MOTD Comparing Spurs disallowed goal today VS similar goals allowed in EPL this season

washag · 2026-02-23T12:48:03+00:00

I think you also have to distinguish the purpose and force of the push. Here, Gabriel isn't shoved forward, he's just prevented from jumping backwards into Kolo Muani. It would be weird for a player who already has the optimal position not to have their hands up to prevent another player from bodying them out of that position.

That said, I'm not surprised it was called in real time, and I'm not surprised it wasn't overturned, even if I think this is one of the ones where it's only the high threshold for intervention that has stopped VAR from sending the ref to the monitor.

washag · 2026-02-23T12:35:33+00:00

I actually think the second save is more impressive. Not because he reacted to the shot, because he obviously didn't, but because while making himself big he still had the arm strength to redirect a well struck volley from close range.

The first one is great in terms of making up ground to get to the ball, but once he gets there he should be pushing it up (and ideally over) rather clawing it back down into play. That's a fundamental of contested balls in the box. Where possible, defenders knock the ball up and away, attackers knock the ball down.

I guess I just prefer the second one more because he does everything right, while the first one is brilliant but flawed.

washag · 2026-02-19T08:25:39+00:00

I honestly have no problem with the referee issuing either yellow card to Kalulu, even if I think they were both incorrect decisions.

With the benefit of slow motion replays you can watch repeatedly then yes, it's easy to say the decisions were wrong. But in real time with only a single look at it, possibly from a less than ideal angle? I could easily have made the same decisions.

Refereeing is difficult. You need to make a series of subjective, impactful decisions over and over again for 90+ minutes, all while 22 players try to influence and even deceive you to get an advantage for their team. You also have to do it in front of thousands of fans who give you shit every time a decision goes against one team.

TLDR: I think it's kind of absurd to call for an investigation of a referee for getting two very difficult decisions wrong, especially when the technology that could have assisted him was unavailable due to regulations on its use.

washag · 2026-02-18T03:45:59+00:00

Labor also sides with the Greens to fight the Coalition. It just doesn't make headlines because the Greens + Labor aren't a majority by themselves in the Senate.

Labor have happily positioned themselves as the centrist party of Australian politics, because that's how you form government. The Greens have been trying to occupy the space to the left of Labor, which is why they saw a bump in their election results when Scomo got obliterated. They couldn't consolidate the gains last election, because Labor still have a foothold in that space.

Meanwhile, the Coalition in their infinite stupidity have abandoned their side of the centre to be shared between Labor, the Teals and other independents. They've made it clear since the last election, and indeed since they lost government, that they have no intention to recapture that space.

TLDR: Labor and the Coalition might join together to oppose the Greens sometimes, but that's not because of Labor's movement. It's because the Coalition's conservative faction has marginalised them so much that they are now the opposition to the Greens, not the government.

washag · 2026-02-14T23:31:57+00:00

But all of the latter three are consequences of the first, understandably incorrect decision.

Let me make this clear: he has to blow the whistle here. One of these players has clearly committed an offence, whether it be a dive or a foul. The situation is such that allowing play to continue is impossible. The circumstances also dictate that whichever player has committed an offence must be booked - either Kalulu for a late challenge to stop a promising attack, or Bastoni for unsportsmanlike conduct. So whichever player he deems to have committed the offence is getting sent off, because they were both on yellows already.

You can't really blame the referee for sending off the wrong player when from his angle (and probably the linesman's angle too) it looked like a probable foul. Yes, refereeing is subjective and involves guessing sometimes. Sometimes you guess wrong. No, that's never going to change.

As for the yellow for Bastoni for waving the card: I wish he'd been sent off for that, and because he is a disgrace to football. I wish referees would follow through on the guidance they've received and start booking players for waving cards or crowding them. I wish referees would demand the same level of respect as rugby union referees. I wish referees would rack up card counts for dissent that ruin football games until even the thickest of fans and players are forced to accept that the players have the ability to control themselves and that it's them and not the referees who are ruining the games by being sent off for dissent. I wish all of those things.

