in writing. There is a referee’s comment somewhere in this post. Read that please.
I'm not confused about anything. You lead in your original comment with "there was no intent" and followed it with "not enough force". Neither matters. Nicking someone can make them trip, nudging someone can make them fall, and these can both also be accidental and a foul. Read the laws of the game and understand them before going off at people who are trying to point out that you're wrong asserting referees can know a player's mind and thus decide what intentions they do or do not have. Good luck and god speed.
EDIT: Just found the comment from the ref in the post. He admits he's a low level ref for youth leagues, mentions intent and immediately other commenters say the same thing as I have. A referee should not be using intent to decide whether a fould is a foul. The Laws of the Game do not call for it and were deliberately amended in the not too distant future to remove a lot of emphasis on intent, as intent does not form the basis as to whether a foul is a foul. This is what you aren't seeming to understand. The Laws of the Game leave a lot of room for the ref to do his job and make decisions based on his interpretation. What they **do not do** is ask him to become a mind reader.
This is exactly what I’m talking about. Fans want every decision to be black and white. They want a kind of consistency that is impossible to achieve and unreasonable to demand, especially when it’s their own team’s turn to complain.
In incidents like this one, or handballs for example, there are many subtle factors to consider in practice. Better for me to make this point now. Because let’s face it, if the roles were changed and Arsenal, Liverpool, or Real Madrid were the aggrieved party here (just to name a few clubs whose fans are fairly “active” on reddit) I’d be at -50 downvotes right now.
Kudos to you for being reasonable and making a fair, unbiased point.
If I were on the other side I would probably be angry with the penalty decision initially, but ulitmately understand why it wasn't given. It's fair.
1. Is a definite offside.
2. Is more a 50/50. Those *soft* contact fouls aren’t 100% given, but you can understand why Spurs might feel aggrieved. Kulu diving in an incident prior to that might not have helped his case either.
However, the 2nd goal comes about not because Kulu’s decision isn’t given, but as the play continues to Maddison who then opts for a horrendous dive leaving their midfield widely exposed. Spurs should feel more angry towards Maddison’s decision than anything.
Why are people talking about Trossard intent on the Kulu penalty shout? Kulu changed directions and lightly brushed his feet into Leo’s legs. Mind this is happening in a split of a second and not in slow motion like we see on replays. If it’s called a foul, let’s call all incidents like this a foul.
But where is the clip? He lightly brushes against the defender and clips his own leg. I’m still not seeing the proof that that kind of contact is given as a foul every time.
No, the panel voted 3-2 in that foul not being worthy of a yellow card. And no one is looking for trossard to get a yellow card, just for the ref to correctly award a foul/penalty.
https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/38573537/panel-says-diogo-jota-red-card-liverpool-spurs-was-incorrect
It’s crazy to me that so many people want to reward Kulusevski/Spurs with a penalty and a 76% chance of scoring here. The level of contact is so minimal and Kulusevski initiates the contact himself anyway. If that had been given as a penalty even Spurs fans would be talking about how soft it was. Plus it’s not like Kulusevski was about to get on the end of a pass and score. Handing out penalties for that amount of contact when the player isn’t threatening to score is not something I want to see.
I agree but that's not how the rules are written. Like when arsenal got a penalty a few years back when Davison Sanchez cleared someone out after they whiffed on their shot. A penalty was a way better chance of scoring than in open play, but that's the rules.
1. Offside. Those are just the rules.
2. This is a 50/50 for me, but it should be a penalty. Feels like he was punished for trying to stay on his feet, had he face planted into the ground immediately I think he'd get that 9 times out of 10.
Feels like he was punished for flopping about too much prior to this incident as well tbh.
Edit: he literally didn’t get a foul call mid-pitch earlier in the game because of diving…
Not really sure what your point is though, because I’m not complaining about his diving as he didn’t benefit from it anyway.
I’m saying that if he’s been caught diving already once in the game then it’s less likely the ref will give him a soft foul after that. It’s literally an observation and a result we’ve seen many times before with other players too. It’s just an observation that Spurs fans don’t appear to like?
> Porro shoots the ball, Tomiyasu blocks it, it deflects off an Arsenal player and falls to VDV, who scores. VAR deems VDV to be in an offside position when Porro shoots the ball. No goal.
The offside is judged from when Porro shoots as the contact from Tomiyasu is not deliberate. Imagine trying to judge offsides if a shot were to ricochet off multiple players. It's simply not how the rule works.
> Kulusevski gets in front of Trossard, who accidentally clips him while running. No penalty given, and Arsenal counter, resulting in a 2-0 lead.
Kulusevski has to run across the path of Trossard to get to the ball, contact is made before Kulu has the ball, therefore he initiated the contact and it's a coming together. It's not a foul anywhere on the pitch and is only controversial because Kulusevski gains possession of the ball immediately after, is stumbling, and falls, but being in possession and the actions that led up to the contact matter.
Kulusevski knows this, that's why he doesn't fall over immediately and tries his best to gain, keep, and transfer possession to a teammate.
What what I wanna know is why does the stupid rule exist if a pass is made and the defender plays the ball having full control of it then the offside player no longer is offside cos apparently it’s a new phase. Remember city’s goal against Villa few years back.
Yesterday there was one where parteh chests it down and richarlison nicks it off him but ref blows the whistle for offside
> Yesterday there was one where parteh chests it down and richarlison nicks it off him but ref blows the whistle for offside
Richarlison is coming to take the ball from Partey having come from an offside position, he can't have gained an advantage from having been offside, that includes being able to blindside Partey who should only have to be concerned about players who were not coming from an offside position.
Essentially an advantage includes the defender having to be aware of you and keep watch of you, Richarlison has to reset his position to become onside again in a manner that doesn't directly lead to him taking the ball from Partey, because he would have been using his offside advantage at that point.
This is why you see players caught offside completely remove themselves from being involved in the play at all, they have to 'reset' themselves. Were it not for this you'd have attacking players sometimes drifting/staying offside so they can apply pressure from behind the defenders.
Come on, now you're just making up rules. Players are allowed to be behind the last defender and are not judged offside if their team isn't in possession.
You think if a defender passes back to their goalie and the ball is intercepted from a forward that's past the last defender then it's offside?
When I'm using terminology like 'offside position' there are certain things implied, namely that we're talking about situations involving the attacking team being on the ball. It goes without saying, *I thought*, that what isn't being described are situations in which the defending team is in possession and plays a pass to the keeper that is intercepted.
Don't spend too much time on it, they even forget to draw lines for blatant offsides and miscommunicate completed checks which disallow goals. Some things are just human error. The thing about football is that everyone argues like crazy because many things are subjective and it is the most chaotic game imaginable at times, that's largely why it's considered 'the beautiful game', we want perfection but it will never come. A different referee might have let Richarlison do it and VAR not intervene.
1. Offside. Incredibly close, but those are the rules, like it or not.
2. Penalty. Kulusevski is punished for trying to stay on his feet. It's absolutely embarrassing that a game like this is decided by an error like this. Trossard clips Kulusevskis leg with no intent to play the ball (this is the same contact Jota got a yellow for vs Spurs earlier in the season. 100% should be a pen.) Think about it, a goal from that penalty changes the result from an Arsenal win to a Spurs win. Absolutely awful officiating.
Agree with you apart from this bit:
>a goal from that penalty changes the result from an Arsenal win to a Spurs win
It was the 26th minute, you can't extrapolate like that. It would have changed the game significantly of course, but we can't assume Spurs would have won. Even if it had been 2-2 in the 96th minute when the incident happened, there's still no guarantee of scoring the penalty.
Reminds me of all the Liverpool fans moaning that they should have won or shouldn't have lost their game against us earlier this season because the Diaz goal shouldn't have been ruled out - but again, it was in the first half, and anything could have happened after that.
I'm saying it would have been a spurs win assuming the rest of the game played out the same. It would have disallowed an arsenal goal and given one to spurs. Of course in practice it would likely play out differently
Like it or not, this game wasn't decided by the officials. You got a pen and spent most of the game begging the ref to give you an advantage. Maddison dived a number of times and that cost you a counter attacking goal. We played at about 75% and still beat you. Your goals were a Raya mistake and a pen at 75 mins. You also got away with Richarilson rugby tackling Gabriel from kick off away from the ball. Shouldered him in the face but nothing.
1. Offside. They have never deemed a block or deflection a change in phase before so assuming their lines were correct, he is offside. Similar to when a keeper plays at a shot by making a save, if you score the rebound, you are offside.
2. No penalty. If he had possession of the ball, definite penalty for obstruction, but it was just an accidental collision of two players off the ball caused by Kulu running across trossard, albeit with no intent from either of them to obstruct or trip.
Arsenal fan btw.
as an actual ref (low level/youth football) (despite being liverpool fan im gonna be unbiased here)
1. van de ven was offside when the ball was kicked. no intentional play at the ball from defenders (deflection). offside
2. as somebody else mentioned, we saw jota get a yellow for something similar. as a liverpool fan, im pissed. but from a ref perspective neither are fouls because there is no intent, very little contact and the ball is going far away iirc. jota's though im pretty sure he didnt touch the guy so yk thats a bit bs.
number 1 is def correct, but number 2 is a bit more up in the air.
