Newcastle Vs City Post Match Thread

[cibaman]

But at the end of the day, he's a shit referee who has proven time and time again that he shouldn't be officiating at this level.

This is certainly a fact, a useless official.

I have a lot of sympathy for the officials over the offside. Very difficult to make a decision in real time. In fact the linesmen could only adjudicate on the players being stood in an offside position. He could no more determine whether they were interfering with play than a cricket umpire standing at square leg could give an lbw decision. Which is why I think he kept his flag down. And Jones couldnt really blamed for making a very difficult call on whether any of the three players were interfering with play.

It was the way that he copped out of doing his job afterwards that should see him demoted.

 

[Bluesiam]

The rule is simply not clear. There is no provision for the offside player dummying the keeper, which I guess could be a reason Joe did not dive.

Why not insist that for an offside player to be deemed NOT interfering with play, he must clearly raise one or both arms, thereby declaring himself ineligible.

 

[cleavers]

But at the end of the day, he's a shit referee who has proven time and time again that he shouldn't be officiating at this level.

This is certainly a fact, a useless official.

I have a lot of sympathy for the officials over the offside. Very difficult to make a decision in real time. In fact the linesmen could only adjudicate on the players being stood in an offside position. He could no more determine whether they were interfering with play than a cricket umpire standing at square leg could give an lbw decision. Which is why I think he kept his flag down. And Jones couldnt really blamed for making a very difficult call on whether any of the three players were interfering with play.

It was the way that he copped out of doing his job afterwards that should see him demoted.

Before, during, and after, Jones is useless I'm afraid.

 

[Lovebitesandeveryfing]

Well, we were fucking woeful with the ball. Not quite as bad as Southampton away but just awful at times.

We defended, albeit a bit last ditch at times, with heart and desire and Joe made some great saves. Very pleasing.

Their goal should have stood but I thought their lad purposely injured Nasri such was fucking disgrace - so I'd say all even in the big decisions.

We won, I'm buzzing. Let's move on.

For me, two sure things: their goal is good, just as sure as that player is off for that tackle. We won 2-0, so even if their goal is allowed, makes no odds (probably. I know, at 1-1, a game can change). That was a grinding victory, the sort that wins trophies, more than the champagne 6-0 ones (which I love to watch, like everyone else). Feel awful for Samir - that lad was enjoying his football at City like never before. Just hope he gets fit for Brazil, anybody who saw him at the end of the qualifier against Ukraine will know how badly he wants to go. As for us, it's bad, but we've got players who have now got to step up to the plate. Milner, obviously. But also I would now urgently like to know if Jack Rodwell is in fact a functioning footballer employed by MCFC. Likewise Jovetic…

 

[Bluesiam]

Well, we were fucking woeful with the ball. Not quite as bad as Southampton away but just awful at times.

We defended, albeit a bit last ditch at times, with heart and desire and Joe made some great saves. Very pleasing.

Their goal should have stood but I thought their lad purposely injured Nasri such was fucking disgrace - so I'd say all even in the big decisions.

We won, I'm buzzing. Let's move on.

That may be the most important work out we could have had and it will help make us better. We lost control of a game we had been bossing through a combination of the Newcastle fans and players being mega-motivated by the injustice, and the referee hamstrung by fear to protect our players. It won't happen often. Pellers and the boys have had a chance to see some new and extreme tactics. We will work it out on the training pitch.

I feel for Samir, but other than that, this game will make us a stronger team

 

[steviemc]

What would avoid all this speculation regarding the disallowed goal is if the ref was able to say why he disallowed the goal. He told Pardew why he disallowed the goal, so why does this has to remain so secretive? I'm sure it wouldn't be a problem if the ref was allowed to say 'I disallowed the goal because the offside defender had time to react to the ball, therefore I believe that the goalkeeper would have had time to react to the ball, if the defender was not in an offside position'.

He could then say he stands by this decision, or he could say in hindsight that he probably made a mistake. Mistakes are commonplace in every game. At least it would help everyone understand the rules of the game a bit better.

 

[Gordyola]

What if, for instance Tiote had passed/crossed the ball into the goal?
I'm sure 9 times out of ten, the ref and linesman would have called it offside against Gouffran.
In my opinion we should go back to the "old" rule, if you're in an offside position it's a free kick.

Please no, there were some superb goals disallowed because a player no where near the ball / play was offside. The changes to the interpretation have imho been a revelation there were just as many controversies before as there are now ref assistants do a great job and the decision yesterday was spot on I don't understand how people don't understand that because the player moved out of the way of the ball that he was clearly interfering, if he had been more to the right then he wouldn't have had to move so the goal would have stood

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

The rule is simply not clear. There is no provision for the offside player dummying the keeper, which I guess could be a reason Joe did not dive.

Why not insist that for an offside player to be deemed NOT interfering with play, he must clearly raise one or both arms, thereby declaring himself ineligible.

It's a good idea but it's got a 'rugby antecedent' about it, and so I expect that the football wankers who pass as administrators would never import a good idea from another sport!

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

The rule is simply not clear. There is no provision for the offside player dummying the keeper, which I guess could be a reason Joe did not dive.

Why not insist that for an offside player to be deemed NOT interfering with play, he must clearly raise one or both arms, thereby declaring himself ineligible.

It's a good idea but it's got a 'rugby antecedent' about it, and so I expect that the football wankers who pass as administrators would never import a good idea from another sport!

also if Gouffran had done that he would have been clobbered by the ball, so I guess therefore by definition he was interfering with play.

It's clear Joe looks at him and hesitates and then cannot dive, regardless of whether he would have saved it or not, it's clear Gouffran had an influence over Joe's decision making and therefore interfered with play.

It's a decision that was technically correct but that pretty much everyone in football would hate to be on the end of.

 

[DTKOAG]

In here please sorry it's late

Bloody hell your getting a lot of stick on one of the Geordie forums.