Newcastle United (A) - Post-Match Thread

Alan Harper's Tash said:
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...
I think it probably should have been given for consistency(they normally always side with the attacker regardless of what happened) but that is a bad comparison. That would be a dangerous tackle, this was a coming together. When none of them get to the ball or anywhere near it and neither player can avoid the collision, then there is a grey area. The player who wins the ball normally decides whether a coming together becomes a foul or not in those situations and neither of them did.

To my eyes, had Cancelo left it, Ederson collects that ball easily and then it doesn't matter if he catches Fraser on the follow through, because he's won the ball. A keeper has to fully commit to that, I'm not sure what happened there. Either Eddie didn't shout loud enough or Cancelo has ignored his claim to the ball. Eddie may have still been dazed or winded from the earlier collision, which may have impacted his ability to communicate it clearly. So there's that too, could the game have been stopped for that collision earlier?

Like I said, I'd have wanted it but it's not quite black and white either. Part of me wishes it had been given because I really don't think it would have had much bearing on the result. So we could do without the narrative, that we've got away with one, playing in refs minds for the next big call. That call could be used to justify a soft/generous decision against City, which could well have a bigger impact in terms of points.
 
Last edited:
Metalartin said:
I think it probably should have been given for consistency(they normally always side with the attacker regardless of what happened) but that is a bad comparison. That would be a dangerous tackle, this was a coming together. When none of them get to the ball or anywhere near it and neither player can avoid the collision, then there is a grey area. The player who wins the ball normally decides whether a coming together becomes a foul or not in those situations and neither of them did.

To my eyes, had Cancelo left it, Ederson collects that ball easily and then it doesn't matter if he catches Fraser on the follow through, because he's won the ball. A keeper has to fully commit to that, I'm not sure what happened there. Either Eddie didn't shout loud enough or Cancelo has ignored his claim to the ball. Eddie may have still been dazed or winded from the earlier collision, which may have impacted his ability to communicate it clearly. So there's that too, could the game have been stopped for that collision earlier?

Like I said, I'd have wanted it but it's not quite black and white either. Part of me wishes it had been given because I really don't think it would have had much bearing on the result. So we could do without the narrative, that we've got away with one, playing in refs minds for the next big call. Which could well have a bigger impact on City.
Click to expand...
Maybe so, but I was highlighting the “he wasn’t about to score, so it doesn’t matter” element of his argument.

It looked a natural penalty had the ball been there.

Ederson looked guilty afterwards. He knew.

Fortunately, the bizarre element of the ball being taken away by Cancelo has saved us, for whatever reason.

If Ederson needed treatment, he needed to hit the deck and play would have been stopped. We can’t use that as an excuse. It might be why he was so slow and why the “collision” was so late, but doesn’t stop it being a foul.

I do see the counter argument though. There was a ball from Sterling to Bernardo midway through the first half that allowed Lascelles to take ball and man. Bernardo was slow to get up.

I just think that Ederson took out Fraser off the ball. Surely that’s a foul? Imagine us attacking down the left and Jesus crossing it in, but Sterling didn‘t tap it in because some Newcastle player tripped him up before he got into the area, but not close enough for the ref to deem he’s stopped a certain goal.
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
I just think that Ederson took out Fraser off the ball. Surely that’s a foul? Imagine us attacking down the left and Jesus crossing it in, but Sterling didn‘t tap it in because some Newcastle player tripped him up before he got into the area, but not close enough for the ref to deem he’s stopped a certain goal.
Click to expand...
I've said I would rather it given just for consistency and to take the false narratives that the ref decided the game away from the usuals. I do think you're over egging how nailed on it was though, yes they are normally given but you can make the argument against it. You're still ignoring the point that this was not a challenge on the player gone wrong, it was a coming together. So your example doesn't fit.

Since he's not denied the player a chance at goal in any way, consider this question. If two midfielders go for the same ball in the centre of the pitch and neither of them get to ball and both players collide: Is a foul always given? I think the answer is no, especially when nobody is hurt. Play is often waved on and both players told to get up and get on with it.

It's just that when it's a keeper involved, even when players deliberately seek contact/run into them and normally always oversell how hurt they are, it normally goes against the keeper. It's the same with defenders being fouled by attackers. The expectations change depending on their position, when they really shouldn't in a fair world.

Also, this argument that Ederson was "late" would not be there, if Cancelo would have left it because that's going right into Ederson's arms IMO. That's one of the biggest arguments against the penalty for me, besides the fact that City have possession of the ball at the time. It sounds like you're making the argument that Fraser was favourite for the ball, had Cancelo not taken it, when to my eyes the opposite is true. If Cancelo leaves it, Ederson's not late at all, he's actually made a good call and committed to it as you'd want him to. Any less and Fraser gets to the ball before Ederson, who then would be late.

Once Cancelo does take the ball, Ederson can't really do anything about where his momentum takes him. Is that not a bit harsh on Ederson? Especially since play could have been stopped. You seem awfully determined to blame Eddie here suggesting he is at fault for not going down immediately. Ever considered the possibility that there was a delayed reaction? He wanted to carry on but he did react to it eventually(delayed reaction, showing he was genuinely feeling it), the commentators saw it, I saw it at the time, how did the ref and the assistants on the sideline not see it?... Since play had continued, Eddie had no choice but carry on by the time the ball is played in. That could have been a big factor in how that played out.
 
