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

fullstop

Deleted User wrote: »

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?

I know it's not usually given, and they're talking about "impeding" the keeper on the analysis, but if he's in that position and ducking out of the way of the ball, he's potentially affecting the decision of the keeper whether to dive or not.

CSF

Jelle1880 wrote: »

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

It does, Hart has to take his presence into account. He directly influences Hart's starting position.

Paully D

Jelle1880 wrote: »

How was he interfering with play ?



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

Joke of a decision.

My interpretation is that Hart is expecting Gouffran (I think it is) to get something on that. It may not look like it but it does deter his decision making in my opinion.

Again, I'd stress Newcastle are unlucky as it hardly ever gets called. In my own opinion it should be called every single time and the rules need to change to reflect this, but at the end of the day he's five yards offside and very close to Hart when the shot comes in, when I played I was a goalkeeper myself and it's something that always frustrated me.

ronjo

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.

In this case he wasn't even remotely blocking his line of vision

JPA

If you're not interfering with play, you shouldn't be on the pitch.
However, inconsistent refereeing is the real issue.

Cantona's Collars

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.

Gouffran moved and didn't affect the play,the officials don't understand the rules about players being active or not.If Gouffran had stuck a leg out and put the ball in the net then it was offside.Simples.

According to the ref at half time,the only touch the ball took after the shot was off DiMichelis and so the goal should have stood.

Jelle1880

CSF wrote: »

It does, Hart has to take his presence into account. He directly influences Hart's starting position.

Hart doesn't have to take his presence into account as he would be offside if he goes for the ball.

He doesn't make a move to the ball, the assistant didn't raise his flag either until the City players started protesting.

dfx-

googled eyes wrote: »

Thats fecking outrageous. Terrible decision.

don't think it's that bad. if it had been given, I don't think anyone would be up in arms, but Gouffran's movement is enough for me for it to be given. Would the ball hit him if he doesn't make the move..

fullstop

ronjo wrote: »

In this case he wasn't even remotely blocking his line of vision

You don't have to be to affect him. Hart takes 2 quick steps to his left when the shot is hit and instead of diving as the next step he stops, most likely because he thinks Gouffran will deflect it.

Nalz

Rules are rules (or laws as they're called) and it probably should have stood.... but

I think its a tad harsh on keepers. Yes that thunderbolt of a shot was going in regardless, but does Hart have to be aware that players so close to him are offside and as a result ignore their presence and just concentrate on the shot and the rest of the play?

Newcastle could of had as many players as they like in an offside position getting out of the way of the shot and by todays laws a goal would have stood in that scenario.

Lapin

Would have been a contender for 'Goal of the Month' too.

Crass decision by the ref.

CSF

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Hart doesn't have to take his presence into account as he would be offside if he goes for the ball.

He doesn't make a move to the ball, the assistant didn't raise his flag either until the City players started protesting.

If Hart changes his starting position based on this logic, he runs a serious risk. He needs to be concentrating on dealing with the threat, not taking risks on whether Gouffran is currently in front of the offside line.

M5

We see players returning from an offside position all the time. If you move away you are not active.

Gouffran was 4 yards or more away from Hart. Hart was more inconvenienced by his own players blocking his view than Gouffran.

citytillidie

Ref does not know the rules, was the ref during the beach ball incident

Paully D

Nice of Pardew to call Pelligrini a ''****ing old ****'' in the aftermath :rolleyes:

https://vine.co/v/hLaFLIbWPgW

ronjo

fullstop wrote: »

You don't have to be to affect him. Hart takes 2 quick steps to his left when the shot is hit and instead of diving as the next step he stops, most likely because he thinks Gouffran will deflect it.

Yeah sure, that most likely the reason

M5

Paully D wrote: »

Nice of Pardew to call Pelligrini a ''****ing old ****'' in the aftermath :rolleyes:

https://vine.co/v/hLaFLIbWPgW

Pardew not gona get much sympathy here.

Dempsey

You stay classy Pardew!

MR NINE

im not a fan of pardew but im actually happy to see him have a go at the ref, even though he'll likely suffer consequences. Refs, while they obviously have a very tough job, get it too easy. They rarely suffer consequences when they get decisions wrong and they will never even admit it if they've made a mistake. The whole system needs to be revamped, with use of technology, microphoned refs, more respect for refs*, and more clarity and honesty from refs regarding their decisions (including willingness to confess if they've got a decision wrong)

*i know this contradicts my backing of pardews outburst, but refs in rugby etc have lots of respect because they deserve it, almost always making the correct decision. Refs in football get it wrong so often its getting very tiresome, they can't expect to receive anywhere near the same level of respect when they're making so many errors and refusing to admit when they've got it wrong. Refs dont get treated with respect because they get lots of decisions wrong, which is because they don't have the assistance of technology when they're unsure regarding a decision. Its the fa/uefa/fifa etcs fault refs don't get treated with respect, which is a joke considering how much time they spent harping on about respect for referee campaigns etc.

fullstop

Paully D wrote: »

Nice of Pardew to call Pelligrini a ''****ing old ****'' in the aftermath :rolleyes:

https://vine.co/v/hLaFLIbWPgW

Classy as ever. Should put more energy into telling his players to get back onside more quickly than picking fights on the sideline.

