Newcastle Vs City Post Match Thread

[cleavers]

When we played there in 2012 and won 2-0 (good ol' Yaya) it was the same, I genuinely believed we had won the title that day.... What all we needed to do was beat QPR - what could possibly go wrong?

......and that was never in doubt !

 

[Bodicoteblue]

So far , all the " experts " on talksh#t have concentrated exclusively on the " line of sight " argument , which is apparently the reason that the ref disallowed the goal . OK he was wrong on that count as joe's line of sight is not directly obscured by Gouffran , although he is in his peripheral vision and to some extent a distraction .
They have though completely ignored ( by ignorance , accident or design ) the whole aspect of the player making himself active by dodging round the ball.
Collymore was on earlier and by way of a change actually spoke some sense!
He made valid points about top class strikers looking along the line and getting themselves back on side ASAP thereby avoiding any question of offside. He also said that the current laws are a licence for forewards to be lazy and sloppy . (perhaps toon fans should be less angry with the ref and a bit more upset by Gouffrans inability to get his lazy arse out of the six yard box a bit quicker)
He also made a great point about why defenders should train , practice and rehearse for all legitimate scenarios and then be undermined by players deliberately setting out to confuse and even cheat by abusing the laws and placing themselves in offside positions .There is the letter of the law , and there is the spirit of the law.
I wish they'd spend more time looking at diving and potentially career ending "tackles "

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

at the game i thought the same,


BUT


if gouffran stays still the ball hits him and probably stops the ball from ending up in the net and he`s deemed active and offside, if moves out of the way of a shot allowing the ball to go passed him into the net surely he becomes active as soon as he moves out of the way of the shot

Exactly. If he'd stayed where he was, the ball would have hit him and either deflected in, in which case he'd have been offside, or stayed out, in which case still offside but no goal. By moving, he allowed the ball to go in and was therefore interfering.

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.

 

[baildon blue]

Bloody good win yesterday . Star man for me yesterday was are Serbian left back Kolarov . I thought Joe Hart was very good .

 

[Bill]

nobody has realised the obvious. pardew has deflected the news elsewhere to disguise his team are shit and lost yet another game.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

Exactly. If he'd stayed where he was, the ball would have hit him and either deflected in, in which case he'd have been offside, or stayed out, in which case still offside but no goal. By moving, he allowed the ball to go in and was therefore interfering.

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

 

[tys]

So far , all the " experts " on talksh#t have concentrated exclusively on the " line of sight " argument , which is apparently the reason that the ref disallowed the goal . OK he was wrong on that count as joe's line of sight is not directly obscured by Gouffran , although he is in his peripheral vision and to some extent a distraction .
They have though completely ignored ( by ignorance , accident or design ) the whole aspect of the player making himself active by dodging round the ball.
Collymore was on earlier and by way of a change actually spoke some sense!
He made valid points about top class strikers looking along the line and getting themselves back on side ASAP thereby avoiding any question of offside. He also said that the current laws are a licence for forewards to be lazy and sloppy . (perhaps toon fans should be less angry with the ref and a bit more upset by Gouffrans inability to get his lazy arse out of the six yard box a bit quicker)
He also made a great point about why defenders should train , practice and rehearse for all legitimate scenarios and then be undermined by players deliberately setting out to confuse and even cheat by abusing the laws and placing themselves in offside positions .There is the letter of the law , and there is the spirit of the law.
I wish they'd spend more time looking at diving and potentially career ending "tackles "

Exactly this!!! Great post, I've listen to to talk crap all day and hardly any reference to a potentially careers ending challenge on one of the premierships most gifted player...... Constant discussion about a (non) goal that was "wrongly" disallowed!!!

 

[Phil1]

In here please sorry it's late

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

Haha! Ducado wumming the Newcastle forum - went down well! Though some of them sound like they need help getting dressed in the morning and the fact they have access to the internet is pretty fucking scary..

 

[Don Howe]

Here's my thoughts on the match. Plenty of Pardew-bashing

http://howiehok34.wordpress.com/2014/01/13/newcastle-0-manchester-city-2-some-thoughts/

 

[FrancoisToure]

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

First we have to take the question of whether Hart could have made it to the ball out of the equation. Its something we do not know. Partly because the ball was going right for Gouffran and would have in fact hit him squarely in the chest if he did NOT move. Whether or not he decides to move or not affects Hart's decision on whether to move or not. Thus Gouffran interfered with play. That is all we need to know to understand that the call was correct.

Now in my opinion, would Hart have made it to the ball if he had moved the moment Tiote started his strike....no. But my opinion (and the ref's) on that matter doesn't matter when the facts are as clear as they are in this case.