Unbelievable

It probably would be called a penalty for any other team, but I don't think it should be. Penalty should be given if the player is attempting to score, not looking to go to ground, which Pedersen clearly was (and no idea why Pedersen did, he could easily have stayed on his feet and been one on one with the keeper). Strange that. There are other reasons why a pen can be given, even hand ball without immediate danger of the opposition scoring. I don't understand the theatrics when there is a clear foul like this. As far as I am concerned MGP should have just stopped running, pick up the ball and put it on the spot. Stonewall penalty for what the defender was trying to do: hold him back by the shoulder in a one on one with the goalkeeper when he was already beaten.. You could even argue last man, and a red (would have been if it was outside of the box; what makes it less of a foul inside of the box?) I guess I should have been more clear-I meant in those kinds of situations only, handballs and the like are different. Rafael might have had the intention to hold back MGP, but he didn't in the end. You are allowed to put your hands on a player as long as you don't impede them, and MGP simply felt a touch and went down without ever actually having been impeded. Also, I actually don't agree that a foul outside the box should be held 100% to the same standard as a foul in the box, because the results are different. If they were indeed the same, then just like any other foul, the affected team should be given a free kick at the spot of the foul, instead of a special situation of a free one-on-one with the keeper. A penalty is a special situation. I don't see why something like a foul created by stepping on a players foot when he wasn't involved should result in a penalty just because he was inside the box. If you don't think Rafael held MGP back you may want to watch it again on MOTD. He almost hung around his neck. With regards to fouls inside the box: such are the rules, and such is the way they should be followed. Are you saying it would have been a free kick in a very good position (better than the one Ronaldo scored from) if it would have been a few yards further back from goal but not a pen as it was in the box, because that does not make any sense to me..? It was a clear foul, whatever MGP did or didn't do after the foul should have been irrelevant to the judgement of the foul situation itself, or next thing you know we will have players getting acting lessons to prepare for matches.. And whilst we are on the subject of that particular match the decision to chalk off the Johnny Evans "goal" from the "corner" was a clear cut case of the sort of crap that goes on imo. It wasn't a corner but there was nothing wrong with the "goal".......so Webb puts it right - sort of. Didn't see that incident, so can't comment. Agree about not being able to stand referees balancing decisions out; it's ridiculous..

It probably would be called a penalty for any other team, but I don't think it should be. Penalty should be given if the player is attempting to score, not looking to go to ground, which Pedersen clearly was (and no idea why Pedersen did, he could easily have stayed on his feet and been one on one with the keeper). Strange that. There are other reasons why a pen can be given, even hand ball without immediate danger of the opposition scoring. I don't understand the theatrics when there is a clear foul like this. As far as I am concerned MGP should have just stopped running, pick up the ball and put it on the spot. Stonewall penalty for what the defender was trying to do: hold him back by the shoulder in a one on one with the goalkeeper when he was already beaten.. You could even argue last man, and a red (would have been if it was outside of the box; what makes it less of a foul inside of the box?) I guess I should have been more clear-I meant in those kinds of situations only, handballs and the like are different. Rafael might have had the intention to hold back MGP, but he didn't in the end. You are allowed to put your hands on a player as long as you don't impede them, and MGP simply felt a touch and went down without ever actually having been impeded. Also, I actually don't agree that a foul outside the box should be held 100% to the same standard as a foul in the box, because the results are different. If they were indeed the same, then just like any other foul, the affected team should be given a free kick at the spot of the foul, instead of a special situation of a free one-on-one with the keeper. A penalty is a special situation. I don't see why something like a foul created by stepping on a players foot when he wasn't involved should result in a penalty just because he was inside the box. If you don't think Rafael held MGP back you may want to watch it again on MOTD. He almost hung around his neck. With regards to fouls inside the box: such are the rules, and such is the way they should be followed. Are you saying it would have been a free kick in a very good position (better than the one Ronaldo scored from) if it would have been a few yards further back from goal but not a pen as it was in the box, because that does not make any sense to me..? It was a clear foul, whatever MGP did or didn't do after the foul should have been irrelevant to the judgement of the foul situation itself, or next thing you know we will have players getting acting lessons to prepare for matches..

It probably would be called a penalty for any other team, but I don't think it should be. Penalty should be given if the player is attempting to score, not looking to go to ground, which Pedersen clearly was (and no idea why Pedersen did, he could easily have stayed on his feet and been one on one with the keeper). Strange that. There are other reasons why a pen can be given, even hand ball without immediate danger of the opposition scoring. I don't understand the theatrics when there is a clear foul like this. As far as I am concerned MGP should have just stopped running, pick up the ball and put it on the spot. Stonewall penalty for what the defender was trying to do: hold him back by the shoulder in a one on one with the goalkeeper when he was already beaten.. You could even argue last man, and a red (would have been if it was outside of the box; what makes it less of a foul inside of the box?)

Went down easily, but was clearly pulled back from behind in a one on one with the goalkeeper situation. A pen every day of the week, except for Man U day..

That would have been a pen against every other team in the Prem..

Just seen the challenge. Completely out of control tackle. Hope he gets suspended for a good while..

The new Zamblera?

This thread is verging on blasphemy.. Owen ffs..

Lol, could so easily have been a pen..

Losers. Aye, in a mickey mouse league too..

3-0

Ah, this is a world record for league football only..

Mazaropi (Vasco da Gama, Brazil) 1,816mins Some way to go still..

Don't know what record this was. Just saying on Dutch telly some Belgian goalkeeper kept the net clean for 1390 minutes, which would be achievable in their Blackburn match this weekend. So, not a world record. Anybody know what the world record is?

That nearly didn't last long..

Tis done.

Man U/Van der Sar 10 minutes from a new world record for not conceeding a single goal..

