Newcastle Vs City Post Match Thread

[mancity111]

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Carver, having directed people to the current laws, has given up, and Exeter Blue is struggling against people quoting out of date rules or guidelines, or saying the guidelines aren't the rules.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.

Terrible performance from the ref from start to finish , stupid yellow cards handed out for fouls which didn't warrant them in the first half and once issued didn't carry through with the reds he should have issued in the second half.

It wouldn't have made much difference in my opinion to the tackle on Nasri as some are suggesting as the Newcastle player was intent on taking out whatever frustration he had and would have done so irrespective of the scoreline and what had occurred previously irrespective of the situation the ref had contributed to develop.

I doubt we shall see the ref officiating a big game for a while.

 

[silvasleftleg]

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.

Gouffran prevented Joe Hart from diving for the ball. True or false ?

 

[silvasleftleg]

Joe Hart wanted to dive but didn't because he deemed that Gouffran was in the way. The proof:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvbqneLRyks[/youtube]

End of story. Case closed.

 

[Jumanji]

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!

This!

 

[Shirley]

Joe Hart wanted to dive but didn't because he deemed that Gouffran was in the way. The proof:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvbqneLRyks[/youtube]

End of story. Case closed.

That is the conclusion I eventually came to but initially I did think it was a goal.
Unfortunately we have nobody in the media to put that forward, case closed.
Pardew knew exactly what he was doing with his half time rant, to crank up his players, the crowd (his 12th man) and of course the media.
That is why it was reported we were absolutely battered in the second half.

 

[Lovebitesandeveryfing]

The debate is about more than the goal, and we all know it. There'll be other goals allowed and disallowed like that, for everyone. The debate is about the law, and the interpretation of it. Specifically, what is meant by "interfering" (in some contexts, it's a sexual offence...) Not sure what I think any more, having read all the arguments for and against. But the law does seem to need clarifying, if such a thing can be done. One thing that's beyond opinion: the maths. Goal disallowed, we win , 2-0. Goal allowed, we win, 2-1.

 

[Don Karleone]

That is the conclusion I eventually came to but initially I did think it was a goal.
Unfortunately we have nobody in the media to put that forward, case closed.
Pardew knew exactly what he was doing with his half time rant, to crank up his players, the crowd (his 12th man) and of course the media.
That is why it was reported we were absolutely battered in the second half.

I was thinking about this,why do we not have anybody in the media to represent us?

 

[Dubai Blue]

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!

Bingo!

It was entirely up to Gouffran whether that ball went in or not. When faced with that reality I fail to see how anyone can seriously say he wasn't interfering with play.

If the laws don't explicitly deem that as interfering with play, then the laws are quite clearly wrong and need changing/clarifying.

 

[Harvster]

Enough of this offside nonsense, surely the biggest question to deal with is why the shirts looked bluer than normal?

 

[Chris in London]

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,


[

This is just wrong. No other word for it than that.

The law of the game is the law of the game. Those are the actual rules that the referees apply.

What the law says about offside is clearly set out in law 11 which is quoted several times in this thread.

Simply being in an offside position is not an offence. What makes it offside is that IN THE OPINION OF THE REFEREE the player is 'active'. In other words, if you are in an offside position what makes you actually offside so that the other team gets a free kick is the opinion of the referee. The law makes his opinion the only criteria, and Sunday his opinion obviously was that the player was active.

The guidelines are there to achieve consistency but they are not the law. The law says that the opinion of the referee is what counts, and it is the only thing that counts. The guidelines help him shape what his opinion should be in various situations, but they are guidelines only - there to help him form his opinion. Having regard to the guidelines it is certainly arguable that he shouldn't have reached the decision he did, but once he had done so the goal had to be disallowed. The laws of the game allow no other option.

Two issues flow from that. the first is that maybe it is a technicality, but the whole offside law is a technicality. If you are offside, a goal should not stand whether you are 6 yards offside or 6 inches. The second is that if Mike Jones is not able to form an opinion which is consistent with the guidelines, whilst his decisions are technically valid because the laws of the game entrust him with the task of making the decision, his opinions are so poor he should not be refereeing at this level.

As to the second point, you will get no argument from me.