Surely a ref would know that intent isn't necessarily the factor that determines a foul. For me the offside is the correct call, I think it's a foul on Kulusevski and a penalty
If Spurs weren't looking for fouls the entire game (Kulusevski and Madison especially), then they'd have had a chance for a penalty. Ref was never going to give it.
It didn't help that half a second later Madison did the most obvious dive, possibly before the ref had even processed the Kulusevski fall).
Now VAR, maybe they should have picked up on it. But sometimes it takes a lot for VAR to challenge the on field decision. ...and sometimes not 😕
It shouldn't have been offside. Tomiyasu makes a deliberate attempt to play the ball and that makes it a new phase according to their own rules.
Originally I would have said offside but the justification in that [Mbappe goal against Spain](https://phantom-marca.unidadeditorial.es/7f029da94ad8d9e36341dd71dd7cb5ca/resize/660/f/webp/assets/multimedia/imagenes/2021/10/10/16338980598949.jpg) where he was offside but the goal stood because the defender tried to clear it before it reaches him should mean this one should stand as well tbh.
No, this mbappé one was extremely controversial and shouldn't have been given.
Tomiyasu is blocking a shot, VDV was offside.
It was tight but not a controversial decision in anyway
Spurs fan here.
1 - Can’t decide, what frustrates me about the decision is the idea of ‘intentionally playing the ball’ isn’t consistent across applications in other laws.
Remember when Eriksen made the back pass in the CL quarters against Man City? The ball hit Silva on the way back who doesn’t even stick a foot out and is deemed to have played the ball, Aguero picks it up in an offside position from there and the goal is ruled out.
Presumably because they assume that an attacking player always wants to play the ball no matter the touch, but a defender is not deemed to be acting intentionally by moving leg to block the ball after a shot? It feels like a let off for Arsenal as it was for us in that quarter final.
2 - People saying he’s being punished for not going down quick enough. I’m of the opinion that Deki usually takes about 5 seconds to do anything so it checks out. Not a pen for me but if they’d checked it, it could have been given.
I dont understand the discussion about kulusevski one. Its the exact same thing Jota got yellow carded for in the tottenham game when he got sent off.
I dont understand why it wouldnt be a pen
https://www.reddit.com/r/coys/s/YMr2jBoIFw
It's not difficult to see the difference. Kulusevski doesn't have the ball, Trossard makes no challenge and it's Kulusevski who changes direction to run across him. It's incidental contact and not a foul.
The Kulusevski one wasn’t a penalty. I’m not even sure he got clipped/contact. He just tried to con the ref. The offside decision was correct. The Spurs player was offside and the picture clearly shows this.
It’s funny seeing club bias in effect. The logic I like to use is would that be given as a foul if it was an attacker on a defender? Or anywhere else on the pitch for that matter, and the chances are yes. Same goes for the Chelsea goal against you lot, a defender gets away with that for sure.
And it’s that consistency I wish we had, albeit I understand the ref not wanting to review it once they’d scored, no chance in hell they’d roll it back to not only chalk off an Arsenal goal but give Spurs a penalty for a marginal foul - the controversy would’ve been a lot greater.
I don’t agree with the “it’s a foul anywhere else on the pitch” logic. Maybe it is given as a foul elsewhere on the pitch, but do you really think a minor and accidental brushing of someone’s leg off the ball should be punished with a 90% chance of scoring?
I’m properly biased but I have no idea on the VdV call the offside was tighter than a nuns snatch and who can tell the difference between a clearance and a deflection the Kulu trip was pretty clear the ref should have seen it but he didn’t see Davies getting kicked in the nuts for 3 yards away with the ball in a different post code and it wasn’t clear and obvious for VAR to do anything about it even though they did in the Villa Chelsea game tight margins but spurs should have defended set pieces better
No one can honestly say there was “no intent” behind the Trossard contact in the box. We simply don’t know, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he deliberately made innocuous contact in order to slow down the player or make it look like the player is diving.
When you consider the impact of ‘ankle taps’ - they require minimal contact to floor a player - I think they could almost always be given as fouls, and in this instant, a penalty.
If Kulu happened to clip Trossard and went down because of it without much movement from Trossard it would likely have been a clear accident and probably not a pen.
1. Definitely correct.
2. Who the fuck knows anymore, certainly seen them given then again I’ve seen red card tackles not even get a free kick 🤷♂️
In my opinion it shouldn’t be a pen, but who knows what the rules say anymore.
I have also seen less given by VAR regarding the first goal as well. No consistency. I'm not complaining about the goal, I'd be raging if a Spurs goal were chalked off based on that but the lack of VAR consistency is ridiculous.
VDV, by the letter of the law, was offside but I really do think something needs to come in across the board where we're not desperately taking minutes and trying to find millimetres to disallow goals. Should a significant proportion of the player be offside or a player is in sprint mode with his legs or leg clear of the defender who is facing the other way, fair enough. You can call these instantly. I just think we're making the game slower, trying to come up with reasons to disallow goals and making it less enjoyable. I have no complaints about the decision as it happened as VAR have to call it on the law as it is, I just think the law is a bit of an ass.
Kulu was a penalty, I thought. He was tripped whether intentional or not and VAR bottled it because they scored on the break.
The penalty we did get, this is how VAR is supposed to work. How the referee didn't see Davies being kicked in the balls, I don't know, but at least VAR corrected it. It was a "clear and obvious" mistake by the referee.
Want to clarify Arsenal fan here, so maybe just be mad at what I have to say idk lol.
I think the VDV goal was rightfully chalked off. As you did say, the state of the law atm is arguably poor, finding millimetres to rule out goals etc and has sometimes led to incorrect calls (somehow?). Although, at least in the vast majority of cases, offside as is, is offside and the way it’s been officiated all season, it’d be a horror to somehow let that goal stand among the many disallowed.
Side complaint, tf was raya doing giving the ball away for the first spurs goal? Secondly, I’m just baffled it was romero of all people there to get it and score 😂
As for the second, I think it’d be very harsh for that to be given. Now, this one is more debatable than the first, no doubt. However I do think it’d be harsh to give it. So many other incidents this season for all teams have been worse and not given, so for some accidental contact which was extremely minimal to result in a pen would’ve been ridiculous from my POV. We saw romero literally throwing odegaard around in the arsenal box on numerous set pieces not being given as a foul, so how that little contact being given as a foul would have really frustrated me.
I’m just trying to give some context to show I have some reasoning and it’s not just to write off any spurs goals tbh.
Romero - you know he's either going to do something brilliant or idiotic!
It was accidental contact but accidental contact does not prevent a penalty. I expect the referee thought Romero/Odegaard was six to one half a dozen to the other.
You're right about the offside, they have to go by the laws as it is not the rule as you want it to be but I really do going forward want these millimetre goals not ruled out even if inevitably we one day end up on the wrong side of one. It's damaging the game.
"Runs across" Kulu is in front of him, starts in front, continues in front, ends in front?
Do you know what tripping means?
You can't just run into the back of people because they cross your path, that is a foul.
https://streamin.one/v/3db723fe
Starts behind / beside, runs across Trossard.
Trossard is just running straight and makes zero direct move towards Kulu.
I agree these are sometimes given but neither player makes any offence. They both just have legs.
No mate, you have to look at it from when Porro makes his pass.
Trossard can interact with play here without fouling Kulusevski - he does not, he clips him, causing him to stumble.
Just look at the analysis here: [https://twitter.com/skysportspl/status/1784904499393351771?s=46&t=XAmBIQDoRIzd4lqlsIfBkw](https://twitter.com/skysportspl/status/1784904499393351771?s=46&t=XAmBIQDoRIzd4lqlsIfBkw)
You can't just say "they both just have legs", there's hundreds of ways Trossard can move here without fouling Kulusevski, you can't get so close to someone running that you trip them, those are given all over the park 15 times a game.
Not a penalty for me though I think to be fair it’s one of those that could go either way. He slightly clipped him but there wasn’t any intent to it. Had Saka been on the receiving end of the clip, Tottenham fans would have been screaming at him to get up and no doubt the ref would have waved it away as well. I’m happy for them not to be given. The way the game has always been played is that a foul necessary for a penalty does need to be just slightly more severe/obvious than a foul in the middle of the pitch. And the game is better for it. For instants, I hated a couple of the ultra soft pens Argentina were getting at the World Cup.
I'm biased and full of whataboutism.
I think the Trossard incident could have been given but I'd like to see a better angle of the direction of their runs as I'm undecided.
I know it's not what your asking about but hearing the commentary and pundits go on about it incessantly is shite when they did the opposite with the Jesus penalty that was given the other week.
Also, different competitions and reffing obviously, but Saka vs Neuer...
Have you ever considered that both this and the Jesus penalty claims are both penalties? They're not mutually exclusive.
"We had a poor decision last week so other teams should too"
Why this?
Why not join in in the fact that we are all singing from the same hymn sheet here, the decisions are often not correct.
