Newcastle United 0 - 2 Man City - 12/01/14 - Post-match reaction from page 41

[DJ_NUFC]

It was also alarming, IMO, how much better Ben Arfa was than pretty much anyone else on your team when he came on.

 

Not in Pardews opinion unfortunately.

 

My Dad watched the game with me and he was saying to me

"how the hell is a player that talented just sat on your bench till the last 10 minutes"

 

He doesn't know my pain

 

And it seems like Pardew's deluded opinion on HBA is working as many fans are seemingly okay with the most talented attacking player we have rotting on the bench.

 

 

[BONTEMPI]

Anyone else read this? Didn't know whether to laugh or cry

 

http://www.viewfromablue.com/2014/01/13/newcastle-0-2-man-city-my-thoughts-3/?

 

Really didn't take them long to become as detestable and self entitled as their neighbours did it?

 

That's the Manc psyche though, they think they shit diamonds.

 

 

[54]

Mike Jones isn't reffing a game this weekend.

[Guest Roger Kint]

Mike Jones isn't reffing a game this weekend.

 

Neither am i

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Canny annoying how the media can't talk about our goal without talking about the Mapou incident, as if they're somehow the same level of importance.

[Sean]

Canny annoying how the media can't talk about our goal without talking about the Mapou incident, as if they're somehow the same level of importance.

 

It's because the media are complicit in the bias towards the 'big' teams. They'll do anything possible to brush this under the carpet and it looks like they've got away with it. Theres not even been any serious debate about the manner in which the goal was ruled out. An incorrect decision is one thing, but this was something else entirely.

[Guest reefatoon]

The Mapou tackle/pardew outburst have been given ludicrously OTT coverage. Pathetic stuff IMO

 

Totally agree. It's embarrassing now but also completely expected.  It was so obvious the media would ignore the offside goal and make non stories from Pardew swearing and Mbiwa tackle, as it was against one of the "big clubs".  The thing is, those two events all stem from the complete lack of officiating that went on prior on the pitch.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

They were quite fair to Pardew on the Monday Night Club last night, everyone basically admitted that it's the sort of language that gets used all the time.

[Benwell Lad]

Our pisspoor ITV regional news programme, which nowadays carries about 5 minutes of local news and is then padded out with generic nonsense, was just as bad last night.  Hardly surprising when their sports presenter was seen joyously celebrating Sunderland's derby win a few seasons back.  Their thinly veiled pro Sunderland agenda (and consequently as anti-Newcastle as they can feasibly be) had them bigging up our neighbours for no longer being clear bottom last night, and of course celebrated the greatest hat trick in living memory, conveniently omitting any lead up to the goals which would have exposed clear diving. The Newcastle report then focused mainly on Pardew's rant with the disallowed goal and that tackle getting roughly equal coverage thereafter.

[LRD]

But an unusually animated Pellegrini said: "If that is the rule of offside we will never have a player offside because other teams can make a wall for every free-kick inside the six-yard box, allow the goalkeeper to see the ball and when the kick is taken they move, they jump, they duck, they step aside.

 

"I am surprised that someone can say that was not an offside, that's incredible. At the beginning of the season the rules on offside changed and a lot of teams put players in front of the goalkeeper, allow him to see the ball but always be standing there, and the referees said that was offside.

 

"If you have three players and one moves and steps aside so the ball doesn't hit him, I don't understand how one person can say that's not offside."

 

He added: "It was an unfair kick and he didn't need to do it. He just tried to make a foul to stop the counter attack and that is normal but the second kick was unfair and too high also. He didn't need to do it."

 

And he said that Nasri is still fuming, explaining: "Of course he's very upset because he has to stop at this moment for six weeks with a serious injury."

 

http://espnfc.com/news/story/_/id/1681615/referee-correct-disallow-newcastle-goal?cc=4716

[Guest Roger Kint]

But an unusually animated Pellegrini said: "If that is the rule of offside we will never have a player offside because other teams can make a wall for every free-kick inside the six-yard box, allow the goalkeeper to see the ball and when the kick is taken they move, they jump, they duck, they step aside.

 

"I am surprised that someone can say that was not an offside, that's incredible. At the beginning of the season the rules on offside changed and a lot of teams put players in front of the goalkeeper, allow him to see the ball but always be standing there, and the referees said that was offside.

 

"If you have three players and one moves and steps aside so the ball doesn't hit him, I don't understand how one person can say that's not offside."

