+- COYR NOTTINGHAM FOREST FORUM (https://coyrforestforum.co.uk)
+-- Forum: NOTTINGHAM FOREST - A REBEL CLUB IN A REBEL CITY (https://coyrforestforum.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Nottingham Forest Fan Talk - Forest All Over The World (https://coyrforestforum.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Nottingham Forest - Tottenham (/showthread.php?tid=1884)
RE: Nottingham Forest - Tottenham - Paplane - 16-09-2026
(16-09-2026, 11:36 AM)wassy04 Wrote: Feels like this essentially says they can decide whether it hits his hand or not and the ref view is irrelevant, so then its just a case of determining whether it did or not. They have gone for the view that on the balance of probability it did hit his hand, which to be honest I personally think it likely did at least touch his arm so they probably were correct to rule it out. Suspect, this is not a popular or majority viewpoint on here though!
HOWEVER, as with the Haaland one at the weekend, they micro focused on one issue and just ignored the fact that when the defender missed the ball trying to clear it he booted Neco in the head. Sadly, they don't seem to have discussed that here.
'Balance of probability' = guess
You've got sharper eyes than me then Wassy if you were able to see it hit his arm. That's based on the video that was available to the VAR at the time.
It could have brushed the sleeve of his shirt possibly? Is that handball, if it touches the shirt, rather than the actual arm? What I'm suggesting is that it was such a subjective decision (aka 'a guess'), the on-field ref's decision should have been allowed to have stood.
RE: Nottingham Forest - Tottenham - wassy04 - 16-09-2026
(16-09-2026, 12:10 PM)Paplane Wrote:(16-09-2026, 11:36 AM)wassy04 Wrote: Feels like this essentially says they can decide whether it hits his hand or not and the ref view is irrelevant, so then its just a case of determining whether it did or not. They have gone for the view that on the balance of probability it did hit his hand, which to be honest I personally think it likely did at least touch his arm so they probably were correct to rule it out. Suspect, this is not a popular or majority viewpoint on here though!
HOWEVER, as with the Haaland one at the weekend, they micro focused on one issue and just ignored the fact that when the defender missed the ball trying to clear it he booted Neco in the head. Sadly, they don't seem to have discussed that here.
'Balance of probability' = guess
You've got sharper eyes than me then Wassy if you were able to see it hit his arm. That's based on the video that was available to the VAR at the time.
It could have brushed the sleeve of his shirt possibly? Is that handball, if it touches the shirt, rather than the actual arm? What I'm suggesting is that it was such a subjective decision (aka 'a guess'), the on-field ref's decision should have been allowed to have stood.
Their point is that according to VAR rules, the ref's decision on the field is irrelevant as this decision is not subjective so they are the ones that are making the decision. In fairness, how would the ref possibly be able to tell given he was behind it?
I don't know if it definitely did or not but based on the view at the time I thought it looked like it was more likely that it did than it didn't.
RE: Nottingham Forest - Tottenham - McDurban - 16-09-2026
(16-09-2026, 11:36 AM)wassy04 Wrote: Feels like this essentially says they can decide whether it hits his hand or not and the ref view is irrelevant, so then its just a case of determining whether it did or not. They have gone for the view that on the balance of probability it did hit his hand, which to be honest I personally think it likely did at least touch his arm so they probably were correct to rule it out. Suspect, this is not a popular or majority viewpoint on here though!
HOWEVER, as with the Haaland one at the weekend, they micro focused on one issue and just ignored the fact that when the defender missed the ball trying to clear it he booted Neco in the head. Sadly, they don't seem to have discussed that here.
Balance of probability is insufficient to overturn a ref decision. It has to be a clear and obvious error.
Later evidence showing a handball is irrelevant, they did not have that evidence at the time of overruling the ref.
RE: Nottingham Forest - Tottenham - Salvatore Matrecano - 16-09-2026
They have listed it as a factual error which infers VAR saw clear evidence at the time of the incident.
That is a lie.
RE: Nottingham Forest - Tottenham - JohnG - 16-09-2026
My take is....
Neco accidentally handled it, but VAR didn't have a view that conclusively could see that enough to make a factual decision. These post game judgments are based on a view of it that came out later so they are either deliberately or mistakenly ignoring that VAR failed its own procedures.
It was somewhat fair that it was ruled out for that, but was the dangerous boot not considered? It certainly has failed to get mentioned outside our fan base but it looks like it either caught Neco's head or got very close to him. Which is surely a penalty and another instance of VAR not doing what VAR was supposed to do. Then there was their goalkeeper colliding with Neco after not getting anything of the ball, which was earlier in the same passage of play.
Things like this can happen but post match analysis is just brushing them off or not mentioning the wider pictures. It's not great.
RE: Nottingham Forest - Tottenham - Huddersz - 16-09-2026
IIRC from the original image they released, the ball appeared to have dropped straight down. If it had hit his arm I would have expected the ball to be dropping diagonally down to the right instead.
RE: Nottingham Forest - Tottenham - wassy04 - 16-09-2026
(16-09-2026, 12:53 PM)McDurban Wrote:(16-09-2026, 11:36 AM)wassy04 Wrote: Feels like this essentially says they can decide whether it hits his hand or not and the ref view is irrelevant, so then its just a case of determining whether it did or not. They have gone for the view that on the balance of probability it did hit his hand, which to be honest I personally think it likely did at least touch his arm so they probably were correct to rule it out. Suspect, this is not a popular or majority viewpoint on here though!