Last edited:
“You're still ignoring the point that this was not a challenge on the player gone wrong, it was a coming together.”

So any player anywhere on the pitch can block off at will.

Counter attacks will be very different in the future.
 
Strange game.

We never got out of 2nd gear,in fact we didn't even play well much of the game.....4 or 5 being well below par.
Newcastle were aggressive and well up for it,they were never going to beat us,but they came close to causing problems.....so credit to Howe for instilling that fight and determination.

The penalty appeal? not for me,and that isn't Blue tints.......Cancelo had the ball and was taking it away from the incident,so it was an of the ball incident.Also the snidey fucker looked at Ederson just prior and,knowing he could never get the ball,he purposely continued his run so as to cause the collision - it was a blatant attempt at cheating and the Ref's called it right.

Cancelo MOTM,followed by Laporte,

Great to see the chasing duo drop points,and bias pundits/the MSM spitting blood.....so all in all,a lovely day at the office.
 
Any disciplinary issues with kyle walker for the way he committed the red card in his last game?
Iam sure pep wasn’t happy, in his postmatch interview he said, he is not feeling good:)
 
Themoneysnogood said:
My first admiration for Man City was either that bugger Allison who was THEE character in football at the time 78,79? And don hutchison 1981 how unlucky was that man, I’m laughing typing this as it was so absurd that goal
Should of won the replay anarl on the Thursday Steve mckenzie best goal I’ve seen in a cup final, Ricky villa my arse !
Click to expand...
It was Tommy Hutchison who scored for both teams in the 1981Cup Final !!
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
I think if we can win all our games up to Arsenal, we might be clear of Liverpool too.

Chelsea and Liverpool both play each other on Jan 2.

We absolutely need to keep winning throughout Xmas.
Click to expand...
Do you see us playing Boxing Day & then scraping the 28th-29th games?

So basically 5 or 6 day rest up before New Year's fixtures on 1st-2nd?
Also the League Cup fixtures this week will be moved into January?

FA cup games do they already go into pens & do we really need to mix with lower Div teams surely City will pay for testing of Swindon no chance they send strong team with covid spreading didn't we do something like that last year in 1 of the cups?
Busy day for the Prem today some shocking decisions from officials AGAIN but they have 1 bite at this fixture arrangement + will the goverment now announce no fans in this Jan fixtures?

Also if the scrap late December fixtures then it could kill Liverpool knowing Salah, Mane & Kieta all play against Leeds then that will possibly be there last games till start of Feb

Prem, League & FA cups, AFCON Loads of sorting to do but most important players welfare
 
manclad said:
It was Tommy Hutchison who scored for both teams in the 1981Cup Final !!
Click to expand...
!!! Tommy Hutchison man ! Sorry manclad the ale and gin had the better of me last night pal , seem to remember the match ball being made on Jim,ll fix it and only lasting about 20 minutes into the match? Obviously these were the days before 20 balls were used per match Christ I can’t remember yesterday but I remember that from 40 FORTY! Years ago
 
50/50 on the non penalty. Ederson and Cancelo plus Fraser going for the ball, Cancelo the quickest of the lot clears up, but Ederson comes out for the ball and his momentum takes Fraser out, Ederson can't do much else really. On the flip side, you could easily see it being awarded as well, some might say clumsy from Ederson.
Suppose the narrative is lucky lucky City again, always is when we win
 
Looked on one of the Newcastle forums and they won't give Cancelo any credit for his wonder strike. One even called him an attacker, others saying their defenders made it easy for him. They failed to see he's a full back scoring a goal like that, bitterness shows no end of stopping towards us no matter who we play
 
I didn't think it was a penalty, mainly because City had the ball. However, I was also at Maine Road when Eric Nixon gifted Crystal Palace a stupid penalty despite having the ball in his hands, so maybe it's me who doesn't understand the rules

As for the game, the Zinchenko-Sterling combination was the main reason why our possession wasn't as crisp as usual with both players guilty of needlessly losing the ball from sloppy mistimed passes. Ederson, De Bruyne, and Mahrez were all guilty of a dopey 10 minutes and this led to Newcastle getting into decent positions which they never really exploited

No harm done though and some great goals.to boost the goal difference.
 
The ref had a clear view of the forward initiating the contact by changing direction towards the keeper. The disdainful way the ref responded to the theatrical begging for a pen spoke volumes. A yellow card for diving should have been given. Conning the ref is not new, the scale of it is though.
It invariably goes unpunished, and until this changes, will only get worse...
 
ActonBlue said:
That penalty decision - if that happened in another part of the pitch, say mid-field, would the ref have blown for a foul and free kick ? No, because Cancelo had won the ball, was in total control of the ball, and play had transitioned to the next phase. Once the ball had gone out of play he might have gone back and booked the player for his challenge but he would have let play go on. It was effectively an 'off the ball' incident.
Click to expand...

That's playing advantage, and refs don't play advantage if it's going to be a penalty, unless the player fouled is going to score anyway.

Mr. Shush said:
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.
Click to expand...
People really do need to look at the rules. Those are the criteria for whether it's denying a goalscoring opportunity, not for a foul.

If "Ederson took him out" (i.e. committed a foul, even accidentally) that would be a penalty.
 
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