Newcastle Vs City Post Match Thread

[Didsbury Dave]

The irony is, we would all be utterly livid if we'd fallen victim to this decision.

That's how football is. We have had some bad ones ourselves this year. It's just a major talking point because it was the Sunday afternoon game.

 

[Platini Pollock]

True...but I know a few will recall a decision ( similar in someways ) to disallow a Danny tiatto goal away at boro ( I am sure it will be somewhere on you tube etc ) which was way more a clear cut onside goal ( unless I am mistaken ). And yes we moaned.......but not to this extent.

And arguably it cost us relegation !

So it's swings and roundabouts.....we are not the first team to get a good or bad break and we won't be the last.

I still think if it had been allowed......they would not have had 11 men at the end of the game anyway and what's more important to them ..... Losing 3 points or missing cabaye for 3 games ??!!


I think we all know the answer to that one !

 

[Didsbury Dave]

True...but I know a few will recall a decision ( similar in someways ) to disallow a Danny tiatto goal away at boro ( I am sure it will be somewhere on you tube etc ) which was way more a clear cut onside goal ( unless I am mistaken ). And yes we moaned.......but not to this extent.

And arguably it cost us relegation !

So it's swings and roundabouts.....we are not the first team to get a good or bad break and we won't be the last.

I still think if it had been allowed......they would not have had 11 men at the end of the game anyway and what's more important to them ..... Losing 3 points or missing cabaye for 3 games ??!!


I think we all know the answer to that one !

I still remember seeing the Tiatto one in the flesh, and believing for a long time it was one of the worst decisions I'd ever seen. But yes, we'd have won the game anyway, I don't doubt that for a second. We didn't play well but we were head and shoulders above Newcastle.

 

[safc4eva]

I'm no fan of putting refs in front of the camera soon after the game has finished to answer questions on incidents because they'll only be asked questions on decisions they got wrong,but clarification on why the goal was disallowed would have been interesting.The ref clearly disallowed the goal on what the linesman saw.The linesman couldn't see from his angle whether Gouffran had or hadn't impeded Hart ,only that he was in an offside position and the ref clearly saw nothing wrong,so to disallow the goal was incorrect.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

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.

If he wasn't interfering with play then exactly what advantage did he gain them by being where he was?!

 

[Lavinda Past]

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.

If he wasn't interfering with play then exactly what advantage did he gain them by being where he was?!

Esteban is right.

If Gouffran hadn't moved, the ball would have hit him and he would have been offside. The position he was in meant that Joe had to consider two possibilities - As such, they had an advantage. Gouffran getting out of the way was part of the build up to the 'goal'. He was miles offside.

Anyhow... 'Interpretation' makes this a stupid law. Bill Shankly was right. If any player is in an offside position, he's offside.

 

[Chippy_boy]

The rules don't help. I am pretty sure it says something about being in the goalkeepers "line of sight". But what does that actually mean? Newcastle fans doubtless would argue a straight line from goalkeeper to the ball, with a player in the way. Which clearly was not the case and therefore not offside.

But that's a very literal (and imho wrong) interpretation. To use a timely example (given that the darts is on at the moment) can you imagine them playing the world darts championship with someone jumping up and down pulling faces etc next to the dartboard? No-one could or would poassibly argue that it was not offputting and the guy on the oche would doubtless say they were in his line of sight.

 

[OB1]

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.

If he wasn't interfering with play then exactly what advantage did he gain them by being where he was?!

Esteban is right.

If Gouffran hadn't moved, the ball would have hit him and he would have been offside. The position he was in meant that Joe had to consider two possibilities - As such, they had an advantage. Gouffran getting out of the way was part of the build up to the 'goal'. He was miles offside.

Anyhow... 'Interpretation' makes this a stupid law. Bill Shankly was right. If any player is in an offside position, he's offside.

Is this debate still ongoing!

I think that the latest guidance on the laws tends to support the view that the goal should have stood but I am not 100% convinced; especially when you read the opening section of the guidance. What would be interesting would be the view of the law setters. I think that they should have covered the eventuality of a player in an offside moving out of the way of the ball so as not to be offside; we can argue until the cows come home about whether that is interfering with anything. The majority of people probably think Hart would not have got to the ball. regardless of whether or not Gouffran's presence made him decide not to dive, but can you set on law on the basis of the referee having to decide whether or not a goalkeeper would have got to a ball if he had not been distracted? Such situations will not always be clear cut; even if you think this one was.

Gouffran did not touch the ball but he, IMO, took an active part in the proceedings and when a player is so far offside in that part of the pitch, I think the laws of the game should be constructed to rule him offside; although that is probably not how they are currently constructed. The law needs further work but is always likely to produce controversies.

 

[steviemc]

The rules don't help. I am pretty sure it says something about being in the goalkeepers "line of sight". But what does that actually mean? Newcastle fans doubtless would argue a straight line from goalkeeper to the ball, with a player in the way. Which clearly was not the case and therefore not offside.

But that's a very literal (and imho wrong) interpretation. To use a timely example (given that the darts is on at the moment) can you imagine them playing the world darts championship with someone jumping up and down pulling faces etc next to the dartboard? No-one could or would poassibly argue that it was not offputting and the guy on the oche would doubtless say they were in his line of sight.

Yep, I think it would be more correct to say that Gouffran was blocking the flight path of the ball, which he very clearly was. As Gouffran was nearer to the ball, and still had time to react, it's probably safe to assume that a goalkeeper (who's main ability is based on reaction) would have been able to make an attempt (and I use the word attempt, as it makes no difference whether he would have saved it or not). The fact that Hart didn't move at all tells you something. Had Gouffran not been there, would Hart have been rooted to the spot like he was?

 

[Chippy_boy]

I suppose the point is, when you consider this is being debated by people with combined 1,000's of years of football experience and we STILL don't have a consensus view, then asking the officials to get it spot on every time in the split seconds of a live game, without the aid of replays as well, is asking too much. They are bound to get it wrong from time to time and you just have to hope it evens itself out over the course of a season. As it was, on another day, Newcastle could EASILY have been down to 9 men.

EDIT: And SHOULD have been down to 9 men.