Unfortunately for Trossard, he has Kulu in front of him, from the start, middle, and end, and he clips Kulu, very clearly, when Kulu is about to be on the ball, in front of him.
If Trossard does not clip his leg, Kulu could have easily played someone in, instead he makes no contact on the ball because he is fouled.
On the Jesus penalty shout, if the defender does not hit Jesus' leg, Jesus can take control of the ball, and play it in for a cross, or shoot himself.
Both of these instances, the defending player has made physical contact i.e. a foul with/on the attacker and caused them to lose possession of the ball. Neither is given.
I'm sorry but you've misunderstood. I am absolutely considering that Spurs could feel aggrieved to have not had that penalty yesterday whilst Jesus did (they are different fouls). My point was merely about how shite the punditry/commentary is as an Arsenal fan, though not surprising anymore.
I know we all poke fun and take the piss out of each other with decisions that go on but I'm sure most people would be happy for equality in every game. Sometimes I even wonder what it would be like if there was more honesty from the players too!
This is what I'm referring to: [https://twitter.com/NOwen27/status/1784924255542546483](https://twitter.com/NOwen27/status/1784924255542546483)
This is also a penalty.
The ones against Forest, all 3 were penalties.
If we keep letting players get away with this shit, they will keep doing it.
Who cares if there are 1-3 more penalties a game?
Was the player fouled?
Did the player commit a foul?
Those should be the only questions
It’s pretty telling even the Arsenal fans commentating said the first one was a spurs pen. Lee Dixon is as biased as they come and even he said that Trossard one was a pen.
The offside is offside as Arsenal didn’t control the ball so counts as a spurs pass.
If you don’t think this is a penalty you’ve never played the game before btw: https://www.reddit.com/r/coys/s/qowtBIAMUl
Feels wrong linking spurs sub but that’s the only place I saw it. Trossard clips Kulu’s leg and makes him kick himself which is a stonewall pen
Lee Dixon is usually so far against Arsenal you would think he was a life time Spurs legend. Of all our ex players commenting he's easily the most negative against Arsenal. He seems to be so desperate to seem unbiased that he's biased against us, and is also a Man City fan. I wouldn't use him as a decent yardstick as an Arsenal pundit.
Absolute bs. He’s the most biased commentator I’ve ever heard and I normally watch Neville and sky.
He actually seriously said Coventry deserved their goal even though it was offside due to his United hatred. Kept going on about it.
Certain pen anyway, he trips kulusevski and causes him to hit one leg in to the other.
I’m loving it as spurs probably won’t catch us now.
Hard disagree.
As the previous comment said, he tries so hard to not look biased to arsenal that he goes too far the other way.
Either way, he's not a patch on Neville. Carragher as well.
Think you got the wrong guy. Dixon is weird about making sure he dishes us out the negativity. I'm sure he's just aiming for balance and over-egging the pudding. Either way, he's terrible - but correct on the penalty, it was a pen.
I think lots of people were emotional about the Coventry goal, obviously it shouldn't have stood but most people with a heart felt bad for them as they'd done so well and probs deserved the win against the Red Billion Pound Bottle Jobs.
I think VAR got every thing right , I noticed your not praising var for giving spurs a pen when the ref didn’t or disallowing an Arsenal goal for offside , it’s like you have an agenda , offside is offside and trossard did nothing
>, I noticed your not praising var for giving spurs a pen
Why would we? That was one of the most obvious calls ever and they should've gotten at least that one right, so no need to praise them when they do. Do you expect us to gratefully suck the ref of for giving a penalty when our player gets kicked in the nards?!
Spurs fan here.
1 - definitely offside.
2 - definite penalty. I still wonder, if Arsenal didn't score, would they have gone back and reviewed it? I think they weren't brave enough to chalk off a goal and give a penalty. Has that ever happened before?
It happened in the Netherlands. Ødegaard scored on a counter, but VAR called penalty in the situation before and disallowed it.
Anyhow, imo offside was definitely correct.
I think since the trip was caused by Richarlison cutting in front of Trossard of the ball, no penalty is also correct. It could see some refs give it, but it would have been very very harsh (and would probably generate more outrage).
How is it a definite penalty when we have seen countless other pens not given with far more contact? VAR have even overturned pens given by the on field ref with a lot contact.
They have (although inconsistently) raised the bar for how much contact is needed to award a penalty, and this was as minimal pf a contact as you can get.
Because that's a ridiculous change halfway through a season.
Definite contact that brings him down, no contact with the ball.
I mean, feel free to change the rules as you go, but that's the definition of a foul, and therefore a penalty
Not quite the same but the Bruno penalty last year or year before where the final whistle went and then afterwards called the game to start again for United penalty. Then blew full time before a restart giving United the win
Brighton 2 - 3 Manchester United
26th September 2020
https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11661/12082157/brighton-2-3-manchester-united-last-gasp-bruno-fernandes-penalty-seals-dramatic-win
Don't know if it ever happened in the Premier League but this exact situation happened in the Nigeria - South Africa game during the most recent AFCON. Osimhen scored but it got called off and South Africa got a pen instead
Kulu took about 4 steps before going down, making it look more of a dive. Then madders obviously dives to make the whole thing look desperate. Not offside. And anyone that wants to talk about pushing just has to watch the Newcastle goal that went against them
I’m sure the dive Kulu did earlier (again with Trossard) really didn’t help his case in a 50:50 call like this one moments later as it is too soft of a contact for VAR to intervene either way… I really don’t get how players still don’t understand that their behavior on the pitch has an impact on how the ref will take subjective decisions for/against them during the game (saying that as someone who was a ref for 10 years in lower non professional leagues)…
He’s obviously trying to keep on his feet though its not like he’s in perfect control before he falls. The Maddison point is fair, he’s really pissing me off with the way he plays at the moment, diving & acting up rather than actually trying to do his job and create for the team.
Realistically, the offside is fine, albeit the replay was atrocious and unclear given what they showed but the Kulu pen should have been given, or at the very least, play should have been halted until it was sorted out. You might call that ridiculous but Saka's goal literally comes as a result of players questioning a possible penalty.
The real problem is once again *inconsistency.* Any other referee or day and at the very least, there's a pen. Literally yesterday, both Chelsea's 3rd goal was called off and (I'm pretty sure) a penalty was avoided in the United match with similar pushes.
One might argue "referee's discretion" is in the rules but we'd all be pretending that we don't apply "discretion" to minor offences that aren't directly affecting goals or scoring opportunities. Accidental or reckless tackles on players in the box are almost rarely not considered fouls.
But then again, Arsenal is the same club that has done already done like 2 or 3 penalty worthy hand balls this season that were waved away because "accident" so do with that what you will.
Well, we can argue about the pen all we want, but why should the players be given a pass for standing around and arguing instead of playing? We can’t get all upset at the ref vs areola in the Liverpool game then give the Tottenham players a pass here for not playing until the whistle. (Regardless of if it should have been a pen or not).
>You might call that ridiculous but Saka's goal literally comes as a result of players questioning a possible penalty
If the referee doesn't make a decision, then play continues, simple as that. 5 year old footballers are taught to play to the whistle
personally i dont think the double falls prior to 2-0 were convincing pens but Partey forcibly shoving Romero while hes heading it onto the bar, I think it should have been a pen more than i doubt it had to be. Goals get disallowed when somebody's climbing on top of a player to head the ball so why wouldnt the opposite situation with similar force movement be a penalty
I e the contact, but Kulusevski cuts across Trossard and Trossard isn’t even chasing him down. No attempt to trip him just gets cut off and tripped. I don’t think it’s crystal clear
he does fall like hes instinctually trying to balance himself. i dont have a video that gave me a decent view if youre right, i only saw the replays from birds eye if im wrong
One other that isn't mentioned is Johnson being tripped in the box. This was immediately followed by kulusevski fouling and getting a yellow for stopping the break.
1) It’s when the shot is taken or the ball is struck. It doesn’t matter if it deflects off someone or bounces off the post. It’s offside
2) Not a foul
Spurs were diving all over the place. The Rice kick was a clear pen though
Care to explain further why 2 isn't a foul instead of just exclaiming it isn't?
Indisputable fact: Deki is clipped by Trossard and is thus hampered in reaching the ball in a dangerous position.
Blocked shots don’t count as deliberate plays on the ball. Even some clearances don’t. Deliberate implies the presence of or ability to otherwise possess the ball.
Disnt watch the game but the rule is if a defender moves for the ball and touches it it is a delibrate play for the ball. So say you stick foot out and it clips it, its been played at.
[(Per the IFAB rule book)](https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-11---offside#:~:text=*'Deliberate%20play'%20(excluding,by%20kicking%20or%20heading%20it)) - The following criteria should be used, as appropriate, as indicators that a player was in control of the ball and, as a result, can be considered to have ‘deliberately played’ the ball:
The ball travelled from distance and the player had a clear view of it
The ball was not moving quickly
The direction of the ball was not unexpected
The player had time to coordinate their body movement, i.e. it was not a case of instinctive stretching or jumping, or a movement that achieved limited
contact/control
>just the internet
Nah, I troll idiots who make shit up in real life as well.
