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.

 

[bluevillain]

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.