Newcastle Vs City Post Match Thread

[bluethrunthru]

Well as far as I could see Gouffran was one of 3 Toon players offside when the shot was struck.

The offside rule says any player becomes active if they interfere with play in any way

Gouffran - in an offside positions moves out of the way of the ball and it flies in. However......

If Gouffran stays still it hits him - offside when the ball was struck it hits him he becomes active lino's flag goes up offside.

Or

Gouffran does what he did - he moved - still in an offside position but in moving he clears a path for the ball to hit the net rather than hit him - pretty much definitive of interfering with play as his movement results in a goal so he is active, offside, flag goes up and the goal CORRECTLY chalked off for offside

No idea why the so called experts on 5Live, Talskhite, MOTD cannot understand..... oh wait it is City.....

 

[FrancoisToure]

Well as far as I could see Gouffran was one of 3 Toon players offside when the shot was struck.

The offside rule says any player becomes active if they interfere with play in any way

Gouffran - in an offside positions moves out of the way of the ball and it flies in. However......

If Gouffran stays still it hits him - offside when the ball was struck it hits him he becomes active lino's flag goes up offside.

Or

Gouffran does what he did - he moved - still in an offside position but in moving he clears a path for the ball to hit the net rather than hit him - pretty much definitive of interfering with play as his movement results in a goal so he is active, offside, flag goes up and the goal CORRECTLY chalked off for offside

No idea why the so called experts on 5Live, Talskhite, MOTD cannot understand..... oh wait it is City.....

This. Was always going to be offsides no matter what Gouffran did. That is the risk you take by standing around in an offsides position.

 

[Chris in London]

This is the blindingly obvious fact that seems to have escaped all the so called experts employed as pundits.

But not us. Probably because we both have a fully functioning brain rather than sharing two brain cells between a few.

Sorry PB, but I'm going to disagree with you for once. This belief that because a player has to move out of the way of the ball, he must automatically be interfering with play is utter crap, and I wish the people spouting it would just go and read the laws of the game. Interfering now is restricted to hampering or deceiving an opponent or obscuring the keeper's line of sight. At best you could argue that Hart was momentarily distracted by Gouffran moving in his peripheral vision, but even that is specious as he wasn't gonna get near that shot in a million years. Just as Milner's goal at the Swamp last year (when Tevez and Silva were in De Gea's way) was legit, so was Tiote's yesterday

Law 11 says you are offside if you are in an offside position (he was) and are active in the opinion of the referee. the laws say nothing at all about line of sight. Nothing at all. What deals with line of sight and soon is FIFAs guidance on applying the law. not the law itself.

The opposite of active is inactive. If he had been inactive the ball would have hit him, which I think is PB's point, but as well as that Law 11 says you can be active not only by interfering with play but also by gaining an advantage from being in an offside position. If Hart had parried the ball it might have fallen to him to score fom the rebound but by that stage he would no longer have been offside because when Hart touched the ball he was not between the ball and the goal. So if you are in an offside position where you are well placed to snaffle up a block by the goalkeeper you are active, because you are gaining an advantage that you will be onside and well place to score if the ball is parried to you.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

This is the blindingly obvious fact that seems to have escaped all the so called experts employed as pundits.

But not us. Probably because we both have a fully functioning brain rather than sharing two brain cells between a few.

Sorry PB, but I'm going to disagree with you for once. This belief that because a player has to move out of the way of the ball, he must automatically be interfering with play is utter crap, and I wish the people spouting it would just go and read the laws of the game. Interfering now is restricted to hampering or deceiving an opponent or obscuring the keeper's line of sight. At best you could argue that Hart was momentarily distracted by Gouffran moving in his peripheral vision, but even that is specious as he wasn't gonna get near that shot in a million years. Just as Milner's goal at the Swamp last year (when Tevez and Silva were in De Gea's way) was legit, so was Tiote's yesterday

Well it obviously wasn't legit was it because it was disallowed. And Pardew may not have been happy but the referee clearly gave him an explanation of why it was disallowed, even it was was a nit-picking technical one. In the referee's opinion it wasn't a goal, there was a reason why it wasn't a goal and that's all that counts.

Claiming that the Laws say something and therefore no other situation can possibly apply is stupid in the extreme. There's nothing in the guidance to cover the situation where a player in an offside position moves out of the direct path of the ball thereby allowing it to go into the net. It's like the Code of Conduct on here; it doesn't cover everything we come across on the forum and we have to interpret it or be a bit flexible. It's why we have courts, lawyers and judges. My logic says that if he stands still, the ball hits him and he's offside. By moving, he's interfered in my opinion even though he's not actually touched the ball. And given where he was stood he is in the field of vision of Joe Hart. He doesn't actually have to be in direct line of sight as some pundits were implying.

Jones is a shit ref in my view but he is a Select Group official and he's made a decision and justified it. Without knowing what that justification was, neither you nor I can claim it's right or wrong. So all we're left with is opinions and I say one thing while you say another. So feel free to disagree but there's only one person whose decision counts.