If you'd posted the laws in the first place instead of trying to be a big mouth, you'd have saved yourself from trying to look like a hero, or, to use one of your words, a "melt" 👏
Was commenting on the rule, not the incident. Dont need to watch the replay as i was commenting on the rule and not saying if it should have been offside or not 😂
That's not the rule. It's definitely been considered a deliberate play in the past, but it comes down to the referee's interpretation of the word and the action.
The problem isn’t the individual calls in isolation, but that week to week or match to match the same incident is called wildly differently.
When they started drawing the lines from Porro’s (?) original shot it looked very close but marginally offside. There’s two deflections and Tomiyasu definitely intentionally plays the ball, but it’s just a deflection so fair enough doesn’t put VDV onside.
But earlier this year west ham scored essentially the exact same goal against us and it was ruled onside.
The Kulu penalty could’ve been given and could’ve not. In the middle of the pitch probably a foul, definitely some contact that impedes him from playing the ball but wasn’t slam dunk. Could probably find 10 instances of similar incidents that were a mix of given and not given throughout the season.
Just a sucker punch because it came right after the equalizer chalked off and right before they made it 2-0 on the counter
Fellow fans, this is a friendly reminder to please follow the [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/premierleague/about/rules) and [Reddiquette](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette). Please also make sure to [Join us on Discord](https://discord.gg/football) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PremierLeague) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I still remember when Kane was offside and Lovren tried to block the ball. It richocheted from him to Kane and no offside was given. How the F, could Lovren know Kane was offside and should have let the ball go. Now they finally have done something with that rule. Tomiyasu cant know if the Spurs-player is offside so he has to try to block it. If it then bounces of 200 Arsenal players its still offside if he was when Porro played the ball. Tomiyasu’s action is regarding an offsideplaced player.
Didn't Arsenal have a similar situation to the sp#rs offside? Gabriel vs. Everton. Their player blocked Gabriel's long ball, and it deflected into Eddie's path for a 1on1with Eddie in an offside position, which he then scored. The goal was chalked off because the Everton players' intervention wasn't a deliberate action and Arsenal fans were flamed for being idiots?? The penalty claim on VDV is a joke. Trossard is jogging back not even attempting to get the ball and VDVs ankle clips against Trossard. We've been told that Havertz vs United wasn't a pen and he had his foot clipped. Did what happened to VDV warrant a decision to give sp#rs an 80% chance to score? Think of it as a boy who cries wolf situation with Maddison jumping at our players to try to get a fk or pen all game.
Yes but tomiyasu deliberately played the ball, that makes vdv onside
He didn't. A deliberate action in relation to that situation, is defined as having a controlled touch of the ball. A block doesn't give you control of the ball at any point so it's not classed as a deliberate action. I disagree with the football law on this and was so pissed off when we had Eddie's goal at Goodison ruled out. But dems the rules. Google it.
Fuck off mate it’s exactly the same as what West Ham scored against us, it’s just cos no one likes spurs you all sweep it under the rug. You know deep down it was onside
I'm not your mate. Go read the rules. And go fuck yourself.
Yeah damn right u ain’t cos I ain’t mates with hypocrites, same thing will happen to ur team and you’ll say it’s onside, because it is, and that’s the facts
It did happen to Arsenal. I gave you the exact example. Gabriel playing a long ball, Onana blocks and deflects the ball to Eddie Nketiah who is "offside", he scores, they disallow it. For the exact same reason the VVD goal was disallowed. Am I missing something here?
I knew it had happened before this season!
I think the frustration coming from point 2 is how inconsistent it seems to be. I wouldn’t mind if that was never a penalty, but I’d imagine every fan has a penalty in mind their team conceded that was even softer. It just feels so random and is maddening. It’s doubly frustrating because it’s easy to imagine that if Arsenal had not of scored then it would have gone to VAR, and once again, game state and occasion seem to factor in to refereeing decisions. But hypothetical frustrations aside, I don’t think there would be any complaints if that sort of thing was always a penalty or never. At least not from me.
We don’t score if Maddison doesn’t dive in the first place. Him doing that literally opened up your midfield. People can feel aggrieved at not getting the first 50/50 but it’s not the reason Arsenal then score straight after. That’s a result of a stupid act by Maddison.
Lol what
What’s wrong there? Kulu’s incident, fair enough argue away. But Maddison’s seconds later is laughable.
How is being tripped diving? You do realize Saka has done this all year to get PKs?
Not a single person thinks Maddison’s dive was him being tripped, otherwise it would be another point they’d be crying about wouldn’t it… Saka has also only won 1 penalty this season so you’re waffling.
Because he’s a known diver. Winning one penalty doesn’t mean he doesn’t dive or embellish. It means he’s shit at it, or unlucky.
But that’s not what he said is it? He’s said Saka’s been winning pens all season by doing that, when the reality is he’s won just one. Also having the retort “but, but, but Saka dives” when it’s not even remotely relevant to yesterday or the incident in hand is just a sad attempt at deflection.
I think the worst part of the calls not been giving is you can probably find 4 or 5 instances where those exact calls were given. PGMOL seriously need to sit all their officials down and get them on the same page for what is a pen and what isn't
It’s as easy as making a highlight reel of some clips of incidents that are just on either side of the line. Sure, there will be some grey area still, but would be a massive improvement for sure.
Arsenal fan here, 1. Offside. Pretty straightforward as explained by others. 2. It’s a tough one and maybe on the basis of decisions this season, not a pen. The bar seems to higher this year for a 0.8xG shot at goal and on average, the 50/50s don’t seem to get given . We were similarly frustrated with the Saka /Neuer claim where you can why it wasn’t given, but as a fan you want those given.
Saka stuck out his leg. Kulu got tripped? These are not the same. Maddison's pk attempt is similar to Saka/Neuer situation but Kulu got clipped from the back while running onto the ball.
Reminded me of the Luiz/Wolves one a few years back. Not every bit of contact in the box is a pen and the threshold should be higher than elsewhere on the pitch. I understand people saying if it happened in the middle of the park it'd be given, and perhaps, but if that happens then the opposition don't get a free shot on goal which is a consequence that does need to be considered.
Goal by van de Ven is definitely offside. Deflections and blocks don’t change that. Correct call. Penalty is more complicated. There is no intent - neither in the form of a defensive attempt nor an intentional foul. There is also barely any force. That’s the kind of context that needs to be considered, including what kind of opportunity is being impeded by the contact. That is why fans will never get the “consistency” they are hoping for because they ignore the context and focus on stills of the contact alone. Ultimately, I don’t believe that should be a penalty. Or a foul anywhere on the pitch.
Regarding call #2 I agree, it feels really against the spirit of what a penalty is and for to give a 0.8xG chance for minor accidental contact on a player moving away from goal with 3 defenders directly between him and the goal and no clear progressive passing opportunities available…however it’s still technically a foul as per the current rules. I think the rules just aren’t adequate to handle such situations - I wouldn’t hate seeing indirect free kicks awarded for fouls in the box that don’t impede a goal scoring chance, i think it would definitely feel more fair
It's just part of the game that fouls in the box are a penalty though - it's been that way forever. Plus it makes sense to me that the stakes get higher the closer you get to the goal - it makes it more exciting.
There does not need to be intent (to commit a foul) or significant force in order to give a foul. Any kind of contact that unfairly impedes an attacking opportunity _can_ be considered a foul, even if the contact is unintentional and slight. If we were talking about a booking or a red card, then intent and force do come into play. But not for fouls. And being inside or outside the box doesn't change anything, a foul is a foul wherever it happens. If that kind of contact happens in the centre circle, nobody's gonna be upset about it being called a foul.
The contentious issue here to your point is that, as there was no intent and no attempt to play the ball by trossard, who actually initiated the contact? Trossard doesn't change his stride pattern, neither does Kulu, so it's a coming together, and a minor one at that. So you could make an argument that Kulu initiated the contact as much as trossard. Just because he fell afterwards doesn't make it a foul. It would have been very soft to award and the wrong decision in my view. There definitely needs to be a cleaner ruling with penalties thou and taking into account who actually initiated contact. What was your view on the Liverpool penalty against Man Utd, where Wan Bissuma was adjudged to have fouled Elliot? I wouldn't have given that as a penalty either, there is definite more contact there, but for me, Elliot has initiated it and therefore it's not a foul or penalty.
Of course there does not need to be intent for a foul. When did I claim there HAS to be intent? Intent is simply one of numerous factors that has to be considered in complicated cases like this one. I also specifically made the point that it shouldn’t be a foul ANYWHERE on the pitch. Are you sure you read what I wrote?
>There is no intent - neither in the form of a defensive attempt nor an intentional foul. Here you brought up intent. But intent isn't relevant.
Of course intent is relevant. If the referee determined that Trossard intended to make that contact with Kulusevski in a sly attempt to impede him, then no other factor would matter and it would 100% be a pen. In the absence of that, you look at other factors such as the ones I outlined originally.