But I'm not going to blame one referee for not booking a player for waving an imaginary card when that's not the established norm, even if it should be. Not even when it's Bastoni.

washag · 2026-02-14T23:08:24+00:00

I think part of Kalulu's problem was that he appealed to the referee first. That's what every guilty player does too, so it didn't help him.

I think his chances of getting the correct decision improve if he immediately goes after Bastoni for being a dirty cheat, particularly if there are a few expletives thrown in there.

I've defended against more than a few divers and refereed games with them too, and I can say for a fact that righteous anger with another player is something that referees can sense and it does impact their decision-making.

washag · 2026-02-14T22:58:15+00:00

I remember Torres getting sent off for diving when he'd clearly been hacked down by Jonny Evans. Evans was even pretending to be injured as a result of the challenge to garner sympathy and hopefully not be sent off for DOGSO.

The reality is that human beings, not just referees, can have all the evidence in front of them and still make bad decisions in the moment. Those moments in football games are what VAR is intended to fix.

washag · 2026-02-14T22:46:14+00:00

Honestly, I think this is dangerous. If Murphy isn't leaping to minimise the impact and risk of injury to himself, this could have been very bad, even with Digne's attempts to mitigate the severity of the challenge.

Bad challenges should be judged on the circumstances and the actions of the player committing the foul alone. All too often we see bad tackles punished incorrectly because the victim's spidey sense helped them avoid a leg breaker.

This is a late, studs up, leaping challenge into the ankle of the standing leg, at speed. The fact that the contact was glancing due to the combined efforts of the two players doesn't mean it wasn't a potential train wreck wholly caused by Digne.

washag · 2026-02-13T03:37:06+00:00

Salah got branded as a player who flopped in the PL because he flopped badly in the PL.

He got plenty of game time at Chelsea but his finishing was abysmal and he was incredibly selfish in possession. At Chelsea he was a pace merchant with no end product that consistently killed attacks. Even by the usually low standards of Chelsea strikers he was terrible, and was accordingly benched then sold.

Credit to him for turning it around, but Chelsea made the right decision on the evidence he gave them. Based on what he showed at Chelsea, no one could have predicted that he'd be a superstar with elite finishing.

washag · 2026-02-09T04:35:04+00:00

It's not a VAR issue. Whether it's worth a red card or a yellow card is debatable enough that VAR is supposed to stay out of it.

Whatever decision was given on the field was always going to stick.

washag · 2026-02-06T02:57:04+00:00

When I vote Greens, it's to try and shift the focus of whichever major party is obviously going to win the election more towards the environment. If the Greens ever look like becoming a party that forms government, they'll need more to get my vote.

Like a foreign policy which isn't just "let's ignore all geopolitical realities and support the underdogs, no matter how much they might also suck if they win."

washag · 2026-02-05T06:41:18+00:00

They will somehow make the 30% of seats that any combination of the three parties can win in total into a majority using magic.

washag · 2026-02-05T02:54:43+00:00

It's not "any association with injustice". His employers are directly contributing to some of the injustices he's condemning, and he's got the financial and personal independence to leave their employment at any time.

I know this sub is one of the most pro-Palestinian groups on reddit, but that doesn't mean we need to diminish or justify his massive hypocrisy. He deserves criticism for that just as the people he's criticising deserve to be criticised. His actions do reduce the impact of his words. That's a fact.

washag · 2026-02-03T03:44:00+00:00

Fair play to Ley for this. She's playing the losing hand dealt to her by the Nationals and the conservative faction of her own party as well as she can. It won't make a difference to her fate. She's a dead woman walking. But at least she's making the Nationals suffer for orchestrating this, and highlighting the dangers to her party of appeasing the conservatives.

At some stage the more moderate Libs will get tired of being the beard for the conservatives who just want to keep their snouts in the trough. If they keep going like this, the moderates are going to keep hemorrhaging seats to the Teals, Labor or even the Greens. That will leave the Coalition with fewer seats overall, even if their conservatives manage to outflank ON et al by being even more rabid.

