Newcastle United (A) - Post-Match Thread

[Mr. Shush]

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.

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.

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.

 

[5 Hit Gibbon]

Its a common sense decision. VAR got it right. We move on.

That must be why Shearer was so wound up about it!

 

[Tangled up in blue.]

View attachment 32268

Hahahahaha brilliant

 

[Vic]

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.

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.

 

[jimharri]

lol!!

I have to change my auto correct every. Single. Time.

Pisses me off that it can’t learn his name.

Ah; auto correct. That old excuse reason.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Ah; auto correct. That old excuse reason.

Cnut

 

[jimharri]

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.

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.

 

[jimharri]

Cnut

 

[bennyboy]

Dermot Gallagher said no way was that a penalty at half time on the Spurs game.
Thought Owen was going to burst out crying.

 

[BigJoe#1]

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.

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?