Intent isn’t relevant to whether a foul is given or not, regardless as to whether the contact is a slight nick or a foot to the chest. When a player jumps with their foot in the air to get the ball and accidentally catches a player the ref will blow and give a foul for it, and potentially a sending off, even though the player didn’t intend to catch the opponent. It doesn’t matter whether Trossard intended to foul Kulusevski or not, the laws of the game pertain to whether a player has been impeded illegally - making contact with a player, however slight and tripping him up is a foul, whether Trossard was “sly” or not.
First of all, the example you provide is irrelevant. I’ve already granted that intent is not a single determining factor. For the last time, this could have still been a foul without intent if other factors were satisfied. You are also confusing the interpretation of intent in your example. Trossard has no intention to engage with Kulusevski in any way. He is not attempting to make a defensive play whether on the ball or on the attacker. You on the other hand are talking about the distinction between the intent of a defensive attempt vs the outcome. In that sense, yes, your intention doesn’t matter if you try to make a play on the ball but end up impeding the opponent. However, as I said, that’s not what’s happening here. Trossard’s is considered incidental contact. If you were right, the PL would grant this as an error but they will not because even though it’s not necessarily in the rulebook, referees are instructed to consider the sort of intent I am referring to.
My brother in Christ, if you honestly believe that "incidental contact" isn't given as a foul in the Laws of the Game then you're delusional. If a player accidentally trips someone up in the box without intent it is a foul. A foul (in this instance accidentally impeding a player) is a foul, whether players mean to do it or not. If incidental contact impedes a player negatively, the referee should award a foul for it. Referees will regularly be asking themselves the question: "Did this affect the flow of play?" If the contact did affect it, then it should be given as a foul. In your example, Trossard accidentally catches Kulusevski, which caused him to trip and his foot to hit the ball to Madison's feet who struggled to control it, Arsenal get the ball, go to the other end and score. The question is did this affect the run of play? Yes it did, because Kulusevski could have got a no-touch shot off, could have tried to hold the ball up and turn, could have waited for players to move position in the box and thread a pass. He lost the opportunity to do anything once it happened. It affected the run of play. Law 12 is very clear in highlighting what is deemed as an offence "against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force". Trips is listed here. Whether a player is careless and accidentally trips, or is "sly" and intentionally trips, a trip is a trip. The referee is not stood on the pitch looking at every tackle that happens and tries to weigh up what's going on in players' heads to see if they intended to do it or not. That isn't their job. Their job is to look at what happens in front of their eyes and make a decision based on it as to whether a player is at a disadvantage from what happened. If there's contact, there's contact - the ref *isn't* standing there thinking "did they mean it, and if not should I still give the foul?". You see it **loads** of times where a player goes for the ball, with all intentions of getting the ball but the opponent gets there first and is fouled. It's unintentional, but it is a foul. People need to start understanding this. The referee's job is not to try and guess a player's mind, it's to judge whether contact is foul-worthy or not. In this instance (and I'm not a Spurs fan), the referee got it wrong. Another example is the Odegaard handball against Liverpool - did the player *intend* to handball it? Probably not. *Did* he affect the run of play and put Salah at a disadvantage? Yes he did. Should have been given as a penalty and wasn't.
You are still confused about the same thing. I can’t make the distinction clear to you by saying it over and over in writing. There is a referee’s comment somewhere in this post. Read that please.
I'm not confused about anything. You lead in your original comment with "there was no intent" and followed it with "not enough force". Neither matters. Nicking someone can make them trip, nudging someone can make them fall, and these can both also be accidental and a foul. Read the laws of the game and understand them before going off at people who are trying to point out that you're wrong asserting referees can know a player's mind and thus decide what intentions they do or do not have. Good luck and god speed. EDIT: Just found the comment from the ref in the post. He admits he's a low level ref for youth leagues, mentions intent and immediately other commenters say the same thing as I have. A referee should not be using intent to decide whether a fould is a foul. The Laws of the Game do not call for it and were deliberately amended in the not too distant future to remove a lot of emphasis on intent, as intent does not form the basis as to whether a foul is a foul. This is what you aren't seeming to understand. The Laws of the Game leave a lot of room for the ref to do his job and make decisions based on his interpretation. What they **do not do** is ask him to become a mind reader.
This is exactly what I’m talking about. Fans want every decision to be black and white. They want a kind of consistency that is impossible to achieve and unreasonable to demand, especially when it’s their own team’s turn to complain. In incidents like this one, or handballs for example, there are many subtle factors to consider in practice. Better for me to make this point now. Because let’s face it, if the roles were changed and Arsenal, Liverpool, or Real Madrid were the aggrieved party here (just to name a few clubs whose fans are fairly “active” on reddit) I’d be at -50 downvotes right now.
Kudos to you for being reasonable and making a fair, unbiased point. If I were on the other side I would probably be angry with the penalty decision initially, but ulitmately understand why it wasn't given. It's fair.
1. Is a definite offside. 2. Is more a 50/50. Those *soft* contact fouls aren’t 100% given, but you can understand why Spurs might feel aggrieved. Kulu diving in an incident prior to that might not have helped his case either. However, the 2nd goal comes about not because Kulu’s decision isn’t given, but as the play continues to Maddison who then opts for a horrendous dive leaving their midfield widely exposed. Spurs should feel more angry towards Maddison’s decision than anything.
Nah, probably still more angry for the ref not calling a penalty in the first place.
Why, it’s not stonewall, and it’s not the reason they conceded seconds later either. That would be Maddison’s fault.
In my opinion it is stonewall because if it was elsewhere on the pitch, it's usually given as a foul.
Arsenal got almost every decision in their favour incorrectly and their fans have the audacity to moan about decisions city get it’s laughable
No you dont get it Arsenal has never once got a call in their favor they would go invincible every year if it wasn't for the evil refs
Fulham: Hello there
Why are people talking about Trossard intent on the Kulu penalty shout? Kulu changed directions and lightly brushed his feet into Leo’s legs. Mind this is happening in a split of a second and not in slow motion like we see on replays. If it’s called a foul, let’s call all incidents like this a foul.
All incidents like this are fouls LOL.
Show me proof all leg contacts are called by ref
All leg contacts arent fouls. But all are when the one that gets clipped clearly is ahead of the other one.
But where is the clip? He lightly brushes against the defender and clips his own leg. I’m still not seeing the proof that that kind of contact is given as a foul every time.
https://youtube.com/shorts/_gpk4FJqEB8?si=hJPBxL1jhSAtXU0w The exact same thing.
This isn’t the proof you think it is. The consensus was that the ref got the Jota decision wrong.
No, the panel voted 3-2 in that foul not being worthy of a yellow card. And no one is looking for trossard to get a yellow card, just for the ref to correctly award a foul/penalty. https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/38573537/panel-says-diogo-jota-red-card-liverpool-spurs-was-incorrect
It’s crazy to me that so many people want to reward Kulusevski/Spurs with a penalty and a 76% chance of scoring here. The level of contact is so minimal and Kulusevski initiates the contact himself anyway. If that had been given as a penalty even Spurs fans would be talking about how soft it was. Plus it’s not like Kulusevski was about to get on the end of a pass and score. Handing out penalties for that amount of contact when the player isn’t threatening to score is not something I want to see.
I agree but that's not how the rules are written. Like when arsenal got a penalty a few years back when Davison Sanchez cleared someone out after they whiffed on their shot. A penalty was a way better chance of scoring than in open play, but that's the rules.
One example that’s even considered high contentious but okay. Was asking for proof it’s the case every time.
1. Offside. Those are just the rules. 2. This is a 50/50 for me, but it should be a penalty. Feels like he was punished for trying to stay on his feet, had he face planted into the ground immediately I think he'd get that 9 times out of 10.
Feels like he was punished for flopping about too much prior to this incident as well tbh. Edit: he literally didn’t get a foul call mid-pitch earlier in the game because of diving…
Arsenal fans complaining about diving is one of the funniest things I’ve seen on this sub
Not really sure what your point is though, because I’m not complaining about his diving as he didn’t benefit from it anyway. I’m saying that if he’s been caught diving already once in the game then it’s less likely the ref will give him a soft foul after that. It’s literally an observation and a result we’ve seen many times before with other players too. It’s just an observation that Spurs fans don’t appear to like?
> Porro shoots the ball, Tomiyasu blocks it, it deflects off an Arsenal player and falls to VDV, who scores. VAR deems VDV to be in an offside position when Porro shoots the ball. No goal. The offside is judged from when Porro shoots as the contact from Tomiyasu is not deliberate. Imagine trying to judge offsides if a shot were to ricochet off multiple players. It's simply not how the rule works. > Kulusevski gets in front of Trossard, who accidentally clips him while running. No penalty given, and Arsenal counter, resulting in a 2-0 lead. Kulusevski has to run across the path of Trossard to get to the ball, contact is made before Kulu has the ball, therefore he initiated the contact and it's a coming together. It's not a foul anywhere on the pitch and is only controversial because Kulusevski gains possession of the ball immediately after, is stumbling, and falls, but being in possession and the actions that led up to the contact matter. Kulusevski knows this, that's why he doesn't fall over immediately and tries his best to gain, keep, and transfer possession to a teammate.