CSF

Paully D wrote: »

Nice of Pardew to call Pelligrini a ''****ing old ****'' in the aftermath :rolleyes:

https://vine.co/v/hLaFLIbWPgW

Jesus, case rested on him.

fullstop

ronjo wrote: »

Yeah sure, that most likely the reason

I know, that's why I said it.

M5

ronjo wrote: »

Yeah sure, that most likely the reason

He wouldn't have seen the ball until it passed the offside line of the city defence. Thats why he didnt move. The ball was moving, even if the view was completely clear Hart would have to have been moving a split second after the ball was hit to get anywhere near.

monkey9

M5 wrote: »

We see players returning from an offside position all the time. If you move away you are not active.

Gouffran was 4 yards or more away from Hart. Hart was more inconvenienced by his own players blocking his view than Gouffran.

Exactly. What Gouffran did there is no different than if had deliberately let the ball run past him without touching because he's in an offside position to allow Tiote run through on goal to score. He quite simply hasn't interfered with play or had any affect in the goal being scored. That goal is a perfect example of why the not interfering with play law was introduced. I find it mad that people will claim that goal being disallowed is the correct decision. It just isn't and the referee has messed up.

jamescd

ronjo wrote: »

In this case he wasn't even remotely blocking his line of vision

^^^^
This

It's coming from the other side. It's the city players who are blocking his view. If you look at it, Hart is watching the ball all the way but the ball flies past him before he could even react. Gouffran doesn't put him off at all, Hart doesn't dive because it was already too late.

How many dodgy offsides has it been in their favour now ? There were a couple in the Arsenal game. One blatantly obvious mistake in the Liverool game. Now this.

Paully D

M5 wrote: »

Pardew not gona get much sympathy here.

Nearly every week he has a bust up with an opposition manager or member of backroom staff. I'm sure he'll put it down to yet another ''out of character'' incident in the ''heat of the moment'' though.

fullstop

MR NINE wrote: »

*i know this contradicts my backing of pardews outburst, but refs in rugby etc have lots of respect because they deserve it, almost always making the correct decision.

No, it's because if you talk back to the ref you're in the sin bin, no questions asked. Also, the rules are much more down to the interpretation of the ref, which is why you get teams 'playing the ref'.

Nalz

Paully D wrote: »

Nice of Pardew to call Pelligrini a ''****ing old ****'' in the aftermath :rolleyes:

https://vine.co/v/hLaFLIbWPgW

What does he say before that? something your something

M5

Trilla wrote: »

What does he say before that? something your something

Im sure someone can come up with an alternative subtitle...

"fcuking offside/onside" being another fairly obvious one

SantryRed

I think the most annoying thing about the goal is that if it was the other end, the referee would not have even thought of going to the lino.

fullstop

Shocking stuff from Santon.

MR NINE

fullstop wrote: »

No, it's because if you talk back to the ref you're in the sin bin, no questions asked. Also, the rules are much more down to the interpretation of the ref, which is why you get teams 'playing the ref'.

this too, but I do believe refs in rugby command and deserve more respect. Lets be honest, the standard of officiating in football is shocking compared to pretty much every other sport. Its a complete farce considering how popular and rich the sport is

fullstop

MR NINE wrote: »

this too, but I do believe refs in rugby command and deserve more respect. Lets be honest, the standard of officiating in football is shocking compared to pretty much every other sport. Its a complete farce considering how popular and rich the sport is

It should be the same as rugby IMO, only the captain is allowed to discuss decisions with the ref. This nonsense of 5 or 6 players running in jostling the refs needs to be stopped.

M5

And video replays, such an obvious fix

Chazz Michael Michaels

fullstop wrote: »

It should be the same as rugby IMO, only the captain is allowed to discuss decisions with the ref. This nonsense of 5 or 6 players running in jostling the refs needs to be stopped.

Sin binning would work well in soccer. Give the ref sh1t? Sin binned.

M5

Remy completely off the boil recently, not surprised he missed

Jelle1880

Trilla wrote: »

What does he say before that? something your something

'Shut your hole', it looks to me.

Lapin

In fairness ye should be ahead at this stage lads.

Some great chances in the second half. Ye're doing all the attacking.

fullstop

Chazz Michael Michaels wrote: »

Sin binning would work well in soccer. Give the ref sh1t? Sin binned.

Only problem is they'd end up playing 5 a side

M5

Jelle1880 wrote: »

'Shut your hole', it looks to me.

could be anything....

M5

Thank fcuk its not Ameobi

Alpha Dog 1

If it turns out that the linesman only gave the decision after the man City players complained, then this seriously needs to be looked into.

M5

Alpha Dog 1 wrote: »

If it turns out that the linesman only gave the decision after the man City players complained, then this seriously needs to be looked into.

Thats not what happened....

M5

Poor from YMB

monkey9

That's a bad tackle that, his standing leg as well. Type of tackle that can cause knee ligament damage.

M5

He'll be off now, Haidara and HBA coming on

M5

NUFC have ran out of steam... Game over

M5

2 nil looking more likely, nothing left in the tank

M5

Another stirling call by a linesman....

fullstop

M5 wrote: »

Another stirling call by a linesman....

Cisse was offside, no?