This one can actually shoot and score: watch?v=NAtNwtAaF1A

Think of it as Russian roulette. You'd have to be an idiot to get involved in it in the first place. If you blow your brains out people will say it was a mistake to play. If you don't, people won't say it was sound judgement of the situation. They will still say you are an idiot for playing, but you got lucky not paying the price. Nothing unfair about it. Ashley is playing Russian roulette with Newcastle United Football Club by not spending significantly this January transfer window to get us out of the trouble we are currently in. It doesn't take a genius to figure out with Russian roulette players who try a second time, and a third, etc..

His arm was close to his body when he deliberately handballed it tbf.... Plus 20 seconds later Wellbeck controlled the ball with his hand and it went unnoticed again.

Handball rule doesn't apply to Man U I see..?

And you base this opinion on what? I would suggest you have a long hard look at Spurs who don't seem to be faring any better since they abandoned the DOF system. The problem with football today is fans are all used to living by the credit card culture, namely buy today and pay tomorrow, and they don't see why football clubs don't do the same. All Ashley is pointing out is that the previous regime did just that and now a price has to be paid or we will eventually go to the wall, and I personally thank our lucky stars we have an owner who has the financial acumen to resolve our debts. And lets not forget that Llambias has pointed out that our debt will be reducing year on year and the club will be clear of debt within three more seasons. And then what? Ashley to make a profit while we continue to fight relegation season after season? Would that make you happy in the long run?

To me, the most relevant observation in that article is this one: Despite the interview being lengthy and stretched out over four days, there are mainly just hollow statements, without an explanation as to how the aims will be achieved: - it is confirmed that Wise is here to stay in the DoF role, yet the role itself is not explained further than as a glorified scout. If that's what it is, that's what should have been said, and there would be no need to hang on to the "system". Also, why not explain which capabilities Mr Wise possesses that make him qualified to be our DoF? - we will challenge for EVERYTHING in five years time. Surely, this can't be for real? What is said is we will be looking to bring in/through top youngsters from the academy. Well, so does every other club in the world. What makes our setup so special that we will be challenging for major prizes without major investment in a couple of years time? What will happen if one or two of these youngsters actually do turn out to be stars? Will we be selling for a profit, or do we plan to keep onto our best players then (how else will we challenge for EVERYTHING?) - there seems to be a contented stance as to the goings on in the january transfer window: Kinnear got everything he asked for, or at least we bid for them. Inexplicably this focuses primarily on the very last day of the transfer window, and there is even the acknowledgement that the injuries to Owen and Barton vs Man City forced them into squad reinforcements that would otherwise probably not have come.. Baffling to be honest, but an explanation as to why they did nothing for the most part of the transfer window is missing completely.. - they explain that it was agreed with Ashley that Lambias would keep a low profile, as opposed to Mort. Why? At that time the supporters of the club were mostly quite happy with the communication from the club and the way it was apparently heading. Why alter course to such drastic effect? - pending court case or not, as fans and customers we are entitled to an explanation as to what happened with Keegan leaving. It doesn't have to be detailed, or too revealing as to damage their case in court, but keeping their mouth shut on this issue is certainly not doing them any favours? - there is the acknowledgement of the Kinnear contract extension, but no explanation as to why they feel he is the right man to take us forward to a position where we will challenge for EVERYTHING in five years time.. - we want to be like Aston Villa.. That would be with regards to league position I suppose, because Villa are certainly not going about business the way we currently are. Almost their entire first team has been bought in the past two or three years and they are buying young players ready for the first team for significant transfer fees, not youngsters who need to be developed from lower league level to top Premiership.. - we aren't a selling club, we're a buying club. How does that explain the profit we have made two transfer windows running on players transfers..? - what is Lambias' role as chairman? The way he explains it he deals with the prices for pies and drinks, and leaves the football side (our "core business"!) to others.. I can't for the life of me understand how our board is set up and why our chairman would not know the first thing about our core business? He doesn't communicate, he doesn't understand football, but he does know how to run a pub. How does this make him qualified to run NUFC? Also, in light of this, I would like to know his remit. Does he deal with apointing managers for example? Et cetera.. This interview could have been and should have been regarded as an opportunity to clear things up to the fans. Only very little has been cleared up, and we are left with more questions than answers I feel..

That's my optimistic assessment as well, otherwise Kinnear not signing the contract doesn't make sense. I am still nervous about the appointment they actually do make though. Hopefully we will be "pleasantly surprised". Yep, because all of their 'cunning ploys' so far have turned out so well... How many times have we thought 'they must have a plan', 'they wouldn't be so stupid as to do what they seem to be doing, it must be part of some elaborate behind the scenes motive'... It's not, there's no plan, no decoy, they are stupid f***ing idiots who risk destroying the club by making THE WORST managerial appointment in our club's history. Agreed. What 80 and Big Tron are saying redefines wishful thinking. Unfortunately, there's not much evidence to support their theory and I fully expect Kinnear to take them up on their offer if and when he recovers to full fitness. But surely he'll be advised not to manage again by the doctors? He's in his 60's now and with an instable heart condition he just cant be expected to manage again.....especially at NUFC! He's a stubborn b****** but surely even he'll see that throwing in the towel would be the best thing to do. Hopefully his missus will have a word... That would be the definition of a lucky escape, but doesn't change the fact that the board offered Kinnear a new contract with the ful intent of keeping him on. It's frankly ridiculous that we are sitting here hoping that Kinnear makes a full recovery (from a human perspective) but is advised by the doctors treating him against taking the contract offer (from a supporting the club perspective).. Also, if they thought ol' Harry and Kinnear are the sort of manager we need, I dread to think who else they come up with next in the event Kinnear doesn´t take it..

Depressingly true..