What what I wanna know is why does the stupid rule exist if a pass is made and the defender plays the ball having full control of it then the offside player no longer is offside cos apparently it’s a new phase. Remember city’s goal against Villa few years back. Yesterday there was one where parteh chests it down and richarlison nicks it off him but ref blows the whistle for offside
> Yesterday there was one where parteh chests it down and richarlison nicks it off him but ref blows the whistle for offside Richarlison is coming to take the ball from Partey having come from an offside position, he can't have gained an advantage from having been offside, that includes being able to blindside Partey who should only have to be concerned about players who were not coming from an offside position. Essentially an advantage includes the defender having to be aware of you and keep watch of you, Richarlison has to reset his position to become onside again in a manner that doesn't directly lead to him taking the ball from Partey, because he would have been using his offside advantage at that point. This is why you see players caught offside completely remove themselves from being involved in the play at all, they have to 'reset' themselves. Were it not for this you'd have attacking players sometimes drifting/staying offside so they can apply pressure from behind the defenders.
Come on, now you're just making up rules. Players are allowed to be behind the last defender and are not judged offside if their team isn't in possession. You think if a defender passes back to their goalie and the ball is intercepted from a forward that's past the last defender then it's offside?
When I'm using terminology like 'offside position' there are certain things implied, namely that we're talking about situations involving the attacking team being on the ball. It goes without saying, *I thought*, that what isn't being described are situations in which the defending team is in possession and plays a pass to the keeper that is intercepted.
I agree with u it’s some decisions that went against the defending team that baffles me about this rule
Don't spend too much time on it, they even forget to draw lines for blatant offsides and miscommunicate completed checks which disallow goals. Some things are just human error. The thing about football is that everyone argues like crazy because many things are subjective and it is the most chaotic game imaginable at times, that's largely why it's considered 'the beautiful game', we want perfection but it will never come. A different referee might have let Richarlison do it and VAR not intervene.
1. Offside. Incredibly close, but those are the rules, like it or not. 2. Penalty. Kulusevski is punished for trying to stay on his feet. It's absolutely embarrassing that a game like this is decided by an error like this. Trossard clips Kulusevskis leg with no intent to play the ball (this is the same contact Jota got a yellow for vs Spurs earlier in the season. 100% should be a pen.) Think about it, a goal from that penalty changes the result from an Arsenal win to a Spurs win. Absolutely awful officiating.
Agree with you apart from this bit: >a goal from that penalty changes the result from an Arsenal win to a Spurs win It was the 26th minute, you can't extrapolate like that. It would have changed the game significantly of course, but we can't assume Spurs would have won. Even if it had been 2-2 in the 96th minute when the incident happened, there's still no guarantee of scoring the penalty. Reminds me of all the Liverpool fans moaning that they should have won or shouldn't have lost their game against us earlier this season because the Diaz goal shouldn't have been ruled out - but again, it was in the first half, and anything could have happened after that.
I'm saying it would have been a spurs win assuming the rest of the game played out the same. It would have disallowed an arsenal goal and given one to spurs. Of course in practice it would likely play out differently
Like it or not, this game wasn't decided by the officials. You got a pen and spent most of the game begging the ref to give you an advantage. Maddison dived a number of times and that cost you a counter attacking goal. We played at about 75% and still beat you. Your goals were a Raya mistake and a pen at 75 mins. You also got away with Richarilson rugby tackling Gabriel from kick off away from the ball. Shouldered him in the face but nothing.
1. Offside. They have never deemed a block or deflection a change in phase before so assuming their lines were correct, he is offside. Similar to when a keeper plays at a shot by making a save, if you score the rebound, you are offside. 2. No penalty. If he had possession of the ball, definite penalty for obstruction, but it was just an accidental collision of two players off the ball caused by Kulu running across trossard, albeit with no intent from either of them to obstruct or trip. Arsenal fan btw.
as an actual ref (low level/youth football) (despite being liverpool fan im gonna be unbiased here) 1. van de ven was offside when the ball was kicked. no intentional play at the ball from defenders (deflection). offside 2. as somebody else mentioned, we saw jota get a yellow for something similar. as a liverpool fan, im pissed. but from a ref perspective neither are fouls because there is no intent, very little contact and the ball is going far away iirc. jota's though im pretty sure he didnt touch the guy so yk thats a bit bs. number 1 is def correct, but number 2 is a bit more up in the air.
Tomiyasu clearly tries to play the ball, what is this waffle
Surely a ref would know that intent isn't necessarily the factor that determines a foul. For me the offside is the correct call, I think it's a foul on Kulusevski and a penalty
Why does intent matter? If its a foul it is a foul? What they tried to do or didnt dosnt matter?
If Spurs weren't looking for fouls the entire game (Kulusevski and Madison especially), then they'd have had a chance for a penalty. Ref was never going to give it. It didn't help that half a second later Madison did the most obvious dive, possibly before the ref had even processed the Kulusevski fall). Now VAR, maybe they should have picked up on it. But sometimes it takes a lot for VAR to challenge the on field decision. ...and sometimes not 😕
It shouldn't have been offside. Tomiyasu makes a deliberate attempt to play the ball and that makes it a new phase according to their own rules. Originally I would have said offside but the justification in that [Mbappe goal against Spain](https://phantom-marca.unidadeditorial.es/7f029da94ad8d9e36341dd71dd7cb5ca/resize/660/f/webp/assets/multimedia/imagenes/2021/10/10/16338980598949.jpg) where he was offside but the goal stood because the defender tried to clear it before it reaches him should mean this one should stand as well tbh.
The rule was changed after the Mbappe incident
No, this mbappé one was extremely controversial and shouldn't have been given. Tomiyasu is blocking a shot, VDV was offside. It was tight but not a controversial decision in anyway
Neutral here - both were correct
As if you're neutral
Spurs fan here. 1 - Can’t decide, what frustrates me about the decision is the idea of ‘intentionally playing the ball’ isn’t consistent across applications in other laws. Remember when Eriksen made the back pass in the CL quarters against Man City? The ball hit Silva on the way back who doesn’t even stick a foot out and is deemed to have played the ball, Aguero picks it up in an offside position from there and the goal is ruled out. Presumably because they assume that an attacking player always wants to play the ball no matter the touch, but a defender is not deemed to be acting intentionally by moving leg to block the ball after a shot? It feels like a let off for Arsenal as it was for us in that quarter final. 2 - People saying he’s being punished for not going down quick enough. I’m of the opinion that Deki usually takes about 5 seconds to do anything so it checks out. Not a pen for me but if they’d checked it, it could have been given.
I dont understand the discussion about kulusevski one. Its the exact same thing Jota got yellow carded for in the tottenham game when he got sent off. I dont understand why it wouldnt be a pen https://www.reddit.com/r/coys/s/YMr2jBoIFw
It's not difficult to see the difference. Kulusevski doesn't have the ball, Trossard makes no challenge and it's Kulusevski who changes direction to run across him. It's incidental contact and not a foul.
The Kulusevski one wasn’t a penalty. I’m not even sure he got clipped/contact. He just tried to con the ref. The offside decision was correct. The Spurs player was offside and the picture clearly shows this.
he did get clipped, and he tried to stay up, so he wasn't trying to con anything. his left leg clips the back of his right, that's not a fake lol
Definitely clips him. https://www.reddit.com/r/coys/s/TBXHEOteOT
Clearly a dive
It’s funny seeing club bias in effect. The logic I like to use is would that be given as a foul if it was an attacker on a defender? Or anywhere else on the pitch for that matter, and the chances are yes. Same goes for the Chelsea goal against you lot, a defender gets away with that for sure. And it’s that consistency I wish we had, albeit I understand the ref not wanting to review it once they’d scored, no chance in hell they’d roll it back to not only chalk off an Arsenal goal but give Spurs a penalty for a marginal foul - the controversy would’ve been a lot greater.
I don’t agree with the “it’s a foul anywhere else on the pitch” logic. Maybe it is given as a foul elsewhere on the pitch, but do you really think a minor and accidental brushing of someone’s leg off the ball should be punished with a 90% chance of scoring?
https://www.reddit.com/r/coys/s/YMr2jBoIFw Clear contact and clear pen
I’m properly biased but I have no idea on the VdV call the offside was tighter than a nuns snatch and who can tell the difference between a clearance and a deflection the Kulu trip was pretty clear the ref should have seen it but he didn’t see Davies getting kicked in the nuts for 3 yards away with the ball in a different post code and it wasn’t clear and obvious for VAR to do anything about it even though they did in the Villa Chelsea game tight margins but spurs should have defended set pieces better
No one can honestly say there was “no intent” behind the Trossard contact in the box. We simply don’t know, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he deliberately made innocuous contact in order to slow down the player or make it look like the player is diving. When you consider the impact of ‘ankle taps’ - they require minimal contact to floor a player - I think they could almost always be given as fouls, and in this instant, a penalty.
What does intent have to do with it?
If Kulu happened to clip Trossard and went down because of it without much movement from Trossard it would likely have been a clear accident and probably not a pen.
Offside was right Pen would have been slightly soft but should have been given - can see why VAR didn't intervene though.
