Newcastle Vs City Post Match Thread

[Exeter Blue I am here]

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.

Yes, but it wasn't disallowed simply because Gouffran moved out of the way of the ball! It was disallowed because Jones believed Hart had been distracted by that movement, and that, as you rightly say, is a matter of opinion!

 

[aidyblu76]

"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)

It's surprising how these go unmentioned isn't it? All teams have some decisions go their way and some decisions against them during a season, it just seems that any in our favour lately seem to get picked up on and scrutinised. I suppose that's the price of becoming a successful team

 

[Chippy_boy]

All this debate about whether moving out of the way constitutes being active or not... But isn't it more straightforward than that? Had 3 players not been standing where they were, might Joe have taken up a different position, or reacted quicker or had a slightly better view or whatever?

In my book you can't stand yards offside, right in front of the goal and watch a shot whistle inches past you and expect to not have offside given. You are clearly interfering with play if you are in the close field of view of the goalkeeper.

To be not interfering, you have to be nowhere near the play and certainly not right in front of goal.

 

[Bodicoteblue]

Remember Negredo's sublime dummy at West Ham for Kun to score the first goal?
A classic example of "interfering with play" without actually touching the ball but using your physical presence to mislead or distract opposing players - if that is possible when onside then it is patently possible to have the same effect when offside!

 

[Chippy_boy]

Remember Negredo's sublime dummy at West Ham for Kun to score the first goal?
A classic example of "interfering with play" without actually touching the ball but using your physical presence to mislead or distract opposing players - if that is possible when onside then it is patently possible to have the same effect when offside!

Give that man a banana. 100% correct sir.

 

[Dribble]

The referee Mike Jones has not been selected to officiate a Premier League match this weekend....... Read into that what you will.

Gouffran dummied Hart and the ball went in. That's interference and was therefore an infringement and whether that was the reason why Jones actually disallowed the goal or not, the correct decision was reached.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

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

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

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

It's surprising how these go unmentioned isn't it?

4 points those two decisions probably cost us.

 

[AliBobbyJ]

Hart wouldn't have saved that shot even if there'd been no Newcastle players in front of him. His view of the ball was blocked by City defenders and when he first saw it it was a few yard out and flying fast towards the top corner. The goal should have stood and you all know damn well that if it had been City that had a goal ruled out in such circumstances everyone would have complaining. That evens out the offside goal that Villa were allowed at the start of the season as far as match-changing decisions go.

 

[aidyblu76]

All this debate about whether moving out of the way constitutes being active or not... But isn't it more straightforward than that? Had 3 players not been standing where they were, might Joe have taken up a different position, or reacted quicker or had a slightly better view or whatever?

In my book you can't stand yards offside, right in front of the goal and watch a shot whistle inches past you and expect to not have offside given. You are clearly interfering with play if you are in the close field of view of the goalkeeper.

To be not interfering, you have to be nowhere near the play and certainly not right in front of goal.

I agree. I know this doesn't form part of the rule but maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea for the rule to include, if you are stood inside 6 yard box then you are automatically classed as interfering, that way there wouldn't be so much debate. If a player is stood that close to the keeper then he must be aware of their presence.

 

[cleavers]

The referee Mike Jones has not been selected to officiate a Premier League match this weekend....... Read into that what you will.

He shouldn't be selected to referee any PL game again, he should be refereeing Sunday League games.