Newcastle Vs City Post Match Thread

[Vic]

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

False. How did he "prevent" Hart from diving? The possibility that the ball might deflect from an attacker in an offside position (and possibly Hart was put off more by the attackers in front of him rather than by Gouffran) is clearly not "challenging an opponent for the ball".

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.

Indeed, clearly not offside.

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

The laws are what FIFA say they are - until they change them again. It's the same for both sides - see Negredo's wrongly disallowed goal v Newcastle at the Etihad - but it's obviously not easy for officials. The assistant sees a player / players in an offside position but from his angle may not know if they're in the keeper's line of sight of the ball. He can only tell the ref that a player was in an offside position and leave it to the ref (who hasn't got a photographic memory or video replay) to remember if any of three players (in this case) might have been in the way. Had Jones had this video replay, I'm sure he'd have allowed the goal.

 

[Bill]

I'm just glad we won, the fact we 've hurt them ,pardew and the entire british press in doing so makes it a proper bonus.

 

[r.soleofsalford]

I'm just glad we won, the fact we 've hurt them ,pardew and the entire british press in doing so makes it a pWroper bonus.

you miss the W out Bill

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

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Carver, having directed people to the current laws, has given up, and Exeter Blue is struggling against people quoting out of date rules or guidelines, or saying the guidelines aren't the rules.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

This. Good post

 

[Esteban de la Sexface]

Gouffran ducked out of the way of the shot. Otherwise it would have hit him. That to me is offside.

Technically he didn't interfere with play, but him being in the position he was in definitely gained them an advantage from a player being in an offside position which is an offside offence.

F*Ck them anyway. They only other shower of moaners as bad as the Toon are the Everton fans. I've never heard a stadium full of people woman so much as long as I've been watching football. If they concentrated on trying to win the match instead of trying to kick lumps out of City second half, they might have got something out of the game.

Accept the refs decision. Move on.

Is Pardew going to be spoken to for waiting for the referee at half time to tell him he was wrong? Refs need more protection from the FA.

 

[safc4eva]

Gouffran is two yards in front of Hart so how is he stopping him from diving

 

[bert's broken neck]

Why don't we just accept that we got lucky - about fucking time too! I always said that in football the two most important ingredients for success are luck and money. The latter goes without saying and boy, if we start getting the former, there'll be no stopping us! 35 years of pain seems a long way off now!

 

[waspish]

Why don't we just accept that we got lucky - about fucking time too! I always said that in football the two most important ingredients for success are luck and money. The latter goes without saying and boy, if we start getting the former, there'll be no stopping us! 35 years of pain seems a long way off now!

I think Newcastle got lucky with that goal being allowed because if the goal stood we would come out second half and went on and won comfortably without the referee giving everything to Newcastle and there fans baying for blood..

 

[jonmcity]

Why don't we just accept that we got lucky - about fucking time too! I always said that in football the two most important ingredients for success are luck and money. The latter goes without saying and boy, if we start getting the former, there'll be no stopping us! 35 years of pain seems a long way off now!

I think Newcastle got lucky with that goal being allowed because if the goal stood we would come out second half and went on and won comfortably without the referee giving everything to Newcastle and there fans baying for blood..

Correct we would have won in any case. We did score a second, and would have scored more if we were allowed to play football without getting hacked down all over the pitch.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Hart wouldn't have saved that shot even if there'd been no Newcastle players in front of him.

You can't possibly know that mate. In the parallel universe where there were no Newcastle defenders in front of goal, you have no idea where Hart would have been standing, nor how he might have moved to try to save the shot.

And actually it doesn't matter. Nowhere in the rules does it say that the offside rule doesn't apply if it's a really great shot and the keeper had no chance.