Newcastle Vs City Post Match Thread

carlosthejackal said:
If we had scored that goal and had it dissallowed this board would have been in meltdown, we got away with one, lets move on to the next game.

No. Difference is we scored another two so it wouldn't have mattered as much.
 
I see Carver, having directed people to the current laws, has given up, and Exeter Blue is struggling against people quoting out of date rules or guidelines, or saying the guidelines aren't the rules. Of course they are - the whole point of the guidelines and interpretation is to cut down on inconsistency,

Shankley's long dead and so is offside as understood then.

"interfering with play” means playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a team-mate (playing means touching; there's no distinction)

“interfering with an opponent” means preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or challenging an opponent for the ball


No player in an offside position touched the ball so no-one interfered with play.
No-one in an offside position "clearly obstructed" Hart's line of vision, and you don't "challenge an opponent for the ball" by ducking out of the way. See diagrams 2 6 and 7 in the laws, pages 112 and 114 <a class="postlink" href="http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/footballdevelopment/refereeing/81/42/36/log2013en_neutral.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/footbal ... eutral.pdf</a> It would be better if they had another where it's less clear cut, but in nearly every decision I've seen since the guidelines were changed this season, you'd need to be virtually on the keeper's toes to be judged as interfering.

For what it's worth, I think the AR drew Jones's attention to the fact that 3 players were in an offside position and it was Jones's call as to whether they were in Joe's line of sight. The AR didn't flag, but nor did he run back upfield as he would have done if he was totally happy with the goal (which was why he was still there for Joe to appeal to).

So a bad if understandable decision by the referee, then compounded by bottling it when Newcastle went a-hunting for revenge.
 
Vic said:
I see Carver, having directed people to the current laws, has given up, and Exeter Blue is struggling against people quoting out of date rules or guidelines, or saying the guidelines aren't the rules. Of course they are - the whole point of the guidelines and interpretation is to cut down on inconsistency,

Shankley's long dead and so is offside as understood then.

"interfering with play” means playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a team-mate (playing means touching; there's no distinction)

I'd say "interfering with play" more properly means affecting the outcome. And that's what he did when he moved.
 
No way can you say it is not interference if the player in question affects the decision making process of opposing players whilst in an offside position.
I would say the same if it were us.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Vic said:
I see Carver, having directed people to the current laws, has given up, and Exeter Blue is struggling against people quoting out of date rules or guidelines, or saying the guidelines aren't the rules. Of course they are - the whole point of the guidelines and interpretation is to cut down on inconsistency,

Shankley's long dead and so is offside as understood then.

"interfering with play” means playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a team-mate (playing means touching; there's no distinction)

I'd say "interfering with play" more properly means affecting the outcome. And that's what he did when he moved.


It's not Alice in Wonderland - you can't make the rules mean what you want them to. If he doesn't touch the ball, he's not interfering with play. If you can interpret that how you like, no-one would have a clue what it meant.
 
Vic said:
Prestwich_Blue said:
Vic said:
I see Carver, having directed people to the current laws, has given up, and Exeter Blue is struggling against people quoting out of date rules or guidelines, or saying the guidelines aren't the rules. Of course they are - the whole point of the guidelines and interpretation is to cut down on inconsistency,

Shankley's long dead and so is offside as understood then.

"interfering with play” means playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a team-mate (playing means touching; there's no distinction)

I'd say "interfering with play" more properly means affecting the outcome. And that's what he did when he moved.


It's not Alice in Wonderland - you can't make the rules mean what you want them to. If he doesn't touch the ball, he's not interfering with play. If you can interpret that how you like, no-one would have a clue what it meant.

It's alright saying "The laws say this and the laws say that" but there are always going to be situations which aren't black and white. That's why a series like "Ask The Ref" has been running for so long.

And you're making an assumption that the people who make the laws are rational and intelligent people. Well those of us who were invited to meet Mike Riley were absolutely fucking astounded at a couple of the things he said, as they defied logic, common sense and belief. One was about refereeing conflicts of interest and the other was about DOCGSO. That made me realise we aren't necessarily dealing with the brightest people.

Laws have loopholes and ambiguities and sometimes you have to look at the spirit and not the letter.

Bet you're a right jobsworth in your peaked cap.
 
I think the spirit of the law, as well as the letter, might well say you don't chalk off goals like that on a (wrong) technicality. Others have mentioned Tiatto's disallowed goal v. Middlesbrough - there was a diagram in the laws then saying it was not offside but refs (maybe not being too bright) have had to have it drummed into them that (as was always the case, even under Shankley) being in an offside position does not mean you're offside; all they've done over the years is make it clearer what you can and can't do in an offside position without being offside.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Vic said:
Prestwich_Blue said:
I'd say "interfering with play" more properly means affecting the outcome. And that's what he did when he moved.

It's not Alice in Wonderland - you can't make the rules mean what you want them to. If he doesn't touch the ball, he's not interfering with play. If you can interpret that how you like, no-one would have a clue what it meant.
It's alright saying "The laws say this and the laws say that" but there are always going to be situations which aren't black and white. That's why a series like "Ask The Ref" has been running for so long.

And you're making an assumption that the people who make the laws are rational and intelligent people. Well those of us who were invited to meet Mike Riley were absolutely fucking astounded at a couple of the things he said, as they defied logic, common sense and belief. One was about refereeing conflicts of interest and the other was about DOCGSO. That made me realise we aren't necessarily dealing with the brightest people.

Laws have loopholes and ambiguities and sometimes you have to look at the spirit and not the letter.

Bet you're a right jobsworth in your peaked cap.

Docgso?
 
Vic said:
Prestwich_Blue said:
Vic said:
I see Carver, having directed people to the current laws, has given up, and Exeter Blue is struggling against people quoting out of date rules or guidelines, or saying the guidelines aren't the rules. Of course they are - the whole point of the guidelines and interpretation is to cut down on inconsistency,

Shankley's long dead and so is offside as understood then.

"interfering with play” means playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a team-mate (playing means touching; there's no distinction)

I'd say "interfering with play" more properly means affecting the outcome. And that's what he did when he moved.


It's not Alice in Wonderland - you can't make the rules mean what you want them to. If he doesn't touch the ball, he's not interfering with play. If you can interpret that how you like, no-one would have a clue what it meant.


But this is where FIFA's most recent interpretation of "interfering with play" is a complete nonsense IMO, any player stood where Goufran was is clearly interfering by simply being in the keeper's field of view, Hart must be aware of his presence and that must influence his decision making in some way.

Yes the referee made the wrong call according to the current interpretation but I have always believed that interpretation to be seriously flawed.
 
Vic said:
Prestwich_Blue said:
Vic said:
I see Carver, having directed people to the current laws, has given up, and Exeter Blue is struggling against people quoting out of date rules or guidelines, or saying the guidelines aren't the rules. Of course they are - the whole point of the guidelines and interpretation is to cut down on inconsistency,

Shankley's long dead and so is offside as understood then.

"interfering with play” means playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a team-mate (playing means touching; there's no distinction)

I'd say "interfering with play" more properly means affecting the outcome. And that's what he did when he moved.


It's not Alice in Wonderland - you can't make the rules mean what you want them to. If he doesn't touch the ball, he's not interfering with play. If you can interpret that how you like, no-one would have a clue what it meant.

Whether or not the ball goes in the net is entirely dependent on Gouffran, so surely that's a very basic form of interfering with play?
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.