Newcastle Vs City Post Match Thread

[Lancet Fluke]

I'm surprised that in a match where a player was deliberately done by an opponent and another should 100% have been sent off for two yellows that the only talking point in the media seems to be a debateable offside. Personally, I thought it was a harsh decision on Newcastle but nowhere near as bad as the decisions not to send off Cabaye or their dirty **** of a full back. And how many dodgy offsides happen every week? We have had a few go for us (yesterday and Liverpool) and a few go against us (Villa and Swansea) already this season, I just don't see the big drama, nobody in the media gave a shit about us conceding clearly offside goals so why are they so obsessed with yesterday's decision? The way I see it though in terms of the decision, we play the offside trap every week, the offside rule isn't quite as black and white as it used to be so when we concede goals like we did against Swansea, I think we have to accept it. IMO if players are going to stand offside, within a few yards from goal and between the posts then they are taking the same gamble that we do every time we step up for offside. They are gambling that the officials will make the correct call. It's why (imo) we shouldn't step up so often and it's why lazy arsed strikers should make more of an effort to get themselves onside. It's tough shit.

 

[prestonibbo_mcfc]

Just a quick look on that NUFC forum. Enough to have a good laugh. one says if they can play like that against the lesser teams, they'll be OK.
Trouble is they won't be allowed to by a decent ref ;-)

 

[aidyblu76]

All part and parcel of the game and we have had plenty of decisions go against us so will take one like yesterday no problems.

Pardew can have his goal and I will take a 2-1 win and 3 points ;-)

Agreed. There's a lot of debate about whether it should or shouldn't have stood. And the quality of refereeing. The fact is we still went on to score another. We won by 2 so dodgy goal given or not, it's still 3 points

 

[Dribble]

Pretty straight forward call for the offside.

Gouffran stands still the ball hits him, however he moves out of the way. How is that not interfering?

This.

I've looked at the replay a few times & you can see Hart shifting his head trying to view Tiote whilst he's shaping up to shoot. Tiote then takes the shot & Hart steps to his left to position himself & just at the crucial moment of the ball approaching you can see that Gouffran ducks which catches Harts eye & he hesitates for a split second as the ball flies in.

No Gouffran, no hesitation. I'm not saying Hart would or wouldn't have saved the ball, but there wouldn't have been any interference from Gouffran to debate over. For me no interference means with the goalie's line of sight AND the flight path of the ball.

Gouffran effectively dummied Hart by ducking & if that's not interference, I don't know what is.

 

[Hoghead]

cookster wrote:
Pretty straight forward call for the offside.

Gouffran stands still the ball hits him, however he moves out of the way. How is that not interfering?

Was a cracking strike though, Gouffran or not I think Hart watches that whistle in to the top corner, quite lucky Gouffran was there IMHO

Unless Hart thought that Gouffran (mistaken for a City player) was guarding that post as his positioning wasn't good if he knew it was it was Gouffran.

 

[bluemc1]

Pretty straight forward call for the offside.

Gouffran stands still the ball hits him, however he moves out of the way. How is that not interfering?

Was a cracking strike though, Gouffran or not I think Hart watches that whistle in to the top corner, quite lucky Gouffran was there IMHO

yeah i think Hart was saying to the ref he couldn't see the ball as the offside players were in his way ( this wasn't the case ) but once he has said that the ref has to check with the liner if some players were offside, when the liner says yeah about 3 of them the ref has to believe Hart could well have been obstructed by at least 1 of them.
for me looking back after the game the ref would say the goal should have stood and i agree, the way i look at it would that shot have gone in if the players were not stood there ? i think yes. my take on Gouffran is if he stays still the ball hits him and he is interfering so he moves to an offside position where he is not interfering,

 

[Matty]

If Gouffran stands still the shot hits him, and it's offside. If he ducks and it doesn't hit him, and goes in the net. How is he not interfering with play if his actions change the result of the shot to such a degree?

The above sounds logical, however it flies in the face of the actual FIFA rules which state that in order to interfere with play Gouffran MUST touch the ball. By moving so he DOESN'T touch the ball he isn't actually interfering with play, a farcical rule, but a rule nonetheless.

So, the only way it can be disallowed is if the referee, in his opinion (which is the important part here, what Danny Mills, Jamie Carragher or anyone else thinks is irrelevant) believes Gouffran has impeded a player (specifically Hart) in either his view OR his movement. That's what Mike Jones has decided, that Hart's view or movement was adversely affected by Gouffran being there. Whether Hart could reach the shot or not isn't relevant, and in all honesty is supersition and conjecture, no-one can be 100% certain whether Hart could or could not reach the shot, what is relevant is that Hart could not make an attempt to save the shot because his movement was affected by Gouffran's presence.

 

[Shirley]

Some bloke on SSN this morning doing the paper review reckoned we were "absolutely battered" in the second half yesterday.
I've recounted the empty beer cans and I can only conclude I watched the wrong game.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

If Gouffran stands still the shot hits him, and it's offside. If he ducks and it doesn't hit him, and goes in the net. How is he not interfering with play if his actions change the result of the shot to such a degree?

The above sounds logical, however it flies in the face of the actual FIFA rules which state that in order to interfere with play Gouffran MUST touch the ball. By moving so he DOESN'T touch the ball he isn't actually interfering with play, a farcical rule, but a rule nonetheless.

The FIFA guidance on the interpretation of the Offside law isn't all-encompassing and only highlights typical potential scenarios but I absolutely agree with the first paragraph. To me there's little room for doubt about that. By moving to avoid a ball that would have hit him he was, by definition, active.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

I'm surprised that in a match where a player was deliberately done by an opponent and another should 100% have been sent off for two yellows that the only talking point in the media seems to be a debateable offside. Personally, I thought it was a harsh decision on Newcastle but nowhere near as bad as the decisions not to send off Cabaye or their dirty **** of a full back. And how many dodgy offsides happen every week? We have had a few go for us (yesterday and Liverpool) and a few go against us (Villa and Swansea) already this season, I just don't see the big drama, nobody in the media gave a shit about us conceding clearly offside goals so why are they so obsessed with yesterday's decision? The way I see it though in terms of the decision, we play the offside trap every week, the offside rule isn't quite as black and white as it used to be so when we concede goals like we did against Swansea, I think we have to accept it. IMO if players are going to stand offside, within a few yards from goal and between the posts then they are taking the same gamble that we do every time we step up for offside. They are gambling that the officials will make the correct call. It's why (imo) we shouldn't step up so often and it's why lazy arsed strikers should make more of an effort to get themselves onside. It's tough shit.

I think they do. How many controversial decisions accompanied a title challenger's fixtures and how many of those got the treatment that offside got? Nearly every comment I have seen and heard from ex-pros and ex-whistling wankers seem to miss the essential point. We have all sorts of nonsense about 'entertainment', Joe's unimpaired vision and so on ad infinitum. The simple fact of the matter is that Gouffran was interfering. End of! So fuck off Didi, St. Jamie of Carragher and the Holier than Us Halsey!