Exiled in Texas

The problem today for HBA was that the team was flat and static. So he was left facing one/two defenders face on with no movement around him. Made it very easy for Sunderland to defend against him.....HBA has always had his better games when the defense was off balance due to the movement around him. Newcastle were flat, static and without desire today. None of the players looked like they had played together before.

And even after their good run (making hay while the sun shines) they are still only 2 pts clear of the relegation zone. They have done well during this part of the schedule against the low/mid table teams but the schedule will son turn against them. And yet....I have been impressed by the work Poyet has done....they have god shape, good purpose and looked really good today.

More money he keeps the quicker our loan to him is gone and he has no reason to stay No - the more money he keeps ............... the more reason he has to stay and keep taking out. If there is money coming in, then the only incentive to get out is if there is a better/more lucrative place to invest his money.

The difference between shielding the ball and plain obstruction, is that that the ball needs to be in playable distance to shield the ball. The defender allowing the ball to run out for a GK is in fact playing the ball without actually touching the ball. As long as they are able to reach the ball with their feet, then the ball is considered to be being played by them and shielding is legal. You could not shield the ball that was 5 yards away from the defender...that would be plain obstruction, but you can shield a ball that is within playing distance. (Of course the definition of "playing distance" is determined by the referee and no one else )

Depends if you are talking about ability or attitude. If the attitude is that they want to prove they belong then I love hearing that from a player. It's those who think they have already arrived that are the problem.

Did the honourable thing? GET TO f***. Actually, I wonder if there is something in how NUFC have acted with Cabaye that might be good for us. If we are known as a club that can develop players, put players into the shop window and get them the next move after 2-3 years then perhspa that makes us a more attractive club when it comes to signing players. Yes, I know that we don't want to be a stepping stone club in the terms of taking players in and making them suitable for mid-table teams, but if we can get a good flow of CL quality players coming in, some that will move on to PSGs, Madrids, Milans etc then other may come and stay raising our profile too. Yes, I realise that being a selling-club or a stepping stone club are negative terms, but that approach has worked well for Spurs and even Arsenal to a degree. [tin hat on - and into fox hole]

Help me out...why no away goals during the first two legs?

nay

Yeah, yeah I know..... TL;DR just had to get that off my chest

This is my view as a referee (of approx 400 U16-U19 games) Goufran was clearly in an offside position, but that is not an offense. To be penalised for being in an offside position you must ALSO be interfering with play or an opponent: Interferring with play means playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a teammate- Should not apply because Gouffran did not play/touch the ball interferring with an opponent means preventing an opponent from playing the ball by clearly obstructing the opponents line of vision or movement - should not apply because Gouffran was not blocking the line of vision and did not prevent Hart from moving or by making a gesture or movement, which in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts the opponent - this should also not apply because Gouffran did not pretent to play the ball, did not attempt to deceive that he would play the ball and did nothing more than evade making contact with the ball So why did the referee crew waive off the goal.....I believe (and several National referees in the US on a referee forum believe) that the referee and the AR each had half of the information needed to make a decision, but neither had the full picture - and putting together these two halves they got the decision wrong. The AR knows that Goufran is in an offside position - but he doesn't "know" if Gouffran made contact with the ball (because from his position on the sideline, with the aspect of the shot), he cannot see a deflection of the balls trajectory, and likely cannot hear it either. So he knows that the player is in an offside position, and he thinks that the ball may/may not have touched Gouffran. From the referee's position - he too cannot really see if the balls trajectory was changed by Gouffran but he will likely suspect it. Watching this for the first time on TV it wasn't clear if Gouffran did indeed avoid contact or not, and the TV angle (see pic) was much better than the referee's position. So the referee is wondering if there was contact from an offside player or not. The first thing the referee will do on seeing the ball enter the goal is to check his AR for a reaction. If the AR is running up back field (to get into position for a kick off) then that is the signal to the referee that the goal is good. If the Flag is up, then the signal is that there was an infraction. And if the AR is standing to attention, and not moving/signalling, then that is the signal to the referee that he has a question/information about the play and thinks the referee should discuss it with them. The neutral stance is designed not to box the referee into a decision that they may not want to make (neither signals a goal or no goal) and allows for a discussion. Now the referee and AR discuss what each saw/thought happened. AR will confirm that player was in an offside position. Now they will confirm if the player interfered with play/opponent. Based on my training and instruction on the LOTG, I can only assume that the referee (and maybe AR) thought that the ball touched Gouffran and was deflected into the goal....and based on that opinion (incorrect as it turns out), the right decision was made according to LOTG. There was no blocking of vision, or blocking of movement - in fact Hart never moved. There was no attempt to deceive or distract the opponent - Hart never even saw Gouffran until after the ball was in the net. BUT neither referee or AR had the necessary line of sight to see if there was a deflection or not. I summise, that each suspected that there might have been contact, and that it was more likely than not that there had been contact. And therefore they convinced each other than there was contact with the ball. At this level of play I do not beleive that a referee would be unaware of the Laws of the Game or how to apply them. They have too many games under their belts, and have been through too many assessments and game reviews to not know the LOTG. BUT they are always basing their decisions on their OPINION of what happened, and they get one view - without replay or slo-mo, regardless of their position on the field or what is happening around them. And they are also subject to the natural pressure of the game - pressure from the players, pressure from the expectation of a perfect game and importantly, pressure from the media (and match assessment) review they know is coming after the game. And so it comes down to a simple mistake by the referee (or AR) in their opinion in seeing what happened (or didn't happen) and from that bad data, the decision process was fatally flawed and produced an incorrect decision. They thought (in my opinion) and maybe convinced each other, that there was contact with the ball by Gouffran and therefore there was an offside infraction.