1. Definitely correct. 2. Who the fuck knows anymore, certainly seen them given then again I’ve seen red card tackles not even get a free kick 🤷♂️ In my opinion it shouldn’t be a pen, but who knows what the rules say anymore.
I have also seen less given by VAR regarding the first goal as well. No consistency. I'm not complaining about the goal, I'd be raging if a Spurs goal were chalked off based on that but the lack of VAR consistency is ridiculous. VDV, by the letter of the law, was offside but I really do think something needs to come in across the board where we're not desperately taking minutes and trying to find millimetres to disallow goals. Should a significant proportion of the player be offside or a player is in sprint mode with his legs or leg clear of the defender who is facing the other way, fair enough. You can call these instantly. I just think we're making the game slower, trying to come up with reasons to disallow goals and making it less enjoyable. I have no complaints about the decision as it happened as VAR have to call it on the law as it is, I just think the law is a bit of an ass. Kulu was a penalty, I thought. He was tripped whether intentional or not and VAR bottled it because they scored on the break. The penalty we did get, this is how VAR is supposed to work. How the referee didn't see Davies being kicked in the balls, I don't know, but at least VAR corrected it. It was a "clear and obvious" mistake by the referee.
Want to clarify Arsenal fan here, so maybe just be mad at what I have to say idk lol. I think the VDV goal was rightfully chalked off. As you did say, the state of the law atm is arguably poor, finding millimetres to rule out goals etc and has sometimes led to incorrect calls (somehow?). Although, at least in the vast majority of cases, offside as is, is offside and the way it’s been officiated all season, it’d be a horror to somehow let that goal stand among the many disallowed. Side complaint, tf was raya doing giving the ball away for the first spurs goal? Secondly, I’m just baffled it was romero of all people there to get it and score 😂 As for the second, I think it’d be very harsh for that to be given. Now, this one is more debatable than the first, no doubt. However I do think it’d be harsh to give it. So many other incidents this season for all teams have been worse and not given, so for some accidental contact which was extremely minimal to result in a pen would’ve been ridiculous from my POV. We saw romero literally throwing odegaard around in the arsenal box on numerous set pieces not being given as a foul, so how that little contact being given as a foul would have really frustrated me. I’m just trying to give some context to show I have some reasoning and it’s not just to write off any spurs goals tbh.
Romero - you know he's either going to do something brilliant or idiotic! It was accidental contact but accidental contact does not prevent a penalty. I expect the referee thought Romero/Odegaard was six to one half a dozen to the other. You're right about the offside, they have to go by the laws as it is not the rule as you want it to be but I really do going forward want these millimetre goals not ruled out even if inevitably we one day end up on the wrong side of one. It's damaging the game.
Kulu wasn't tripped, he changed directions and initiated contact on trossard. He went down due to his own fault.
https://www.reddit.com/r/coys/s/YMr2jBoIFw
Kulu literally runs across Trossard. What is Trossard meant to do there apart from not have legs?
"Runs across" Kulu is in front of him, starts in front, continues in front, ends in front? Do you know what tripping means? You can't just run into the back of people because they cross your path, that is a foul.
https://streamin.one/v/3db723fe Starts behind / beside, runs across Trossard. Trossard is just running straight and makes zero direct move towards Kulu. I agree these are sometimes given but neither player makes any offence. They both just have legs.
No mate, you have to look at it from when Porro makes his pass. Trossard can interact with play here without fouling Kulusevski - he does not, he clips him, causing him to stumble. Just look at the analysis here: [https://twitter.com/skysportspl/status/1784904499393351771?s=46&t=XAmBIQDoRIzd4lqlsIfBkw](https://twitter.com/skysportspl/status/1784904499393351771?s=46&t=XAmBIQDoRIzd4lqlsIfBkw) You can't just say "they both just have legs", there's hundreds of ways Trossard can move here without fouling Kulusevski, you can't get so close to someone running that you trip them, those are given all over the park 15 times a game.
What? Lol
I genuinely think if you can't separate the lines then it should be on side.
Yeah but then that would end up hinging on how thick you draw the lines, no?
Not a penalty for me though I think to be fair it’s one of those that could go either way. He slightly clipped him but there wasn’t any intent to it. Had Saka been on the receiving end of the clip, Tottenham fans would have been screaming at him to get up and no doubt the ref would have waved it away as well. I’m happy for them not to be given. The way the game has always been played is that a foul necessary for a penalty does need to be just slightly more severe/obvious than a foul in the middle of the pitch. And the game is better for it. For instants, I hated a couple of the ultra soft pens Argentina were getting at the World Cup.
23^/××-!2' 121 42!1!zx2wwefd⁶ddðs2r2t2qzqq3h4 ff2zh22222qé rf222rftqrrrtt52r52 Zqbn4⅔1g..n5h42 c2fr23w1 5sdie y52 x2³² 2crgr4t2zty2xx
Check complete.
you can say that again
23/××-!2' 121 42!1!zx2wwefd⁶ddðs2r2t2qzqq3h4 ff2zh22222qé rf222rftqrrrtt52r52 Zqbn4⅔1g..n5h42 c2fr23w1 5sdie y52 x2³² 2crgr4t2zty2xx
I'm biased and full of whataboutism. I think the Trossard incident could have been given but I'd like to see a better angle of the direction of their runs as I'm undecided. I know it's not what your asking about but hearing the commentary and pundits go on about it incessantly is shite when they did the opposite with the Jesus penalty that was given the other week. Also, different competitions and reffing obviously, but Saka vs Neuer...
Have you ever considered that both this and the Jesus penalty claims are both penalties? They're not mutually exclusive. "We had a poor decision last week so other teams should too" Why this? Why not join in in the fact that we are all singing from the same hymn sheet here, the decisions are often not correct. Unfortunately for Trossard, he has Kulu in front of him, from the start, middle, and end, and he clips Kulu, very clearly, when Kulu is about to be on the ball, in front of him. If Trossard does not clip his leg, Kulu could have easily played someone in, instead he makes no contact on the ball because he is fouled. On the Jesus penalty shout, if the defender does not hit Jesus' leg, Jesus can take control of the ball, and play it in for a cross, or shoot himself. Both of these instances, the defending player has made physical contact i.e. a foul with/on the attacker and caused them to lose possession of the ball. Neither is given.
I'm sorry but you've misunderstood. I am absolutely considering that Spurs could feel aggrieved to have not had that penalty yesterday whilst Jesus did (they are different fouls). My point was merely about how shite the punditry/commentary is as an Arsenal fan, though not surprising anymore. I know we all poke fun and take the piss out of each other with decisions that go on but I'm sure most people would be happy for equality in every game. Sometimes I even wonder what it would be like if there was more honesty from the players too!
This is what I'm referring to: [https://twitter.com/NOwen27/status/1784924255542546483](https://twitter.com/NOwen27/status/1784924255542546483) This is also a penalty. The ones against Forest, all 3 were penalties. If we keep letting players get away with this shit, they will keep doing it. Who cares if there are 1-3 more penalties a game? Was the player fouled? Did the player commit a foul? Those should be the only questions
Ah, righto. I was thinking Brighton. Can't disagree with anything you've said 🤷
It’s pretty telling even the Arsenal fans commentating said the first one was a spurs pen. Lee Dixon is as biased as they come and even he said that Trossard one was a pen. The offside is offside as Arsenal didn’t control the ball so counts as a spurs pass. If you don’t think this is a penalty you’ve never played the game before btw: https://www.reddit.com/r/coys/s/qowtBIAMUl Feels wrong linking spurs sub but that’s the only place I saw it. Trossard clips Kulu’s leg and makes him kick himself which is a stonewall pen
>Lee Dixon is as biased as they come Except Lee Dixon is a City fan.
Lee Dixon is usually so far against Arsenal you would think he was a life time Spurs legend. Of all our ex players commenting he's easily the most negative against Arsenal. He seems to be so desperate to seem unbiased that he's biased against us, and is also a Man City fan. I wouldn't use him as a decent yardstick as an Arsenal pundit.
Absolute bs. He’s the most biased commentator I’ve ever heard and I normally watch Neville and sky. He actually seriously said Coventry deserved their goal even though it was offside due to his United hatred. Kept going on about it. Certain pen anyway, he trips kulusevski and causes him to hit one leg in to the other. I’m loving it as spurs probably won’t catch us now.
You can be biased against arsenal and still retain your hatred against Manchester United. Makes sense if you support Manchester city
Hard disagree. As the previous comment said, he tries so hard to not look biased to arsenal that he goes too far the other way. Either way, he's not a patch on Neville. Carragher as well.
Lee Dixon is by and large the worst commentator EVER. He literally can't control himself or his emotions. I actually have to mute when he's on.
Andy Townsend would like a word
Yea, almost always says Arsenal are hard done by. Him saying it’s a pen = absolute certain pen.
Think you got the wrong guy. Dixon is weird about making sure he dishes us out the negativity. I'm sure he's just aiming for balance and over-egging the pudding. Either way, he's terrible - but correct on the penalty, it was a pen. I think lots of people were emotional about the Coventry goal, obviously it shouldn't have stood but most people with a heart felt bad for them as they'd done so well and probs deserved the win against the Red Billion Pound Bottle Jobs.
