Newcastle United (A) - Post-Match Thread

ninjamonkey said:
Definite blue tinted glasses. It doesn't matter where the ball is, if a defender takes out a striker in the box a ball they're never getting to comes in, it's still a penalty, he's taken him clean out in the box. It's very clumsy and a clear penalty. I don't see how anybody can deny it being a penalty personally and there's no way anybody would suggest it wasn't had it been city on the wrong end of that.
Click to expand...
I honestly don’t think I’d have complained if it was the other way around. How many times on corners do we see fouls off the ball never given? Is this that much different?!
 
Max and Wilson need to play as a front two. Good players. They may have left it too late but they are not adrift. Interesting what they do in January.
 
Ric said:
Really don’t think that Ederson challenge was a penalty tbh. The ball wasn’t near and Cancelo had it under control. Maybe I’m seeing it through blue-tinted glasses, but it was an accidental, off the ball collision imo.
Click to expand...
I agree with you. But I imagine Dermot will see things differently in the morning………
 
Watched it from up in the gods with a better view of Gateshead than the pitch. Is it true we didn't actually play that well?
 
Ric said:
Really don’t think that Ederson challenge was a penalty tbh. The ball wasn’t near and Cancelo had it under control. Maybe I’m seeing it through blue-tinted glasses, but it was an accidental, off the ball collision imo.
Click to expand...
I can see both sides, if it was at the other end I'd be annoyed.

However, I very much doubt it made much difference to the result, other than we we might not have had an other clean sheet.
 
trumpton said:
Not for me. He wasn't ever getting to the ball so no goal scoring opportunity denied.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t need to be a goal scoring opportunity.

Had Emerson denied him a goal scoring opportunity in fouling him, he would have been sent off as well as a penalty being awarded.

If Ederson had gone in two footed on Fraser and wiped him out, whilst Cancelo trotted off with the ball, would you say it was a penalty then?
 
On the (not) penalty , first off I thought it was nailed on but then I tried to see it through the officials eyes and why they didn't give it ...now if the Newcastle striker had made even the slightest contact with the ball , then that's 100% a penalty , however if Ederson had made any slight contact with the ball before the striker then that would have resulted in a free kick to the keeper , since neither of them made any contact with the ball which was at the time under Cancello's control , then you can understand why nothing was given..
it was an accidental collision from a contested ball , neither of them got to , not sure if that's the correct interpretation of the rules however and can certainly understand Newcastles frustration..
 
Ric said:
Really don’t think that Ederson challenge was a penalty tbh. The ball wasn’t near and Cancelo had it under control. Maybe I’m seeing it through blue-tinted glasses, but it was an accidental, off the ball collision imo.
Click to expand...
I really couldn't care less but, from my lay footballing point of view, you get collisions on the pitch all the time and they aren't classed as fouls . That was one. Ederson was coming to collect the ball; Fraser was going for the ball; Cancello was quicker and cleverer than both and slalomed away with it. This left them looking stupid, and they collided. Ederson was committed, as was Fraser, and it can't be denied that Eddy took out Fraser but, it was just a collision. No harm done. The ball had gone. Nothing deliberate. Play on; there's nothing to see here.
So, fuckoff Shearer you bald fuckin' overpaid idiot.
 
the blue panther said:
I really couldn't care less but, from my lay footballing point of view, you get collisions on the pitch all the time and they aren't classed as fouls . That was one. Ederson was coming to collect the ball; Fraser was going for the ball; Cancello was quicker and cleverer than both and slalomed away with it. This left them looking stupid, and they collided. Ederson was committed, as was Fraser, and it can't be denied that Eddy took out Fraser but, it was just a collision. No harm done. The ball had gone. Nothing deliberate. Play on; there's nothing to see here.
So, fuckoff Shearer you bald fuckin' overpaid idiot.
Click to expand...
If you watch Ederson straight afterwards, he looked glum and was gesturing to Cancelo to give him a shout. 100% he thought himself it was a penalty. He then realised it hadn’t been given and you see him think shit, get back in position.
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
It doesn’t need to be a goal scoring opportunity.

Had Emerson denied him a goal scoring opportunity in fouling him, he would have been sent off as well as a penalty being awarded.

If Ederson had gone in two footed on Fraser and wiped him out, whilst Cancelo trotted off with the ball, would you say it was a penalty then?
Click to expand...
Untitled.jpg
 
Ric said:
Really don’t think that Ederson challenge was a penalty tbh. The ball wasn’t near and Cancelo had it under control. Maybe I’m seeing it through blue-tinted glasses, but it was an accidental, off the ball collision imo.
Click to expand...
Spot on . his intent was to dive so he did . bunch of divers
 
Honestly I couldn't give a fuck about the barcodes non penalty. We've been denied so many more nailed on than that who cares? If we would have had to we'd have got out of second gear and done a Leeds on them
 
ninjamonkey said:
Definite blue tinted glasses. It doesn't matter where the ball is, if a defender takes out a striker in the box a ball they're never getting to comes in, it's still a penalty, he's taken him clean out in the box. It's very clumsy and a clear penalty. I don't see how anybody can deny it being a penalty personally and there's no way anybody would suggest it wasn't had it been city on the wrong end of that.
Click to expand...

Not a penalty for me. VAR didn't overturn because it wasn't a clear and obvious error. Generally speaking, when the ref awards a penalty, he/she has to consider how close they are to the goal, how many defenders are there, direction of the play and, most importantly, the likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball. In any of those respects, Fraser wouldn't get the nod. Yes, Ederson took him out. But Fraser wasn't getting the ball, Cancelo had control. No penalty in my opinion.

What is really absurd is the Liverpool boards raging that had the penalty been given - it would have changed the match. Eh - no. It wouldn't have.
 
With all the talk of Emerson (or is it Ederson?) how about him teaming up with Paul Lake and Cole Palmer to form a rock band?

Ederson, Lake, and Palmer!
 
the blue panther said:
I really couldn't care less but, from my lay footballing point of view, you get collisions on the pitch all the time and they aren't classed as fouls . That was one. Ederson was coming to collect the ball; Fraser was going for the ball; Cancello was quicker and cleverer than both and slalomed away with it. This left them looking stupid, and they collided. Ederson was committed, as was Fraser, and it can't be denied that Eddy took out Fraser but, it was just a collision. No harm done. The ball had gone. Nothing deliberate. Play on; there's nothing to see here.
So, fuckoff Shearer you bald fuckin' overpaid idiot.
Click to expand...
VAR agreed with this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top