Newcastle United (A) - Post-Match Thread

[Alan Harper's Tash]

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.

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

 

[Mr. Shush]

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.

I would apply the same standard that was applied in the Fraser situation. Did he have a reasonable chance of getting the ball? Where was the defender? Where was the goalie in relation to the ball, the defender, Sterling. I would think that, yes it would be the right decision. Look, I'm not suggesting that Ederson needs to be careful. But he didn't commit a foul. Fraser didn't have the ball, wasn't near it, defender had control.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

I would apply the same standard that was applied in the Fraser situation. Did he have a reasonable chance of getting the ball? Where was the defender? Where was the goalie in relation to the ball, the defender, Sterling. I would think that, yes it would be the right decision. Look, I'm not suggesting that Ederson needs to be careful. But he didn't commit a foul. Fraser didn't have the ball, wasn't near it, defender had control.

Lol.

Let’s hope in the derby at the Etihad that we bring Scott Carson off the bench on 85 mins when we’re 3 up, he then double foots PR37 off the ball and breaks both his legs.

Ederson had the ball at the time, so had control and no foul could be committed.

This off the ball rhetoric is fucking bizarre.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Seems like Newcastle want full disclosure too…

Newcastle United request explanations on referee decisions in recent fixtures
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/59735974

 

[ChicagoBlue]

I would apply the same standard that was applied in the Fraser situation. Did he have a reasonable chance of getting the ball? Where was the defender? Where was the goalie in relation to the ball, the defender, Sterling. I would think that, yes it would be the right decision. Look, I'm not suggesting that Ederson needs to be careful. But he didn't commit a foul. Fraser didn't have the ball, wasn't near it, defender had control.

Ever heard of an “off the ball” foul?

If i head butt someone off the ball, a la Zidane, what then?

it was a penalty. Ederson was stupid, and not for the first time. He had a bit of a nightmare tbh! Fluffed his lines numerous times on crosses!

If a keeper comes out, leaves his feet and takes out an attacker, then it’s a foul! We’ve seen players literally slip and take out another player and get called for a foul.

We were lucky it wasn’t given.

 

[jaseisblue]

Ever heard of an “off the ball” foul?

If i head butt someone off the ball, a la Zidane, what then?

it was a penalty. Ederson was stupid, and not for the first time. He had a bit of a nightmare tbh! Fluffed his lines numerous times on crosses!

If a keeper comes out, leaves his feet and takes out an attacker, then it’s a foul! We’ve seen players literally slip and take out another player and get called for a foul.

We were lucky it wasn’t given.

My immediate thought was penalty, even though the ball was going away from the attacker. However, these day I tend not to get emotionally attached to most decisions, as some guy we do not see or hear has that choice. If a penalty was given, I could see why it would have been. Nothing surprises me any more.

 

[Deleted member 10327]

Yes, we got away with one. But the outrage over it is off the scale. It was an accidental coming together, as no intent by Eddie.
How many shit decisions are we on the end of with no forensic media outrage.

 

[jimharri]

Lol.

Let’s hope in the derby at the Etihad that we bring Scott Carson off the bench on 85 mins when we’re 3 up, he then double foots PR37 off the ball and breaks both his legs.

Ederson had the ball at the time, so had control and no foul could be committed.

This off the ball rhetoric is fucking bizarre.

Ever heard of an “off the ball” foul?

If i head butt someone off the ball, a la Zidane, what then?

it was a penalty. Ederson was stupid, and not for the first time. He had a bit of a nightmare tbh! Fluffed his lines numerous times on crosses!

If a keeper comes out, leaves his feet and takes out an attacker, then it’s a foul! We’ve seen players literally slip and take out another player and get called for a foul.

We were lucky it wasn’t given.

Spot on, in both cases.

 

[East Level 2]

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.

At a rough guess I'd suggest @Vic is bothered about the laws of the game and their interpretation as he has some refereeing qualifications, unlike so many on here and in the Sky and MOTD studios.

 

[Vic]

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.

Obviously not.

 

[Vic]

Ever heard of an “off the ball” foul?

If i head butt someone off the ball, a la Zidane, what then?

it was a penalty. Ederson was stupid, and not for the first time. He had a bit of a nightmare tbh! Fluffed his lines numerous times on crosses!

If a keeper comes out, leaves his feet and takes out an attacker, then it’s a foul! We’ve seen players literally slip and take out another player and get called for a foul.

We were lucky it wasn’t given.

I don't think Ederson was stupid. If Cancelo hadn't intervened, Ederson would have got the ball before Fraser and punched the ball away (or even kept hold of it). He was shouting at Cancelo to shout if he was doing that (or he'd shouted for it and Cancelo hadn't left it). He'd still have clattered Fraser but would have not committed a foul. He was probably annoyed because he thought VAR would give it.

