GW2: Nick Pope

Jimy Hendrix

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 15, 2002
4,874
I cannot believe a rich young footballer could go to a barber and come out with Kai Havertz’s haircut.
 

67YAZ

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2000
5,614
An uncalled foul 30 second before the goal is a stretch. Richarlison being offside is the bigger question, but I don’t he was a material factor.
 

HowBoutDemSox

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 12, 2009
9,177
Really looking forward to the Conte/Tuchel fisticuffs; Conte probably has more power on his punch but Tuchel should have the reach.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
19,234
Every single Spurs player literally in one corner of the pitch.
 

Jimy Hendrix

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 15, 2002
4,874
Romero officially has an even better than Fernandinho card avoidance field, while committing much more aggro fouls than the passive aggressive Pep fouls.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
19,234
Yeah the hair pull should have been called. I assume they did a VAR look at it but maybe not? We never really confirmed what they were reviewing.

Spurs super lucky to get a point, but what fantastic drama. TT and Conte at the end!
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
19,234
Tuchel is such a clown to me
Now I'm a Spurs fan; and I don't have a problem with TT doing the sideline strut after the Chelsea goal after tempers had already flared--but you can't do that and get mad when Conte...gives you an aggressive handshake.
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
21,019
Philadelphia
Tuchel and Conte both acted like clowns.

I don't really understand how VAR can't give Romero a red on the hair pull. What exactly would they have to see for that to be deemed violent conduct? A face stomp afterwards?
 

Mighty Joe Young

The North remembers
SoSH Member
Sep 14, 2002
7,056
Halifax, Nova Scotia , Canada
Tuchel and Conte both acted like clowns.

I don't really understand how VAR can't give Romero a red on the hair pull. What exactly would they have to see for that to be deemed violent conduct? A face stomp afterwards?
Completely agree .. when I saw it in the first replay it looked an obvious red. There didn’t seem to ne anything else reviewable. Gee, if only we could hear the VAR deliberations. “Serves him right damn hippy”
 

HowBoutDemSox

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 12, 2009
9,177
Completely agree .. when I saw it in the first replay it looked an obvious red. There didn’t seem to ne anything else reviewable. Gee, if only we could hear the VAR deliberations. “Serves him right damn hippy”
Anthony Taylor clearly jealous of Cucurella’s majestic mop.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
24,787
After the game, Tuchy said he was upset because Conte didn't look him in the eye when they shook hands. OK, Tommy. Maybe the skinny pants are too tight.
 

SocrManiac

Tommy Seebach’s mustache
SoSH Member
Apr 15, 2006
6,055
Somers, CT
He’s obviously not going about it the right way, but it’s not hard to figure out why Tuchel has lost his mind. Taylor and Dean have a lot to answer for (except they won’t).

Tuchel will be rightfully disciplined, but there will be no explanation or sanction for a horrific display from the match officials. New year, new head, same results.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
48,260
1-Betancur got the ball.
2-Why do we think VAR didn't think the hair pull incident was worthy of a review?
3-Why, post-match, did the EPL think no further punishment was warranted?
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
24,787
He’s obviously not going about it the right way, but it’s not hard to figure out why Tuchel has lost his mind. Taylor and Dean have a lot to answer for (except they won’t).

Tuchel will be rightfully disciplined, but there will be no explanation or sanction for a horrific display from the match officials. New year, new head, same results.
I don't know enough to know, but there were 3 incidents.


The hair pull seemed obvious.

What is the criteria for Richarlison being offside mattering?

The one I am most unsure of the the tackle before the goal. It looked on replay that the defender got a toe on the ball. How much does that matter?
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
48,260
The one I am most unsure of the the tackle before the goal. It looked on replay that the defender got a toe on the ball. How much does that matter?
It matters, but it's not 100%. But either way, after that happened and before the goal, Chelsea got possession of the ball and turned it over.
 

swiftaw

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2009
3,058
There's nothing VAR could do about the Betancor incident. It wasn't in the direct build up to the goal, it was 44 seconds before and possession changed in between.
I think Richarllison was offside, but 'active' is a subjective call.
The hair pulling incident is interesting. It is clearly a foul, but VAR can only review if the incident is a red or not. If they determine its not a red, they can't give the foul.
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
21,019
Philadelphia
I don't think there are any real complaints with the first goal. As DJ says, whether it was a foul or not, it was in a different phase of play. Richarlison was offside and probably screening the keeper somewhat, but you basically never see that called on shots outside the box in that situation if the player is standing where he was standing (for example, Xhaka's goal against Manchester United last spring was very similar and stood and you can find countless others).

The hair pull is another matter. That has to be a straight red and I don't think there is any argument for it not being considered violent conduct. My guess is that the VAR bottled it for dumb reasons - "there''s only a minute left in the game, I'll just let it slide rather than giving a red that might generate controversy" kind of thing. Its also possible that in the moment the VAR ref simply wasn't sure what to do with a hair pull, since they are relatively rare. But these aren't excuses, just explanations of particular forms of incompetence.

Worth noting that Cristiano Ronaldo once got sent off for this hair pull, which is like a love pat compared to what Romero did:

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/s-RYVzG-LeI
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
48,260
The hair pull is another matter. That has to be a straight red and I don't think there is any argument for it not being considered violent conduct. My guess is that the VAR bottled it for dumb reasons - "there''s only a minute left in the game, I'll just let it slide rather than giving a red that might generate controversy" kind of thing.
That worked!
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
48,260
Actually, hair pulling isn't against the rules.

Cristian Romero: Tottenham defender will not face retrospective action for pulling Marc Cucurella's hair | Football News | Sky Sports

Tottenham Cristian Romero will not face retrospective action for pulling the hair of Chelsea's Marc Cucurella on Super Sunday - as pulling a player's hair is not considered an offence in football's rules.
And because VAR took a look at the decision, Romero will not face any further punishment for violent conduct. Retrospective action can only be given when both the match and video officials fail to spot an incident on the pitch in real time and do not mention it in their post-match report.

Had referee Taylor spotted the incident in real time, then the correct course of action would have been a free-kick to Chelsea, leaving Spurs unable to score from that specific attack.

Unlike rugby, football laws do not specifically mention hair-pulling. The officials must decide whether the extent of the hair pulling is forceful enough to be considered violent conduct, if it is not then it would probably be considered unsporting behaviour and result in a yellow card.
So, because the action was reviewed in-game by VAR and because hair pulling isn't a red, VAR could not ask the ref to review.

Romero needs to be smarter though.

Or........did he know that? lol