citizen_maine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 May 2011
- Messages
- 14,239
Yep, take the goals away and they'd still be lucky to get a draw
Newcastle United (A) - Post-Match Thread
- Thread starter mccity
- Start date
Whether or not
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Sep 2019
- Messages
- 921
- Team supported
- MCFC
I was a better player than David Silva if you take away the skill, touch, vision, work rate, ability etc, etc. Surely Fraser wasn’t sober when he came out with that.
I regularly contribute to a rate the ref site which is made up of retired and current referees, of various levels plus fans with an interest in refereeing decisions. I have to say that I get the impression that City are not very popular in the refereeing community. The posts on the Ederson Fraser collision have been just about unanimously in favour of a penalty. I can understand why as on first viewing that was my reaction but on thinking about I can't see how that decision can be made against basic criteria. So I posted -
"I watched whilst facetiming with my sister and daughter and my immediate response was "That should have been a penalty", and I am surprised that it wasn't referred back for an on field review on the monitor. There are one or two questions in my mind however, which perhaps someone can answer for me. In these circumstances how do we decide whether the goalkeeper has fouled the forward or whether the forward has fouled the goalkeeper. If Cancelo hadn't been involved at all it would have been relatively straightforward - assuming there had been no unreasonable action by either party, whoever played the ball first would claim priority. So, had Ederson caught or parried the ball away it would have been Fraser's responsibility to avoid a collision; if Fraser had reached the ball first it would have been Ederson's responsibility to avoid the collision. In this case it seems both players were intent on getting to the ball first and their combined momentum meant that there was a collision. Do we judge Ederson's approach to be unreasonably energetic? Do we guess who would have reached the ball first had Cancelo not intervened? Also supposing Cancello had simply allowed the ball to run through to Ederson and then held his ground so Fraser collided with him (and quite likely Ederson, with ball, then collided with both of them) what would have been the decision?"
Two days on and no response.
Meanwhile there is a retired referee, well into his 90's who is a regular visitor to the Etihad and who has a web page on which he posts brief accounts of City games. He rarely criticises referees, though he made an exception for the non second card for Milner. His comment on the incident was -
"Was Ederson lucky not to have conceded a penalty when his dive ended with Fraser falling? Nothing was given!
Perhaps Fraser should have jumped over the fallen Ederson! He had already lost possession and perhaps it was a deliberate fall to claim a penalty!"
( https://www.rtfract.com/city2022.html )
I don't think Fraser had time to dive. From the angles I've seen he was about to try and change direction to chase Cancelo but realised Ederson was coming and couldn't avoid the collision.I regularly contribute to a rate the ref site which is made up of retired and current referees, of various levels plus fans with an interest in refereeing decisions. I have to say that I get the impression that City are not very popular in the refereeing community. The posts on the Ederson Fraser collision have been just about unanimously in favour of a penalty. I can understand why as on first viewing that was my reaction but on thinking about I can't see how that decision can be made against basic criteria. So I posted -
"I watched whilst facetiming with my sister and daughter and my immediate response was "That should have been a penalty", and I am surprised that it wasn't referred back for an on field review on the monitor. There are one or two questions in my mind however, which perhaps someone can answer for me. In these circumstances how do we decide whether the goalkeeper has fouled the forward or whether the forward has fouled the goalkeeper. If Cancelo hadn't been involved at all it would have been relatively straightforward - assuming there had been no unreasonable action by either party, whoever played the ball first would claim priority. So, had Ederson caught or parried the ball away it would have been Fraser's responsibility to avoid a collision; if Fraser had reached the ball first it would have been Ederson's responsibility to avoid the collision. In this case it seems both players were intent on getting to the ball first and their combined momentum meant that there was a collision. Do we judge Ederson's approach to be unreasonably energetic? Do we guess who would have reached the ball first had Cancelo not intervened? Also supposing Cancello had simply allowed the ball to run through to Ederson and then held his ground so Fraser collided with him (and quite likely Ederson, with ball, then collided with both of them) what would have been the decision?"
Two days on and no response.
Meanwhile there is a retired referee, well into his 90's who is a regular visitor to the Etihad and who has a web page on which he posts brief accounts of City games. He rarely criticises referees, though he made an exception for the non second card for Milner. His comment on the incident was -
"Was Ederson lucky not to have conceded a penalty when his dive ended with Fraser falling? Nothing was given!
Perhaps Fraser should have jumped over the fallen Ederson! He had already lost possession and perhaps it was a deliberate fall to claim a penalty!"
( https://www.rtfract.com/city2022.html )
It's still a valid question as to whether, if Cancelo hadn't intervened, Fraser would have been looking to go over Ederson rather than play the ball.
On another reffing site, with people saying what an awful decision it was, I innocently asked whether it was worse than the Foden one v Southampton not given (with the "match commander" overruling VAR) - and my post was deleted by the mods!
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 12,124
Would you agree that Ederson would have gathered the ball if Cancelo had left it?
If you do, and you say Fraser couldn't change direction and therefore avoid the collision, and we accept he couldn't have jumped, then wasn't he being reckless?
If you do, and you say Fraser couldn't change direction and therefore avoid the collision, but say he COULD have jumped and didn't, then he collided on purpose?
Not a penalty for me, but am still amazed it wasn't given.
Yes, Ederson would have gathered the ball or at least punched it away.
Blue Llama
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 26 May 2009
- Messages
- 5,414
In rugby union where tackles affecting heads are taken more seriously an automatic red is the penalty.