 

He added: "It was an unfair kick and he didn't need to do it. He just tried to make a foul to stop the counter attack and that is normal but the second kick was unfair and too high also. He didn't need to do it."

 

And he said that Nasri is still fuming, explaining: "Of course he's very upset because he has to stop at this moment for six weeks with a serious injury."

 

http://espnfc.com/news/story/_/id/1681615/referee-correct-disallow-newcastle-goal?cc=4716

 

Pardew was right 

[womblemaster]

I hate to say this, but I can see the arguement here: `Had Gouffran not ducked, the shot would have hit him.. making it offside. `  By ducking he was interfering with play by distracting the goal keeper.

 

IF gouff handt been standing in the flight of the ball, then the goal was legit.  or at least jones would had to find another excuse to earn his 100k. city pay bonus.

[Dinho lad]

 

That face. Those clothes.

[Lotus]

W.T.F. is he wearing?

Emo bitch

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I hate to say this, but I can see the arguement here: `Had Gouffran not ducked, the shot would have hit him.. making it offside. `  By ducking he was interfering with play by distracting the goal keeper.

 

IF gouff handt been standing in the flight of the ball, then the goal was legit.  or at least jones would had to find another excuse to earn his 100k. city pay bonus.

 

It's definitely debatable, up to the ref to form an opinion. There's no definitive answer to these unfortunately.

[Interpolic]

The jeans are areet, fuck knas what he's playing at with the top and the hat though.  Should ask for a refund on his face n'all.

[Guest]

I hate to say this, but I can see the arguement here: `Had Gouffran not ducked, the shot would have hit him.. making it offside. `  By ducking he was interfering with play by distracting the goal keeper.

 

IF gouff handt been standing in the flight of the ball, then the goal was legit.  or at least jones would had to find another excuse to earn his 100k. city pay bonus.

 

The goal was legit though.

 

"Interfering with an opponent is defined as: preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball.

 

"For example, by clearly obstructing the goalkeeper's line vision or movement.

 

"It was a tough call but the goal that was disallowed does not meet the criteria to disallow the goal. Technically, it should have stood. That is the law."

 

 

 

[Guest Haris Vuckic]

The jeans are areet, f*** knas what he's playing at with the top and the hat though.  Should ask for a refund on his face n'all.

 

They look like something han solo might wear 

[Interpolic]

Exactly man, get with it.

[Guest Haris Vuckic]

[Yorkie]

I hate to say this, but I can see the arguement here: `Had Gouffran not ducked, the shot would have hit him.. making it offside. `  By ducking he was interfering with play by distracting the goal keeper.

 

IF gouff handt been standing in the flight of the ball, then the goal was legit.  or at least jones would had to find another excuse to earn his 100k. city pay bonus.

 

It's definitely debatable, up to the ref to form an opinion. There's no definitive answer to these unfortunately.

 

It isn't, though - there's literally no debate to be had. Gouffran didn't influence the trajectory of the strike, nor did he distract Hart in any way. Gouff wasn't in Hart's line of sight and nor did he prevent him from diving (if he'd had time to). You don't need a video replay to know all that but, as proof, the birds-eye-view camera shows Gouffran stood a couple yards to Hart's left and also a few feet ahead.

 

Tbh, I'd be surprised if Hart even knew Gouffran was there. The opportunistic cunt only noticed him after he turned his head to watch the ball whistle past him.

 

The decision was absolute bullshit and I'm struggling to think of a situation where we've been dealt a bigger injustice. Howard's clear foul on Shearer at Old Trafford is the only thing, off the top of my head, that was similarly nonsensical.

[Guest bimpy474]

I hate to say this, but I can see the arguement here: `Had Gouffran not ducked, the shot would have hit him.. making it offside. `  By ducking he was interfering with play by distracting the goal keeper.

 

IF gouff handt been standing in the flight of the ball, then the goal was legit.  or at least jones would had to find another excuse to earn his 100k. city pay bonus.

 

It's definitely debatable, up to the ref to form an opinion. There's no definitive answer to these unfortunately.

 

It isn't, though - there's literally no debate to be had. Gouffran didn't influence the trajectory of the strike, nor did he distract Hart in any way. Gouff wasn't in Hart's line of sight and nor did he prevent him from diving (if he'd had time to). You don't need a video replay to know all that but, as proof, the birds-eye-view camera shows Gouffran stood a couple yards to Hart's left and also a few feet ahead.

