Newcastle United (A) - Post-Match Thread

Vic said:
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.


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.
Click to expand...

Vic said:
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.


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.
Click to expand...

I looked at the laws of the game. Denying a goal scoring opportunity is the only metric the refs would have looked at to not award a penalty. There's no indirect free kick option here. The common sense decision, as it is in the laws of the game was whether Fraser could even have gotten to the ball. He wasn't even close to it. Its a common sense decision. VAR got it right. We move on.
 
Mr. Shush said:
I looked at the laws of the game. Denying a goal scoring opportunity is the only metric the refs would have looked at to not award a penalty. There's no indirect free kick option here. The common sense decision, as it is in the laws of the game was whether Fraser could even have gotten to the ball. He wasn't even close to it. Its a common sense decision. VAR got it right. We move on.
Click to expand...
This is just wrong. A free kick offence can be anywhere on the pitch, and you can't commit DOGSO 100 metres from the goal. And a penalty is just a direct free kick offence by an opponent in the opponent's penalty area.

None of that has changed in over 100 years except it can now be a foul even if it was accidental.

That decision yesterday was absolutely nothing to do with DOGSO.
 
Mr. Shush said:
I looked at the laws of the game. Denying a goal scoring opportunity is the only metric the refs would have looked at to not award a penalty. There's no indirect free kick option here. The common sense decision, as it is in the laws of the game was whether Fraser could even have gotten to the ball. He wasn't even close to it. Its a common sense decision. VAR got it right. We move on.
Click to expand...
Quick question for you; if that had happened in the Newcastle penalty area, and it was Dubravka bringing down Raheem, would you think it was the right decision? Be honest.
 
Dermot Gallagher said no way was that a penalty at half time on the Spurs game.
Thought Owen was going to burst out crying.
 
Mr. Shush said:
I looked at the laws of the game. Denying a goal scoring opportunity is the only metric the refs would have looked at to not award a penalty. There's no indirect free kick option here. The common sense decision, as it is in the laws of the game was whether Fraser could even have gotten to the ball. He wasn't even close to it. Its a common sense decision. VAR got it right. We move on.
Click to expand...
I agtree with this, though it did look like it was an obvious penalty for many reasons but...

If a full back had the ball and was running ou of the box and, totally associated with the play, a Centre Back decks the centre forward, does the ref give a penalty even though the full back was yards outside the box? I'd suspect not, I think he red card the Centre Back and restart with a drop ball. If this scenario assumption is correct then it was not a penalty but maybe a booking for Eddie?
 
bennyboy said:
Dermot Gallagher said no way was that a penalty at half time on the Spurs game.
Thought Owen was going to burst out crying.
Click to expand...
This Dermot Gallagher?

www.skysports.com

Tottenham's Harry Kane 'lucky' to be spared red card against Liverpool - Ref Watch

Plus: Andy Robertson red card analysed; Diogo Jota and Dele Alli both had penalty shouts; Mohamed Salah was not penalised for a handball; Man City goalkeeper Edersons swipe at Newcastles Ryan Fraser was a penalty, says Dermot Gallagher; Granit Xhaka tackle also discussed
www.skysports.com www.skysports.com
 
BigJoe#1 said:
I agtree with this, though it did look like it was an obvious penalty for many reasons but...

If a full back had the ball and was running ou of the box and, totally associated with the play, a Centre Back decks the centre forward, does the ref give a penalty even though the full back was yards outside the box? I'd suspect not, I think he red card the Centre Back and restart with a drop ball. If this scenario assumption is correct then it was not a penalty but maybe a booking for Eddie?
Click to expand...
It would be a penalty in that scenario.
 
bluemurray said:
Maybe not a classic, but its another tough away game chalked off, 3 points, 4-goals, all's good in the hood!
Click to expand...
bellbuzzer said:
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...
Click to expand...
I remember Sterling, a man who generally doesn't dive, having clear penalty shouts waved away on many occasions over recent years.
This all stemmed from when, instead of kicking the ball, Sterling accidentally kicked the turf (which he admitted to) and he couldn't win a penalty for love nor money for a long time afterwards having gained an unjust reputation as a diver.
Yet others who continually cheat and try to con the ref get penalties awarded as a matter of course.
 
bluemurray said:
Maybe not a classic, but its another tough away game chalked off, 3 points, 4-goals, all's good in the hood!
Click to expand...
bellbuzzer said:
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...
Click to expand...
I remember Sterling, a man who generally doesn't dive, having clear penalty shouts waved away on many occasions over recent years.
This all stemmed from when, instead of kicking the ball, Sterling accidentally kicked the turf (which he admitted to) and he couldn't win a penalty for love nor money for a long time afterwards having gained an unjust reputation as a diver.
Yet others who continually cheat and try to con the ref get penalties awarded as a matter of course.
 
Sir peace frog said:
not that it would of made a difference, that was 100% nailed on penalty, anybody saying it isnt is barmy, eddie took fraser out, doesn't matter if the ball is there or not, its a penalty .
Click to expand...

It's an odd one but the rules change that often no wonder everyone's confused. I've seen our players barged in the back with no attempt to play the ball and nothing given. Cancelo had the ball and the situation under control when Eddie, still sliding, made contact with Fraser. I would imagine that's why it wasn't given. Our manager and goalkeeping coach needs to have a serious word with Eddie though I have no idea what he was doing. He did the same at Brighton too. A goal back for them then would have lifted the crowd and made for a more difficult afternoon.
 
Vic said:
This is just wrong. A free kick offence can be anywhere on the pitch, and you can't commit DOGSO 100 metres from the goal. And a penalty is just a direct free kick offence by an opponent in the opponent's penalty area.

None of that has changed in over 100 years except it can now be a foul even if it was accidental.

That decision yesterday was absolutely nothing to do with DOGSO.
Click to expand...

Nope. And it is the only metric that mattered as well as whether Fraser could have gotten to the ball. If VAR took a look at the play, then they evaluate based on what I wrote. Its logic. Its the only reason they decided it wasn't a penalty. Why are you on about this? Its over. Done. The board has moved on as have I.
 
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