 

[Lovebitesandeveryfing]

A few years back. Us against Chelsea. Sergio's away on the left wing, the ball is well past Luiz, Luiz just barges him over. Not only was it not a red card, it wasn't even a free kick. Sure, you can say it's a shoulder charge, but neither of them have got the ball. I have to presume that the ref simply interpreted it as a collision, which can happen on any part of the pitch.
I really do bend over backwards not to have blue tinted specs in general. But watching that penalty incident again and again and again, at no point does the Newcastle player have the ball. He doesn't have the ball, he doesn't have control of it, at any point. It's a collision. Furthermore, the Newcastle player mainly trips over Ederson's arm, which he could have easily skipped over. Ederson does not go in legs first. That would be cleaning the player out. It could have been given, but it's not shocking that it wasn't, either by the ref or by VAR.

 

[The perfect fumble]

A few years back. Us against Chelsea. Sergio's away on the left wing, the ball is well past Luiz, Luiz just barges him over. Not only was it not a red card, it wasn't even a free kick. Sure, you can say it's a shoulder charge, but neither of them have got the ball. I have to presume that the ref simply interpreted it as a collision, which can happen on any part of the pitch.
I really do bend over backwards not to have blue tinted specs in general. But watching that penalty incident again and again and again, at no point does the Newcastle player have the ball. He doesn't have the ball, he doesn't have control of it, at any point. It's a collision. Furthermore, the Newcastle player mainly trips over Ederson's arm, which he could have easily skipped over. Ederson does not go in legs first. That would be cleaning the player out. It could have been given, but it's not shocking that it wasn't, either by the ref or by VAR.

Agreed.

All the bleating about this "incident" talks about Ederson "taking him out".

At no point does Ederson lunge towards Fraser, rugby tackle style. Fraser simply tripped over Ederson after Cancelo was running away with the ball.

As you say, a collision of two players, happens all the time.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Agreed.

All the bleating about this "incident" talks about Ederson "taking him out".

At no point does Ederson lunge towards Fraser, rugby tackle style. Fraser simply tripped over Ederson after Cancelo was running away with the ball.

As you say, a collision of two players, happens all the time.

Only about a third of City fans think it wasn’t a penalty.

The rest of the world does.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Agreed.

All the bleating about this "incident" talks about Ederson "taking him out".

At no point does Ederson lunge towards Fraser, rugby tackle style. Fraser simply tripped over Ederson after Cancelo was running away with the ball.

As you say, a collision of two players, happens all the time.

It's a weird one. Like all decisions, you can argue both ways but it doesn't deserve the scrutiny it's getting and everyone knows it wouldn't have changed the result.

Have a look at Fraser's eyes. He is looking right at Ederson, his eyes only leave Ederson after he ran into him. What was he going to do if Ederson had gathered the ball? Run into him? I don't think so. He had time to jump over him, so he could have jumped after Cancelo played the ball. Also, he made no attempt to turn to follow Cancelo, so he wasn't interested in continuing play.

Played for a penalty and didn't get it. Tough. Surprised he didn't get it tbh. Some evening up been happening with our decisions the last few games. What's up?

 

[Man_City_Loyal]

No penalty to Newcastle

 

[The perfect fumble]

Only about a third of City fans think it wasn’t a penalty.

The rest of the world does.

The tyranny of the majority.

 

[BillCarlisle]

A few years back. Us against Chelsea. Sergio's away on the left wing, the ball is well past Luiz, Luiz just barges him over. Not only was it not a red card, it wasn't even a free kick. Sure, you can say it's a shoulder charge, but neither of them have got the ball. I have to presume that the ref simply interpreted it as a collision, which can happen on any part of the pitch.
I really do bend over backwards not to have blue tinted specs in general. But watching that penalty incident again and again and again, at no point does the Newcastle player have the ball. He doesn't have the ball, he doesn't have control of it, at any point. It's a collision. Furthermore, the Newcastle player mainly trips over Ederson's arm, which he could have easily skipped over. Ederson does not go in legs first. That would be cleaning the player out. It could have been given, but it's not shocking that it wasn't, either by the ref or by VAR.

I agree. Shearer & Co can bleat all they want but having watched it back several times it was the correct decision. Cancelo was clear with the ball under his control before Eddie & Fraser collided. It looked to me like Eddie was sliding in for the ball before Cancelo took over and the collision ensued. I reckon Shearer would have said differently if it had been Dubravka & Sterling at the other end of the pitch. Atkinson & VAR got that one right.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

The tyranny of the majority.

Possibly. More likely unblinkered in this case.

 

[yerwot?]

fraser instigated the contact, the ref saw it happen, the pundit's use of
"cleaned 'im out" only proves their anti-city bias. When even the var-stewards
exonerate Eddie.....'kin 'ell. People see what they want to see, pundit's say what their readers/viewers want to hear, snafu. The best way to deal with it is to dominate dominate and dominate, on the pitch. Just dont become any more "rawkish", there's enough of that already. Pointing out the glaring biased comments, the plainly agenda-driven decisions only encourages more of the same, in football, in politics and the playground.....