 

Tbh, I'd be surprised if Hart even knew Gouffran was there. The opportunistic cunt only noticed him after he turned his head to watch the ball whistle past him.

 

The decision was absolute bullshit and I'm struggling to think of a situation where we've been dealt a bigger injustice. Howard's clear foul on Shearer at Old Trafford is the only thing, off the top of my head, that was similarly nonsensical.

 

And Paul Durkin (the ref) to his credit came on Sky after the game to apologise that he got that wrong, none of the gutless shits now would do that.

[Guest]

I think the Nolan "foul" on Schwarzer is the worst I've encountered. Never a foul in a million years.

[Yorkie]

I hate to say this, but I can see the arguement here: `Had Gouffran not ducked, the shot would have hit him.. making it offside. `  By ducking he was interfering with play by distracting the goal keeper.

 

IF gouff handt been standing in the flight of the ball, then the goal was legit.  or at least jones would had to find another excuse to earn his 100k. city pay bonus.

 

It's definitely debatable, up to the ref to form an opinion. There's no definitive answer to these unfortunately.

 

It isn't, though - there's literally no debate to be had. Gouffran didn't influence the trajectory of the strike, nor did he distract Hart in any way. Gouff wasn't in Hart's line of sight and nor did he prevent him from diving (if he'd had time to). You don't need a video replay to know all that but, as proof, the birds-eye-view camera shows Gouffran stood a couple yards to Hart's left and also a few feet ahead.

 

Tbh, I'd be surprised if Hart even knew Gouffran was there. The opportunistic cunt only noticed him after he turned his head to watch the ball whistle past him.

 

The decision was absolute bullshit and I'm struggling to think of a situation where we've been dealt a bigger injustice. Howard's clear foul on Shearer at Old Trafford is the only thing, off the top of my head, that was similarly nonsensical.

 

And Paul Durkin (the ref) to his credit came on Sky after the game to apologise that he got that wrong, none of the gutless shits now would do that.

 

Good point - I got distracted when I was making that last post and forgot to mention that. It's the only time I can remember a ref ever coming out and explaining himself, whether it's NUFC or otherwise.

 

The notion that referees deserve more respect is a correct one, imo.

 

However, there are so many things acting against this campaign that make you think: "what's the fucking point? Fuck em." One of these issues being: you never hear them come out and explain their decisions and mistakes. It isn't fair, given that everyone else involved in the game is expected to explain themselves and do so (to varying extents; obviously some are better at deflecting blame than others).

 

I'm guessing here, but refs are probably told by the FA that they needn't come out and explain their actions. It's something to do with integrity, a bit like how a yellow card can't be changed to a red, because retrospective decision-making undermines the performance of the ref on the day. But their anti-media stance makes them look like cowardly wankers, particularly in the case of Mike Jones at the weekend. An abhorrently terrible decision that, in the eyes of everyone, was blatantly bullshit and deserved an explanation (see, not an 'apology' as such; mistakes happen, however galling they are for the victims).

 

You can't have your cake and eat it, basically. Premier League officials should get more respect from matchday personnel, but they need to do more than they currently do to actually earn it. If the FA prevents refs from talking to the media, they're cutting their nose off to spite their face - and in some respects I actually feel sorry for Mike Jones. I struggle to see how officials are going to earn more respect when awful decisions are made every week and go without explanation/admittance.

 

Like a lot of things, the whole thing is imbalanced to the point of being contradictory: the FA 'protect' the refs by keeping them out of the limelight, but that actually works against them with regards to the notion of gaining more respct.

 

It's easy for me to come out and say this now, on the back of being dealt a shite hand, but there really is so much wrong with how the FA deals with things.

[Guest DebuchyAndTheBeast]

I hate to say this, but I can see the arguement here: `Had Gouffran not ducked, the shot would have hit him.. making it offside. `  By ducking he was interfering with play by distracting the goal keeper.

 

IF gouff handt been standing in the flight of the ball, then the goal was legit.  or at least jones would had to find another excuse to earn his 100k. city pay bonus.

 

yeah you could also say that what if Gouffran was onside and still ducked the shot. What would Hart do? He would still have to dive to save the shot. 

My take on it is that Hart was struggling to see the ball at the start of the action , saw it late and never made an attempt to save the shot. The ref was conned because he took into consideration Hart's final position.