You have been a busy bee haven't you lol
Go on then, i'll humour you, seeing as you've gone to so much trouble trawling through months of posts.
My interpretation of the rules is that there are multiple factors at play in deciding whether or not to give a penalty. Body position, intent, trajectory of the ball and if the opposition gained an obvious advantage because of it. The ref and video ref have to interpret all of that and make a collective decision. I'm not saying it's right or fair, I'm just stating that this is how they have judged it based on their interpretation of the rules - and as the governing body of the game, ultimately that's what matters. Obviously with different refs you're going to have different interpretations of the law as that's how human behaviour is, so you're never going to get 100% consistency.
Much of Football is subjective and i'd agree that VAR in it's current state isn't fit for purpose and needs to be reviewed. It should only be used to override clear and obvious reffing errors and I'm not convinced that was a clear and obvious error yesterday. If we'd got the pen yesterday, I'd have been as happy as anyone, but I'd still have said it was soft and we'd have basically got one for free. Reason being, (other than the fact it did hit his hand) it doesn't satisfy enough of those aforementioned factors to be a 'clear and obvious' penalty. The ref didn't give it in real time and literally nobody (no fans, players or staff) claimed for it, it wasn't clear and obvious error for Taylor to overrule.
He was challenging for the ball off the ground and his body was in an unnatural shape with his arm up - on that basis alone alot of you are saying 'PEN'. The fact he was in a physical challenge and was off the ground is crucial, according to the statement released after the game. He was in a physical challenge for the ball and he was looking away, that accounts for the unnatural body shape. The ball clearly hits his hand, there is no dispute about that by anyone. However, there appeared to be no intent on Alli's part to handle, I'm not sure many would argue that. The ball trajectory barely changed as it only glanced off the back of his hand. And finally (and crucially), Spurs didn't gain an advantage because of it, we were still on the attack. .
I think the last one is the most important factor with these things. Has it actually prevented / created a goalscoring opportunity? And the answer in this case was clearly no. Weighing up all of the factors, the ref has looked at it and decided it wasn't a clear and obvious error. It's unfortunate but I can see why.
You reference the Sissoko one in the CL final, but with that one he wasn't being challenged. His feet were planted and his arm was in an unnatural position. There was no intent, but the ball trajectory completely changed and Spurs did gain an advantage from it as it blocked the cross from coming into the box. Crucially with that one, the on-field official gave it, so VAR would have to find that he'd made a clear and obvious error in giving that.
I don't expect you'll agree with any of this and that's fine, them's the breaks! It's why we have GOT after all. Good talk.
