Newcastle United Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 2014/15

M5

Krul; Santon, S.Taylor, Williamson, Yanga-Mbiwa; Anita, Tiote (c), Cabaye; Sissoko, Remy, Gouffran

Santon makes it! Mbiwa at full back is odd, would have gone with Haidara

M5

"For obvious reasons, in January 2013 we did significant business, but this year we can afford to take a more calculated and considered approach - if the right player becomes available for the right price and we are sure he can improve on what we have in the squad, then we may do business"

The obvious reasons were the failure to recruit in the previous window? Wouldn't want to repeat that mistake again then, would we?

Moneymaker

M5 wrote: »

Jonas is off. No word on where but goodbyes are being said on twitter.

Good servant to the club. Heart could never be doubted. Has suffered from a huge slump in form since the 5th place finish. A leader in the dressing room. Might be missed in that regard

Hopefully he will be replaced...

I remember his debut at Old Trafford and he tore the arse of the United defence, looked so promising.

As you say he's been poor since the 5th place season but i'm still sad to see him go. A good servant.

Vurnon San Benito

HOWAY THE LADS!

BArra

SCREAMER!!!

edit; fcuk sake

M5

Ah piss off

5starpool

Shocking decision. Was in no way impeding Hart's view of anything.

Joke of a decision lads.

fullstop

Deleted User wrote: »

Joke of a decision lads.

I don't agree. If someone is standing 3 yards from goal, in the path of the ball and is offside, how is he not interfering with play?

Morpork

I'm so pissed off... Pissed off for Tiote especially.

Cantona's Collars

Back to football school for the officials.

Luckycharms_74

Absolute joke of a decision by linesman
Should be 1-1

daRobot

Disgraceful decision..

JPA

fullstop wrote: »

I don't agree. If someone is standing 3 yards from goal, in the path of the ball and is offside, how is he not interfering with play?

I'd agree but it's totally inconsistent with how things usually go.

Cantona's Collars

fullstop wrote: »

I don't agree. If someone is standing 3 yards from goal, in the path of the ball and is offside, how is he not interfering with play?

He wasn't directly in the way of the 'keeper and didn't alter the flight of the ball thus not interfering with play.

monkey9

You's have been robbed there lads.

Alpha Dog 1

City getting all the decisions I see.
Absolute joke of a decision from the ref.

SantryRed

In all fairness, looking at it again, it does look like Hart pulls out of a dive due to his position.

monkey9

fullstop wrote: »

I don't agree. If someone is standing 3 yards from goal, in the path of the ball and is offside, how is he not interfering with play?

Because they are not involved in the scoring of th goal. Haven't touched the fall, haven't interfered with the goalkeeper therefore haven't interfered with play.

citytillidie

fullstop wrote: »

I don't agree. If someone is standing 3 yards from goal, in the path of the ball and is offside, how is he not interfering with play?

Linesman did not have his Flag up until Man city complained

RasTa

SantryRed wrote: »

In all fairness, looking at it again, it does look like Hart pulls out of a dive due to his position.

Look at it again

fullstop

fullstop wrote: »

I don't agree. If someone is standing 3 yards from goal, in the path of the ball and is offside, how is he not interfering with play?

They weren't between the ball and the keeper, they didn't interfere with the path of the ball. But of course you know this.

BetterCallSaul

How anyone on here can argue that's not a perfectly fine goal is beyond me.

SantryRed

RasTa wrote: »

Look at it again

I did, and I still think Hart freezes due to Gouffran's position. Will have another look at HT, but as a keeper myself, I can see where Hart is coming from. The way it is an after thought is a joke though, and I'd be pretty confident if it was up the other end the referee wouldn't have even entertained it.

EDIT: Actually, Hart freezes because he can't see the ball. Not the right decision at all.

fullstop

monkey9 wrote: »

Because they are not involved in the scoring of th goal. Haven't touched the fall, haven't interfered with the goalkeeper therefore haven't interfered with play.

He ducked out of the way of the ball just before it hit him. How is Joe Hart to know he's not going to deflect it? this is why Hart doesn't dive IMO

BetterCallSaul

BetterCallSaul wrote: »

How anyone on here can argue that's not a perfectly fine goal is beyond me.

It's not beyond me but we're not allowed to state the reason.

fullstop

Deleted User wrote: »

They weren't between the ball and the keeper, they didn't interfere with the path of the ball. But of course you know this.

So? He is affecting the keeper's decision making. If you're standing in front of the goal like that in the path of the ball, you're active, simple as that.

5starpool

fullstop wrote: »

He ducked out of the way of the ball just before it hit him. How is Joe Hart to know he's not going to deflect it? this is why Hart doesn't dive IMO

If that's the case Hart deserves to be shot (figuratively speaking). Hart doesn't dive because he can't react in time. He is hardly some genius mathematician keeper who works out the most likely angle from a deflection that may or may not happen in the split second available to him and decides to dive or not dive because of that. Did he think somehow the ball was going to hit the defender and deflect to his exact current position?

fullstop

fullstop wrote: »

So? He is affecting the keeper's decision making. If you're standing in front of the goal like that in the path of the ball, you're active, simple as that.

So when is a player not active?

fullstop

Deleted User wrote: »

So when is a player not active?

When he's not affecting the play. Is that difficult to understand?

Paully D

Newcastle are very unlucky as that usually never gets called, however, he was interfering with play and I wish that call was made more often.

Goalkeepers often get a raw deal in terms of players interfering with play, blocking their line of vision and getting away with it because they haven't touched the ball or moved towards the ball.