 

[cleavers]

Discuss all the laws, and ins and outs of their (no) goal, two things matter, one it was disallowed, and two we scored twice, final result, in all record books 0-2, 3 points for City, which given our defensive performance on the day, was fully merited.

 

[Bodicoteblue]

Spot on PB - surely the backstop which puts and end to the debate is "in the opinion of the referee"
Opinions are just those - they cannot be wrong and they cannot be right - they are opinions , and if the relevant laws of the game require a ref to express an opinion and he does just that , then that is the end of it.

 

[kun]

"City are so lucky"
"They get all the decisions"
"City paying referees"

Exhibit 1: Negredo goal vs Newcastle disallowed for "offside" (Goal disallowed)

Exhibit 2: El Ahmadi goal vs City from an offside position (Goal given)

Exhibit 3: Seb Larsson tackle (Not even given as a foul)

Exhibit 4: From the same game, clear foul on Milner leading to Sunderland's goal (Goal given)

Exhibit 5: Bony's goal from an offside position (Goal given)

Exhibit 6: Yanga-Mbiwa's deliberate assault on a fellow team-mate and countryman (Yellow card given)

 

[Blackcrowes]

<a class="postlink" href="http://youtu.be/wIQaIAwGQEk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://youtu.be/wIQaIAwGQEk</a>

Newcastle v Manchester CIty 12 Jan 2014 - Applause post Dzeko goal

<a class="postlink" href="http://youtu.be/4z0t9pFUNGI" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://youtu.be/4z0t9pFUNGI</a>

Newcastle v Manchester CIty 12 Jan 2014 - Zabalata song

<a class="postlink" href="http://youtu.be/jm_D-xDeUzg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://youtu.be/jm_D-xDeUzg</a>

Newcastle v Manchester CIty 12 Jan 2014 - boos post disallowed goal and silver near miss

<a class="postlink" href="http://youtu.be/FEy9vYbDC7E" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://youtu.be/FEy9vYbDC7E</a>

Newcastle v Manchester CIty 12 Jan 2014 - 1 nil to the referee plus Zabaleta yellow card

<a class="postlink" href="http://youtu.be/9X0UJe5SEmc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://youtu.be/9X0UJe5SEmc</a>

Newcastle v Manchester CIty 12 Jan 2014 - Negredo near miss - Krul save

<a class="postlink" href="http://youtu.be/C0KDGs853aM" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://youtu.be/C0KDGs853aM</a>

Newcastle v Manchester CIty 12 Jan 2014 - Streaker + Fernandinho hits the bar

<a class="postlink" href="http://youtu.be/pSREXU0x8Ps" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://youtu.be/pSREXU0x8Ps</a>

Newcastle v Manchester CIty 12 Jan 2014 - Zabaleta song in second half

<a class="postlink" href="http://youtu.be/dfPk6BwAgTs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://youtu.be/dfPk6BwAgTs</a>

Newcastle v Manchester CIty 12 Jan 2014 - Negredo goal

<a class="postlink" href="http://youtu.be/byJjUEjwTFs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://youtu.be/byJjUEjwTFs</a>

Newcastle v Manchester CIty 12 Jan 2014 - End of match applause

 

[foetus]

"City are so lucky"
"They get all the decisions"
"City paying referees"

Exhibit 1: Negredo goal vs Newcastle disallowed for "offside" (Goal disallowed)


Exhibit 2: El Ahmadi goal vs City from an offside position (Goal given)


Exhibit 3: Seb Larsson tackle (Not even given as a foul)


Exhibit 4: From the same game, clear foul on Milner leading to Sunderland's goal (Goal given)


Exhibit 5: Bony's goal from an offside position (Goal given)


Exhibit 6: Yanga-Mbiwa's deliberate assault on a fellow team-mate and countryman (Yellow card given)

This needs to be put into its own thread so whenever some idiot fan of another team decides to come out with the "city are paying the refs" we can just reply with a link to that thread. I'm pretty comfortable in saying we'd be at least 4 points better off had we not had those bad decisions in the Villa and Sunderland games.

 

[aidyblu76]

This is the blindingly obvious fact that seems to have escaped all the so called experts employed as pundits.

But not us. Probably because we both have a fully functioning brain rather than sharing two brain cells between a few.

Sorry PB, but I'm going to disagree with you for once. This belief that because a player has to move out of the way of the ball, he must automatically be interfering with play is utter crap, and I wish the people spouting it would just go and read the laws of the game. Interfering now is restricted to hampering or deceiving an opponent or obscuring the keeper's line of sight. At best you could argue that Hart was momentarily distracted by Gouffran moving in his peripheral vision, but even that is specious as he wasn't gonna get near that shot in a million years. Just as Milner's goal at the Swamp last year (when Tevez and Silva were in De Gea's way) was legit, so was Tiote's yesterday

But he made a deliberate action. (moving / dodging the ball, and that action directly affected the outcome of tiote's shot. If he hadn't have moved, the ball wouldn't have ended up in the goal.
If a players action directly affects the outcome of a passage of play, how can that not be interfering?