Exactly....Hart did the usual desperate waive for offside that is common to all defenders who ****** up and just let a player past them. They desperately wave for offside hoping that the AR will rescue them, and in most cases they get no flag (and the AR secretly laughing at them for just how far on-side they were holding the player). In this case, too many additional factors figured into the decision that the referee and AR made together.

Very few of the Laws of the Game are black and white......almost everything is based on the referee's opinion of what happened. And that's where the two sides fall apart because neither have the same opinion as the referee.

This is why I think we will sign some players this window.....the fact that we will need to replace a lot during the summer, so it makes sense to do some now and then some in the summer. This give better continuity and less disruption than trying to bed in 6 new players in the summer.

Those in 18th, 19th and 20th place? Breaking into the top group is where we should be aiming for, and we currently are thereabouts, although looking at the table it seems that mid-table mediocrity is currently 8th/9th place, with 10th-20th all in the relegation battle

Sounded to me like two different scenarios to me......Cabella will only be bought if we sell Cabaye (presume we need the money and also need a place on the field for Cabella to play in), whereas Luuk De Jong will only be sold if MuchenGladBach buy first.

Double whammy really..... Lose the "Villa" name Replace the city name of Aston where you are located with the name of your local rivals Birmingham. Red Bull Birmingham sounds terrible, but Red Bull Aston (or Aston Red Bull) sounds even worse.

dear god, the man is business savvy but by christ that was one mad decision. Is the problem the Business Man in Ashley, or the Fan in us? Paying whatever it takes to get a signing is Shepardesque or Sunderlandesque. Getting held to ransom by other clubs simply raises the amount we pay, and decreases our ability to buy players with the ability we need. Of course, there are exceptions to be made, but not every player is that exception. Theres a 20 mile gap between those two scenarios, surely you can see it? I do see it......but I also see it as a gray area (not black or white) and the question about where black turns to white is somewhere in the gray area. What I hope is that the club do make some exceptions where they see true value.......and then hold firm on some of the others which are a bit more "Meh" such as perhaps Gomis. I think this is happening (but we just don't see the wheels churning). I do believe that we are more on the side of "opportunistic" and "value driven" than the "just pay a bit more to get the player signed".

dear god, the man is business savvy but by christ that was one mad decision. Is the problem the Business Man in Ashley, or the Fan in us? Paying whatever it takes to get a signing is Shepardesque or Sunderlandesque. Getting held to ransom by other clubs simply raises the amount we pay, and decreases our ability to buy players with the ability we need. Of course, there are exceptions to be made, but not every player is that exception.

"you'll love it here, one of the most comfortable benches i've ever sat on. fantastic view of people of inferior capability doing your job instead of you." hahaha (sadly true)

Maybe Vurnon can talk with Siem De Jong and convince him and his brother to sign for NUFC. Would love to see some more Ajax total football playing for us.

Genius !!

Yes, around then we were linked with both Baftimbi Gomis and Mario Gomez......very confusing times

Gold/Sullivan have already said that they must sell to buy, both from a financial view within the club and also from Financial Fair Play rules too

I'm finding even dafter that some are calling for Sherwood even before he had a game based purely on the logic "he's english" And "he used to play for them so he knows them"