Again it's a problem with inconsistency from the officials and I'd like to see the rules changed on that one.

CSF

My god Pardew has to be the least likeable person in sport. Shocking behaviour.

fullstop

Paully D wrote: »

Newcastle are very unlucky as that usually never gets called, however, he was interfering with play and I wish that call was made more often.

Goalkeepers often get a raw deal in terms of players interfering with play, blocking their line of vision and getting away with it because they haven't touched the ball or moved towards the ball.

Again it's a problem with inconsistency from the officials and I'd like to see the rules changed on that one.

Correct, it's a ridiculous rule. It was much simpler when it was black or white, you were either offside or you weren't without the added interpretations.

5starpool

Paully D wrote: »

Newcastle are very unlucky as that usually never gets called, however, he was interfering with play and I wish that call was made more often.

Goalkeepers often get a raw deal in terms of players interfering with play, blocking their line of vision and getting away with it because they haven't touched the ball or moved towards the ball.

Again it's a problem with inconsistency from the officials and I'd like to see the rules changed on that one.

How was anyone interfering with his line of vision?

fullstop

5starpool wrote: »

If that's the case Hart deserves to be shot (figuratively speaking). Hart doesn't dive because he can't react in time. He is hardly some genius mathematician keeper who works out the most likely angle from a deflection that may or may not happen in the split second available to him and decides to dive or not dive because of that. Did he think somehow the ball was going to hit the defender and deflect to his exact current position?

Have much experience as a top class keeper yourself?

RasTa

CSF wrote: »

My god Pardew has to be the least likeable person in sport. Shocking behaviour.

The linesman's right, you're wrong?

Hardly shocking

Jelle1880

Paully D wrote: »

Newcastle are very unlucky as that usually never gets called, however, he was interfering with play and I wish that call was made more often.

Goalkeepers often get a raw deal in terms of players interfering with play, blocking their line of vision and getting away with it because they haven't touched the ball or moved towards the ball.

Again it's a problem with inconsistency from the officials and I'd like to see the rules changed on that one.

How was he interfering with play ?



He doesn't go for the ball, he doesn't obstruct Hart,...

Joke of a decision.

monkey9

fullstop wrote: »

He ducked out of the way of the ball just before it hit him. How is Joe Hart to know he's not going to deflect it? this is why Hart doesn't dive IMO

Joe Hart's getting nowhere near that ball, that's why he doesn't dive

Soups123

That's a goal all day long, players play to the whistle if Joe Hart makes the dive and is interfered with then it's off, if he decides not to dive then neither he or the player in the offside position has interfered with play

ArmaniJeanss

5starpool wrote: »

If that's the case Hart deserves to be shot (figuratively speaking). Hart doesn't dive because he can't react in time. He is hardly some genius mathematician keeper who works out the most likely angle from a deflection that may or may not happen in the split second available to him and decides to dive or not dive because of that. Did he think somehow the ball was going to hit the defender and deflect to his exact current position?

As a keeper myself (obviously XX times lesser than Hart) we are actually always doing this sort of maths stuff, even if we don't realise thats it maths based.
But every keeper is continually working out the percentage chance of the deflection and the angle thereof and all that stuff. The best ones obviously get the decisions correct most of the time.

dfx-

CSF wrote: »

My god Pardew has to be the least likeable person in sport. Shocking behaviour.

it'd be worth seeing Newcastle equalise just to shut him up after the game. He is a deeply unlikeable character, even without a score to settle

Soups123

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

As a keeper myself (obviously XX times lesser than Hart) we are actually always doing this sort of maths stuff, even if we don't realise thats it maths based.
But every keeper is continually working out the percentage chance of the deflection and the angle thereof and all that stuff. The best ones obviously get the decisions correct most of the time.

A lot of keepers I play with just go in goals

monkey9

fullstop wrote: »

When he's not affecting the play. Is that difficult to understand?

And he hasn't affected play. The goal was being scored whether he there or not.

fullstop

fullstop wrote: »

When he's not affecting the play. Is that difficult to understand?

What is "affecting the play"? If the ball is played towards a player in an offside position and he leaves it alone then surely he affected the play since the ball wouldn't have been played to him if he wasn't there? In the case a few years ago (think it was against Arsenal) a ball was played over the top of the defence to a player in an offside position, a defender tried to make an interception and it fell to another opposition player and that was apparently fine. By those standards there were no Newcastle players affecting the play at all.

CSF

RasTa wrote: »

The linesman's right, you're wrong?

Hardly shocking

His behaviour on the sideline is a disgrace on a regular basis. Look at him there, always arguing with someone. No class.

Heisenberg1

Jelle1880 wrote: »

How was he interfering with play ?



He doesn't go for the ball, he doesn't obstruct Hart,...

Joke of a decision.

Hardly a joke of a decision 2 players offside one not interfering with play the other was he had to move to get out of the way. Correct decision.

Soups123

Heisenberg1 wrote: »

Hardly a joke of a decision 2 players offside one not interfering with play the other was as eh had to move to get out of the way. Correct decision.

Incorrect the ball can't be interred with by the ducking player

Hart has made no attempt to play it

CSF

Heisenberg1 wrote: »

Hardly a joke of a decision 2 players offside one not interfering with play the other was as eh had to move to get out of the way. Correct decision.

I'm inclined to go along with this point of view.

Jelle1880

Heisenberg1 wrote: »

Hardly a joke of a decision 2 players offside one not interfering with play the other was as eh had to move to get out of the way. Correct decision.

Moving out of the way does not mean you're interfering with play.

googled eyes

Thats fecking outrageous. Terrible decision.