HOWEVER, as with the Haaland one at the weekend, they micro focused on one issue and just ignored the fact that when the defender missed the ball trying to clear it he booted Neco in the head. Sadly, they don't seem to have discussed that here.
Balance of probability is insufficient to overturn a ref decision. It has to be a clear and obvious error.
Later evidence showing a handball is irrelevant, they did not have that evidence at the time of overruling the ref.
Their point is that this is not accurate when it comes to "factual" decisions like offside or whether someone handled it so the clear and obvious part doesn't apply (not saying I agree with the logic, that is just how they are justifying it)
RE: Nottingham Forest - Tottenham - wassy04 - 16-09-2026
(16-09-2026, 01:06 PM)Salvatore Matrecano Wrote: They have listed it as a factual error which infers VAR saw clear evidence at the time of the incident.
That is a lie.
In this instance, from the VAR perspective, they can either say it hit his hand or it didn't. So they tried to decide which was more likely.
The ref is behind it, he couldn't have possibly seen it either way, so it makes sense for the VAR to make the choice.
Still think it was a clear penalty but its certainly not the worst decision we've had affect us (that handball vs Utd last year springs to mind)
The offside in the Utd game was a far worse decision IMO.
This is all a little bit devil's advocate though too.
RE: Nottingham Forest - Tottenham - Salvatore Matrecano - 16-09-2026
(16-09-2026, 02:33 PM)wassy04 Wrote:(16-09-2026, 01:06 PM)Salvatore Matrecano Wrote: They have listed it as a factual error which infers VAR saw clear evidence at the time of the incident.
That is a lie.
In this instance, from the VAR perspective, they can either say it hit his hand or it didn't. So they tried to decide which was more likely.
The ref is behind it, he couldn't have possibly seen it either way, so it makes sense for the VAR to make the choice.
Still think it was a clear penalty but its certainly not the worst decision we've had affect us (that handball vs Utd last year springs to mind)
The offside in the Utd game was a far worse decision IMO.
This is all a little bit devil's advocate though too.
The outcome may have been fair and yes we have had far worse decisions but both of those points are irrelevant.
You say it makes sense for VAR to make the choice. That only applies if there is clear evidence the ball hit Neco’s hand. Otherwise the on field decision should stand. They didn’t have evidence at the time to overturn the decision, that’s old news.
What makes me furious is that ProRef and the KMI have chosen to ignore this in their post match review and instead make up a story defending their position based on a video from a non official source.
If I worked for Forest I would be demanding ProRef release the commentary (which they miraculously seem able to do quickly when the Sky6 are involved) and the evidence they used at the time.
That they seem to be able to manipulate their own rules as they go along should worry every football fan.
RE: Nottingham Forest - Tottenham - wassy04 - 16-09-2026
(16-09-2026, 02:46 PM)Salvatore Matrecano Wrote:(16-09-2026, 02:33 PM)wassy04 Wrote:(16-09-2026, 01:06 PM)Salvatore Matrecano Wrote: They have listed it as a factual error which infers VAR saw clear evidence at the time of the incident.
That is a lie.
In this instance, from the VAR perspective, they can either say it hit his hand or it didn't. So they tried to decide which was more likely.
The ref is behind it, he couldn't have possibly seen it either way, so it makes sense for the VAR to make the choice.
Still think it was a clear penalty but its certainly not the worst decision we've had affect us (that handball vs Utd last year springs to mind)
The offside in the Utd game was a far worse decision IMO.
This is all a little bit devil's advocate though too.
The outcome may have been fair and yes we have had far worse decisions but both of those points are irrelevant.
You say it makes sense for VAR to make the choice. That only applies if there is clear evidence the ball hit Neco’s hand. Otherwise the on field decision should stand. They didn’t have evidence at the time to overturn the decision, that’s old news.
What makes me furious is that ProRef and the KMI have chosen to ignore this in their post match review and instead make up a story defending their position based on a video from a non official source.
If I worked for Forest I would be demanding ProRef release the commentary (which they miraculously seem able to do quickly when the Sky6 are involved) and the evidence they used at the time.
That they seem to be able to manipulate their own rules as they go along should worry every football fan.
They have explicitly said because it's deemed factual ie it either did or didn't, the clear and obvious part does not apply and therefore they are just making a judgement call.
Why should they use the ref's view who couldn't possibly see it either way and therefore would be guessing even more than them?
RE: Nottingham Forest - Tottenham - Salvatore Matrecano - 16-09-2026
Because that is the rule. The on field decision is only over ruled by a factual error. They had zero proof on a factual error so the goal should stand.
What they have done is make up the rules and then worse manipulated their rules in the post match review process.
RE: Nottingham Forest - Tottenham - Paplane - 16-09-2026
The thing with refereeing decisions is that some come down to the opinion of 1 man (or woman). What VAR's done in some cases is sub-contract that decision out to another individual who has just as much potential to make a human error as the guy out on the pitch.
I'd bin the whole thing bar goal line technology and automated offsides myself.