I've been down on the team of late. But we were unlucky today. On another day a handball by a player already on a yellow could easily have got them sent off. On another day Joelinton might have got a yellow the first time he deserved one. This is not saying he would therefore have got a red, it means he wasn't in the position to then risk a red, so doesn't make those other challenges. On another day the handball before the goal woudl have been a handball. Oh hang on a minute, that's just a lottery because nobody understand the handball rules. Anyway, on another day one of those cross shots that went across the fact of their goal would either have been met by one of our players or simply hit someone and went in. Considering we gave ourselves no chance at all and thought it would be a huge score against us, a narrow defeat wasn't too bad, particualrly as had the ref thought differently about things the result could have been much different.
He’s right though. Can’t blame him when not much more he could have done today. All the things he can’t control would wind anyone up eventually.
He might get a ban for that but on this occasion he was right. Joelinton should have had three yellows by the time he got his first and showed dissent twice more in the match with no punishment. And if their first goal wasn't deliberate handball then the one by Dunk certainly was. So both could and should have been off the pitch. There were similar refereeing errors in the Chelsea and Ipswich matches. We could easily have 9 points more.
Oh yes, forgot about the dissent. I remember him clearly smiling at and clapping the lino that gave a decision against him. Perhaps the lack of an early yellow made him feel empowered / invulnerable?
Take the "good faith" approach. Specifically, due to bad officiating, what number of : 1, opposition goals were allowed 2. Spurs goals were disallowed 3. opposition players remained on the pitch regardless of number/type of fouls committed If #2 > #1, then the complaints are sound. On #3, even for 11 vs 10 etc you cannot claim with certainty that the opposition will concede goals.
The second half was definitely better than the first, and I thought we deserved at least a draw. I don’t usually comment on refs because I’ve accepted that the standard has been consistently poor for a few years now, at least. But today it seemed like there was quite a large collection of poor decisions from the officials, from big decisions such as hand balls/non hand balls to smaller insignificant ones such as Spence’s clear final touch that should have resulted in a corner to Newcastle. - Just generally poor officiating all round. As others have said, if we’d got the run of the green with some of those decisions, the outcome could have been very different. Considering how against it we were prior to kick off, i thought we played well over all, and we’ve certainly seen worse performances this season with a stronger match day squad! But again, it’s another defeat, meaning we are 4th in terms of most games lost in the league this season, and have some more tricky fixtures coming our way. It’s really hard to see where the next result is going to come from. Getting a new goalkeeper to compete with Vic is great for the long term, but it hardly feels like a priority signing. I just hope this is the start of a flurry of additions in January, because other areas of the squad are in much more need of reinforcement.
Because he is. He's another one of those players like Luis Suarez and Diego Costa that should be sent off all the time but never is. Don't worry though everyone, I'm sure we'll have another change to the handball rule after this. It's only happened roughly every other year after one of our games.
Having a burger at Baldock on the way back. I'm in agreement with Ange today, the officiating was... interesting. From our perspective the first half was poor, second way better and I'm slightly disappointed not to have got a point. Bergvall was excellent after a slightly shaky start but one two looked knackered. I'm reading Austin as MOTM which is odd, although he had a solid game and his distribution was head and shoulders above Forsters. Johnson and Son anonymous at times though. Expected a thumping but came away not that down in all honesty. Oh well there's always Wednesday....
I can see why Austin was MOTM, despite there being players like Bergvall who also deserved it today. Austin was coming in completely out of the cold, and into a team decimated by injury and illness, and to be fair to him, his display didn’t give any signs of that. He made some decent saves, wasn’t responsible for any of the goals, and dealt well with the ridiculous pressure he was put under when Newcastle had set pieces. - that alone will have been a breath of fresh air to our defence, as they aren’t used to a GK actually commanding the box! To come in and play with such composure in a high pressure environment deserves praise. - I know he’s a professional footballer and he’s paid to do it, but dealing with the pressure and performing to a decent standard is easier said than done.
Spurs only had one real chance in the second half and toon probably should have had a penalty. Ange blaming officials is laughable imo. He’s very good at deflection. He probably believes the performance was good enough, it’s why the club is languishing in mid table and sliding down the league.
Agree with all of that, but not sure MotM is decided by such things. Regardless of all the above, it should be the best player on the pitch. Isaak or Porro for me.
I am not sure about the #2>#1 claim because the ball starts in a different position after any wrongly allowed or disallowed goal so the rest of the match proceeds differently. The only way to be sure that the result of a match reflects the efforts of the teams is for no decisions to be wrong. But since the Laws are written in such a way that trained referees come to opposite decisions on the same incident this is too much to ask.
Well yes, and as I typed I thought about that weakness in my argument. But whoever decides it, it should just be the best player.
He wasn’t the best player on the pitch however you measure it. Just another example of how standards have slipped at Spurs.
I agree. But if it’s being decided by the commentators, it’s easy to see why they may pick someone for slightly different reasons, which is likely what happened with Austin today.
Judging the best player is quite objective. If the criterion was the fewest mistakes I think there was a case for Austin. If it was about the most excellent plays then Porro or Isak.
