Nottingham Forest - Tottenham

[ozzyten10]

Yes that needs addressing!

[Spangles]

The more I see the incident the more it angers me.

Absolute criminal.

Not sure what's worse this one or the Mbuemo farce last season at OT . We certainly seem to be consistently on the wrong end of some absolute howlers , not just wrong decisions but proper howlers .

[Salvatore Matrecano]

I can live with a howler if someone has interpreted a subjective decision differently.

What I cannot accept is a blatant disregard for Pro Ref’s own rules and processes which is what they have done in this case. Then spinning a media narrative that tries to make out justice was done to cover up the incompetence of their employee on the day.

[Username]

Some interesting stat analysis of the players from the game on Saturday:

https://x.com/danscapephoto/status/20970...pM7mwwwJ7Q

Added without comment.

[McDurban]

Some interesting stat analysis of the players from the game on Saturday:

https://x.com/danscapephoto/status/20970...pM7mwwwJ7Q

Added without comment.

Also the Dan Ndoye eye test verified.

[DeesideRed]

Some interesting stat analysis of the players from the game on Saturday:

https://x.com/danscapephoto/status/20970...pM7mwwwJ7Q

Added without comment.

It makes a fair point about McAtee, he will lose the ball as trying to create but 7 losses on possession in own half are the concern. This was also true of MGW - how many times over the years have we said "Not there!"

[Fumanchew]

Gotta remember mcatee only started 2 games all season last year. People said to give all our new wingers a run of games to get confidence etc
I wonder how we were once ando got a run of games when we signed him, I think mcatee will grow

Ndoye is the enigma though, if OG is a systematic manager I doubt Ndoye is being told to play differently against different teams. He worked well against Liverpool but why didn’t that work against spurs isn’t because those behind him were too cautious against spurs?

[Salvatore Matrecano]

I’ve no idea how those individual scores are worked out but they look wrong for this weeks game and they looked wrong for the Liverpool game too. I can get some individual stats but these just look like random numbers, certainly has no correlation with the eye test.
Morgan wasn’t great all game but 2.6? Likewise Neco and Jair decent but 9.8 and 9.6?
For the Liverpool game it gave our overall performance as 3.2 out of 10. Sorry this is a load of nonsense.

[Username]

Some interesting stat analysis of the players from the game on Saturday:

https://x.com/danscapephoto/status/20970...pM7mwwwJ7Q

Added without comment.

It makes a fair point about McAtee, he will lose the ball as trying to create but 7 losses on possession in own half are the concern. This was also true of MGW - how many times over the years have we said "Not there!"

Agreed. 

Interesting to read other comments and the confirmation bias that is s evident regarding N’Doye, McAtee and MGW

[Salvatore Matrecano]

KMI panel official statement. I am far more angry about the lies stated below to come to this conclusion than the disallowed goal.

Incident: KMI Goal awarded. Handball appeal against Neco Williams (66 min)
On-field decision outcome: Incorrect – factual handball (0 votes for; 5 votes against)
KMI Panel: The VAR intervention to disallow the goal for an accidental handball offence by Williams was unanimously supported. The ball factually makes contact with Williams on the arm before going directly into the goal.
VAR intervention outcome: Correct (5:0)

Why was the goal ruled out?

The Laws of the Game state that a goal cannot be scored directly from a player’s hand or arm, even if the contact is accidental. It is also an offence if a player scores immediately after the ball has touched their hand or arm, even if accidental.

Why didn't the VAR recommend an on-field review for a clear and obvious error?

VAR is used to identify clear and obvious errors or serious missed incidents in four match-changing situations: goals, penalties, red cards (including second yellow cards awarded) and mistaken identity.

The pitchside monitor is used to confirm VAR interventions on subjective decisions, such as serious foul play or violent conduct.

The pitchside monitor is not used to confirm VAR interventions for factual decisions, such as offside offences or accidental handball by the goalscorer. As these are factual, they are not subject to the clear and obvious threshold and therefore an on-field review by the Referee is not required

[Paplane]

KMI panel official statement. I am far more angry about the lies stated below to come to this conclusion than the disallowed goal.

Incident: KMI Goal awarded. Handball appeal against Neco Williams (66 min)
On-field decision outcome: Incorrect – factual handball (0 votes for; 5 votes against)
KMI Panel: The VAR intervention to disallow the goal for an accidental handball offence by Williams was unanimously supported. The ball factually makes contact with Williams on the arm before going directly into the goal.
VAR intervention outcome: Correct (5:0)

Why was the goal ruled out?

The Laws of the Game state that a goal cannot be scored directly from a player’s hand or arm, even if the contact is accidental. It is also an offence if a player scores immediately after the ball has touched their hand or arm, even if accidental.

Why didn't the VAR recommend an on-field review for a clear and obvious error?

VAR is used to identify clear and obvious errors or serious missed incidents in four match-changing situations: goals, penalties, red cards (including second yellow cards awarded) and mistaken identity.

The pitchside monitor is used to confirm VAR interventions on subjective decisions, such as serious foul play or violent conduct.

The pitchside monitor is not used to confirm VAR interventions for factual decisions, such as offside offences or accidental handball by the goalscorer. As these are factual, they are not subject to the clear and obvious threshold and therefore an on-field review by the Referee is not required

That's that then. The entire football community is wrong, these 5 nerds are correct.

[wassy04]

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.