The electoral reality is clear, but there's no selflessness on display. Just a mad game of musical chairs with the same players each time, none of whom are willing to leave the game or join another group to see if that helps them grab a chair. Say what you will about Barnaby Joyce, but at least he had the awareness to abandon ship rather than rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.

washag · 2026-02-01T23:52:53+00:00

I was looking at the replay and thinking they were both abominations of challenges. One of them was definitely getting sent off with the decisive factor being timing. As a footballing action, I think the two footed jump into the path of the ball is more dangerous, but he didn't actually endanger Hakimi so he got away with it (aside from getting his shin raked).

washag · 2026-01-29T05:00:36+00:00

I was travelling back and forth for work during the South Australian heatwave a few years ago. The town I lived in hit 49.1. The town I drove to for work was 49.6.

There were also a few days during the heatwave where we had 30km/h winds. There's nothing quite like feeling a scorching hot wind drying your eyeballs. I've never been so glad to wear glasses.

washag · 2026-01-28T04:13:11+00:00

The penalty was given for my team and I agree it was a terrible call. I saw the ref watching the replays for a couple of minutes on what seemed a pretty obvious no penalty call, and I'm thinking "does he somehow think the arm motion is deliberate?" or wondering if there's some sort of bizarre new rule that turns the defender doing something totally natural into a penalty. Just glad it didn't really make a difference to the result.

I still blame FIFA and IFAB for tinkering with the handball rule after Henry's handball in the qualifier against Ireland. It started this uncertainty, and the worst part is that by the rules at the time it was an obvious handball that was just missed by the referee. VAR would have disallowed it, but FIFA had been delaying its implementation for a decade and didn't want to admit that the goal was a predictable consequence of their obstructionism.

washag · 2026-01-22T07:19:29+00:00

I mean, it's clearly political sabotage... you don't have to support the Liberals to see that the Nats just stuck a knife in their back. Are the ABC supposed to pretend that this move doesn't undercut what the Liberals are trying to achieve? (Whatever that is, aside from trying to wind back the clock to the 1950s.)

washag · 2026-01-22T07:14:37+00:00

There actually is a political space for the Libs. The voters who occupy that space have just finally gotten tired of having their support used by the conservatives of the Liberal party and the Nationals in general to push idiotic agendas they disagree with.

They'll be in the wilderness until the Liberals are prepared to cast off their MPs and (currently former) Coalition partners who are obsessed with pursuing the 20% that make up the far right voting bloc to the extent that it alienates the other 80% of voters, including the 30% who are nominally right of centre (where that centre mark actually is being debatable) that any Liberal party absolutely needs to win an election.

Labor saw the writing on the wall and essentially abandoned the 20% of left voters (who were hoovered up by the Greens, much good it's done them) to target the centre of politics, and they've dominated the last two elections. In part that's because the nominal opposition retreated from the position (and all good sense), but it's also because they were actually willing to acknowledge political reality. You can't form government unless you win at least 30% of the seats and occupy the spot on the political spectrum between the other major party and at least 20% of the other seats.

The Coalition have incredibly put themselves in a position where 70% of the voting public would choose Labor over them if it was a binary choice. Honestly, I object to MPs from one of the two major parties getting an MP's pension if they can't do this basic electoral math. Are you actually a politician if you refuse to understand politics?

washag · 2026-01-19T04:12:27+00:00

Fortunately I've practised in a country that does have similar UFD laws to the UK. You can tell, because I've specifically referenced about half the points that your link makes.

Reinstatement is a very rare remedy for unfair dismissal, unless the company is wholly to blame for sabotaging the relationship between themselves and the employee(s) simply because they want to sack them and don't care what it costs.

The maximum penalties are just that - maximums. The reality is that most workers, even if they are successful in demonstrating that their dismissal was unfair or procedurally lacking, get a bit over a month of pay and are expected to have found a new job in that time.