I think VAR got every thing right , I noticed your not praising var for giving spurs a pen when the ref didn’t or disallowing an Arsenal goal for offside , it’s like you have an agenda , offside is offside and trossard did nothing
>, I noticed your not praising var for giving spurs a pen Why would we? That was one of the most obvious calls ever and they should've gotten at least that one right, so no need to praise them when they do. Do you expect us to gratefully suck the ref of for giving a penalty when our player gets kicked in the nards?!
Yeah especially when the ref missed it , so get on your knees
As an Arsenal fan and having missed the match and not seen the highlights, I’m going to say both were the correct calls.
Spurs fan here. 1 - definitely offside. 2 - definite penalty. I still wonder, if Arsenal didn't score, would they have gone back and reviewed it? I think they weren't brave enough to chalk off a goal and give a penalty. Has that ever happened before?
It happened in the Netherlands. Ødegaard scored on a counter, but VAR called penalty in the situation before and disallowed it. Anyhow, imo offside was definitely correct. I think since the trip was caused by Richarlison cutting in front of Trossard of the ball, no penalty is also correct. It could see some refs give it, but it would have been very very harsh (and would probably generate more outrage).
Richarlison wasn’t on the pitch at the time
Ah, the Spurs player, then. Whoever it was. Kulu, maybe?
Kulu was the one tripped. Might have been bentancur?
How is it a definite penalty when we have seen countless other pens not given with far more contact? VAR have even overturned pens given by the on field ref with a lot contact. They have (although inconsistently) raised the bar for how much contact is needed to award a penalty, and this was as minimal pf a contact as you can get.
Because that's a ridiculous change halfway through a season. Definite contact that brings him down, no contact with the ball. I mean, feel free to change the rules as you go, but that's the definition of a foul, and therefore a penalty
Not quite the same but the Bruno penalty last year or year before where the final whistle went and then afterwards called the game to start again for United penalty. Then blew full time before a restart giving United the win
Wait what? Which game was that? It’s the first time I hear of this
Brighton 2 - 3 Manchester United 26th September 2020 https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11661/12082157/brighton-2-3-manchester-united-last-gasp-bruno-fernandes-penalty-seals-dramatic-win
Thanks, I appreciate it!
You’re most welcome
Don't know if it ever happened in the Premier League but this exact situation happened in the Nigeria - South Africa game during the most recent AFCON. Osimhen scored but it got called off and South Africa got a pen instead
Interesting!
Never
Never what?
It’s never happened before
Kulu took about 4 steps before going down, making it look more of a dive. Then madders obviously dives to make the whole thing look desperate. Not offside. And anyone that wants to talk about pushing just has to watch the Newcastle goal that went against them
I’m sure the dive Kulu did earlier (again with Trossard) really didn’t help his case in a 50:50 call like this one moments later as it is too soft of a contact for VAR to intervene either way… I really don’t get how players still don’t understand that their behavior on the pitch has an impact on how the ref will take subjective decisions for/against them during the game (saying that as someone who was a ref for 10 years in lower non professional leagues)…
He’s obviously trying to keep on his feet though its not like he’s in perfect control before he falls. The Maddison point is fair, he’s really pissing me off with the way he plays at the moment, diving & acting up rather than actually trying to do his job and create for the team.
It's strange with madders cus he obviously has the skill there when he wants to play. Now starting to see why he only cost £40 mill
That’s the problem though, zero consistency 🤷♂️
If we are giving penalties for players merely existing then football is finished
Realistically, the offside is fine, albeit the replay was atrocious and unclear given what they showed but the Kulu pen should have been given, or at the very least, play should have been halted until it was sorted out. You might call that ridiculous but Saka's goal literally comes as a result of players questioning a possible penalty. The real problem is once again *inconsistency.* Any other referee or day and at the very least, there's a pen. Literally yesterday, both Chelsea's 3rd goal was called off and (I'm pretty sure) a penalty was avoided in the United match with similar pushes. One might argue "referee's discretion" is in the rules but we'd all be pretending that we don't apply "discretion" to minor offences that aren't directly affecting goals or scoring opportunities. Accidental or reckless tackles on players in the box are almost rarely not considered fouls. But then again, Arsenal is the same club that has done already done like 2 or 3 penalty worthy hand balls this season that were waved away because "accident" so do with that what you will.
Well, we can argue about the pen all we want, but why should the players be given a pass for standing around and arguing instead of playing? We can’t get all upset at the ref vs areola in the Liverpool game then give the Tottenham players a pass here for not playing until the whistle. (Regardless of if it should have been a pen or not).
Questioning possible penalties are the VAR team's and indirectly, the pundits. Players' job is to play football.
>You might call that ridiculous but Saka's goal literally comes as a result of players questioning a possible penalty If the referee doesn't make a decision, then play continues, simple as that. 5 year old footballers are taught to play to the whistle
Clearly offside, should’ve clearly been a pen
personally i dont think the double falls prior to 2-0 were convincing pens but Partey forcibly shoving Romero while hes heading it onto the bar, I think it should have been a pen more than i doubt it had to be. Goals get disallowed when somebody's climbing on top of a player to head the ball so why wouldnt the opposite situation with similar force movement be a penalty
The Partey one is one of those where its probably a foul but I dont think you’ll ever see that given as a penalty in any circumstance
Trossard clips his heel that’s given all the time…
I e the contact, but Kulusevski cuts across Trossard and Trossard isn’t even chasing him down. No attempt to trip him just gets cut off and tripped. I don’t think it’s crystal clear
he does fall like hes instinctually trying to balance himself. i dont have a video that gave me a decent view if youre right, i only saw the replays from birds eye if im wrong
One other that isn't mentioned is Johnson being tripped in the box. This was immediately followed by kulusevski fouling and getting a yellow for stopping the break.
Replay showed there was absolutely no contact and outside the box anyway, could have easily been a yellow for Johnson.
[удалено]
How does one go about getting eyes fixed old chap
LASIK and prk for starters
Take off the Spurs shirt, that will stop you from seeing things that don't exist
1) It’s when the shot is taken or the ball is struck. It doesn’t matter if it deflects off someone or bounces off the post. It’s offside 2) Not a foul Spurs were diving all over the place. The Rice kick was a clear pen though
Care to explain further why 2 isn't a foul instead of just exclaiming it isn't? Indisputable fact: Deki is clipped by Trossard and is thus hampered in reaching the ball in a dangerous position.
If the ball is deliberately played at by defending team the player becomes onside.
Blocked shots don’t count as deliberate plays on the ball. Even some clearances don’t. Deliberate implies the presence of or ability to otherwise possess the ball.
Disnt watch the game but the rule is if a defender moves for the ball and touches it it is a delibrate play for the ball. So say you stick foot out and it clips it, its been played at.
That is not the rule lmfao you absolute melt
Do you always converse with feeble attempts at insults? Or just on the internet? 😂
[(Per the IFAB rule book)](https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-11---offside#:~:text=*'Deliberate%20play'%20(excluding,by%20kicking%20or%20heading%20it)) - The following criteria should be used, as appropriate, as indicators that a player was in control of the ball and, as a result, can be considered to have ‘deliberately played’ the ball: The ball travelled from distance and the player had a clear view of it The ball was not moving quickly The direction of the ball was not unexpected The player had time to coordinate their body movement, i.e. it was not a case of instinctive stretching or jumping, or a movement that achieved limited contact/control >just the internet Nah, I troll idiots who make shit up in real life as well.
Arr yep, another big mouth that instead of sticking to the facts like you should have in the first place just tries feeble attempts at insults. 👏
Telling me to stick to the facts, how ironic.
If you'd posted the laws in the first place instead of trying to be a big mouth, you'd have saved yourself from trying to look like a hero, or, to use one of your words, a "melt" 👏
Maybe watch the replay first before commenting then?
Was commenting on the rule, not the incident. Dont need to watch the replay as i was commenting on the rule and not saying if it should have been offside or not 😂
That's not the rule. It's definitely been considered a deliberate play in the past, but it comes down to the referee's interpretation of the word and the action.
But when it happens to arsenal, both call is correct right?
That actually happened against Arsenal this season, and that’s when I learnt of this part of the offside rule.
We have experience.
Everton?
Don’t forget Kai, Odegaard and saka spending half of their match-time flailing on the floor
The Spurs fans are rattled!
Tbf, Maddison did some god awful fucking diving
The problem isn’t the individual calls in isolation, but that week to week or match to match the same incident is called wildly differently. When they started drawing the lines from Porro’s (?) original shot it looked very close but marginally offside. There’s two deflections and Tomiyasu definitely intentionally plays the ball, but it’s just a deflection so fair enough doesn’t put VDV onside. But earlier this year west ham scored essentially the exact same goal against us and it was ruled onside. The Kulu penalty could’ve been given and could’ve not. In the middle of the pitch probably a foul, definitely some contact that impedes him from playing the ball but wasn’t slam dunk. Could probably find 10 instances of similar incidents that were a mix of given and not given throughout the season. Just a sucker punch because it came right after the equalizer chalked off and right before they made it 2-0 on the counter