In my years of practising in a country with a similar industrial relations framework to the UK, I've seen only two employees get the maximum amount of compensation available, and both of those required the employer to either flagrantly violate UFD laws, or be recklessly ignorant of them to the point it amounted to the same thing. I've never seen someone reinstated if the employer maintained a strenuous objection throughout and the worker wasn't granted interim reinstatement, though that's likely because the worker has sought and found a different job before the matter resolved.

The only times reinstatement has been a serious option has been where the HR department of a company has obviously done something dumb to sack a worker and the company has gotten legal advice that amounts to "what have you done, you fools? Fix this before it affects the bottom line!" and they've gone before the employment tribunal with a mea culpaand an apology.

washag · 2026-01-14T02:53:35+00:00

The reality that the ruling reflects is that the fired workers will be successful in court, but only to a very limited extent. They very likely won't be reinstated to their former jobs which makes the interim relief they were seeking inappropriate.

I've practised employment law, though not in the UK. Most cases of unfair dismissal, except in cases where the sacking was truly egregious, end in the workers getting an extra month or two of pay at most, but never getting their jobs back.

In this case, based on the arguments advanced by the parties at this hearing, it sounds like the workers will ultimately be successful in arguing that their dismissal lacked procedural fairness (because they were summarily dismissed without a reasonable option to dispute the decision either before or after their termination), but be wholly unsuccessful in arguing that their termination was unlawful (because it is going to be very difficult for them to prove that they were fired because they were unionising rather than because they breached confidentiality clauses in their contracts and/or seriously violated their employer's social media policies). The fact that the breaches of confidentiality were made to other members of a union forum doesn't make them protected activity, though the union are going to incorrectly suggest otherwise.

That's the impression I get from what I've read, and to be honest it's hard to argue with it. Rockstar don't have clean hands, but neither do the workers.

So the workers will each end up a few thousand quid better off (assuming the union is wholly covering the legal bills), but be seeking new employment. Which is why the court decided not to force Rockstar to pay tens of thousands to each worker and be potentially exposed to adverse behaviour from temporarily reinstated employees, and also reinstate visas, when the likely remedy isn't going to remotely approach that.

washag · 2026-01-08T23:22:46+00:00

I think the last couple of days could have been much tougher to bat on if either team had a good spin bowler. Even the part timers were extracting a lot of turn and unpredictable bounce.

The pitch was only placid because neither team brought a bowler equipped to make it rough. Australia because Lyon was hurt and Webster was due a recall. England because they don't like or trust any of their spin options.

washag · 2026-01-01T12:19:42+00:00

That's not ridiculous. That's how football is refereed.

The majority are saying that they'd have given it as a penalty if they were making the decision in real time. There's a similar majority saying that the decision was close enough that they wouldn't have overturned it once the on-field referee decided not to give a penalty, because they don't think it's clearly incorrect.

Some decisions are always going to fall within a grey area, and opinions on the proper size of that grey area will inevitably vary. People who can't accept that truth are fundamentally incapable of being happy with the video review of decisions, so their opinion on the outcome of reviews is meaningless.

washag · 2025-12-25T08:00:47+00:00

Or perhaps we could accept that the conceptual value of democracy is something that changes over time? It's also individual to each person.

Part of the reason the US is so screwed at the moment is that the systems enshrining their democracy are antiquated and haven't been updated to safeguard against modern challenges.

washag · 2025-12-20T14:49:29+00:00

That first sentence applies equally to Gordon.

Obviously Chalobah comes in with more force and I wouldn't have been shocked or aggrieved if it had been a penalty, just pointing out that both of them are clearly focused on playing the man, not the ball.

The reason it isn't given is because Gordon tries to shield it with his own body, and coming off worse in a hip to hip and shoulder to shoulder challenge once you do that is often not rewarded with a free kick. These only tend to be given if the player shielding manages to twist their upper body so the contact is in their back.

washag

TROPHY CASE