ujpest doza Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Am I the only person that thinks Tim Krul is absolutely shit? Nope. Has the occasional game as a good shot stopper but isn't top class by a long chalk. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeletor Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Janmaat was a yard on side but aye, that's the only thing I can think of. He was clearly ahead of both Perez and Mitrovic when he played the ball across. It's a fucking appalling decision. Not excusing the second half capitulation by any means, but ffs. A deserved 2-0 and it's a different game. We'd have probably still collapsed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ankles Bennett Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 When the ball was played to Jaanmat the only player in an offside position was Perez in the middle. Not interfering with play but when the ball was crossed Perez flicked it on to Mitro and he made himself active hence the offside decision to disallow the goal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thenorthumbrian Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 It's an odd set up at Newcastle under Cashley, as others have said his major priority is to use St James' Park as a massive billboard to promote S***** D***** . The manager, whoever is is, is constrained by Cashleys method of only buying players under 24 years of age so that they have a sell on value. United are sold to players on the understanding they can make their mark at St James and then be sold to a "bigger" club. It does nothing to generate a team spirit or sense of continuity at the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altamullan Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 With Anita and Gouffran in the centre of midfield, we were always going to be in trouble . Need to find a commanding centre midfielder who can protect the back four better than these two. I thought Anita played well. Gouffran was clearly a liability, even in the first half. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dinotheprehistoricgeordie Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Would changing our captain do much? Colcinni just doesn't care, he's never talking to the players or imposing himself. Might as well give it to Mitrovic, he's shown more leadership in his few games here than Colo ever has. Oh, I mean apart from his hand written letter, of course. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Geordie Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Colo probably has some clause in his contract that he has to remain club captain (probably insisted by Ashley) There are no leaders in the club for a reason, afterall. I hear Shearer was quite savage in his assessment on MotD last night? I didn't tune in, suffice to say. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
themanupstairs Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Janmaat was a yard on side but aye, that's the only thing I can think of. He was clearly ahead of both Perez and Mitrovic when he played the ball across. It's a f***ing appalling decision. Not excusing the second half capitulation by any means, but ffs. A deserved 2-0 and it's a different game. This! Had this argument with many braindead idiots. Not saying we would have gone on to win ffs, but to deny that it would have been a different game had we gone in ahead by 2 goals at HT is just stupid. It wasn't even a borderline decision, or a dubious sending off. It was a clear goal. A well worked move and a finish at the end of it. Boils my piss tbh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
themanupstairs Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 When the ball was played to Jaanmat the only player in an offside position was Perez in the middle. Not interfering with play but when the ball was crossed Perez flicked it on to Mitro and he made himself active hence the offside decision to disallow the goal. Eh? How is that even part of the rules? Perez was nowhere near Janmaat when the ball was played. He was in no way interfering with play, so the new rule shouldn't apply in this case. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 When the ball was played to Jaanmat the only player in an offside position was Perez in the middle. Not interfering with play but when the ball was crossed Perez flicked it on to Mitro and he made himself active hence the offside decision to disallow the goal. No. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe_F Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Goals on Sunday not even bothering to show the offside goal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hakka Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Goals on Sunday not even bothering to show the offside goal. Did they even have enough time? I mean there was 7 given goals to get through. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 When the ball was played to Jaanmat the only player in an offside position was Perez in the middle. Not interfering with play but when the ball was crossed Perez flicked it on to Mitro and he made himself active hence the offside decision to disallow the goal. This is wrong. As soon as he is back onside having been inactive in an offside position, he is allowed to become active again in the new phase of play. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 When the ball was played to Jaanmat the only player in an offside position was Perez in the middle. Not interfering with play but when the ball was crossed Perez flicked it on to Mitro and he made himself active hence the offside decision to disallow the goal. This is wrong. As soon as he is back onside having been inactive in an offside position, he is allowed to become active again in the new phase of play. You sure about that? New rules were put in place this season so people become active again and hence offside. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe_F Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Goals on Sunday not even bothering to show the offside goal. Did they even have enough time? I mean there was 7 given goals to get through. They had enough time to show a couple of chances that didn't go in so they did, aye Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 When the ball was played to Jaanmat the only player in an offside position was Perez in the middle. Not interfering with play but when the ball was crossed Perez flicked it on to Mitro and he made himself active hence the offside decision to disallow the goal. This is wrong. As soon as he is back onside having been inactive in an offside position, he is allowed to become active again in the new phase of play. You sure about that? New rules were put in place this season so people become active again and hence offside. Wasn't the change not more to do with players blocking the keepers view/a defenders path whilst in an offside position? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 When the ball was played to Jaanmat the only player in an offside position was Perez in the middle. Not interfering with play but when the ball was crossed Perez flicked it on to Mitro and he made himself active hence the offside decision to disallow the goal. This is wrong. As soon as he is back onside having been inactive in an offside position, he is allowed to become active again in the new phase of play. You sure about that? New rules were put in place this season so people become active again and hence offside. Wasn't the change not more to do with players blocking the keepers view/a defenders path whilst in an offside position? That was one change, but I remember benteke's goal earlier in the season that should had been disallowed v bournemouth under the new rules as he was originally offside but not active in the start of the move for the goal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Not even sure what the phase of play fully means, but surely the phase of play where Perez was offside had passed during the time Janmaat had received the ball to making his cross. Otherwise people would be offside fo nothing all the time, it would be far too complicated to both officiate and follow too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 When the ball was played to Jaanmat the only player in an offside position was Perez in the middle. Not interfering with play but when the ball was crossed Perez flicked it on to Mitro and he made himself active hence the offside decision to disallow the goal. This is wrong. As soon as he is back onside having been inactive in an offside position, he is allowed to become active again in the new phase of play. You sure about that? New rules were put in place this season so people become active again and hence offside. Wasn't the change not more to do with players blocking the keepers view/a defenders path whilst in an offside position? That was one change, but I remember benteke's goal earlier in the season that should had been disallowed v bournemouth under the new rules as he was originally offside but not active in the start of the goal. Ahh missed that tbh, I'll have to have a look at it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altamullan Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Janmaat was a yard on side but aye, that's the only thing I can think of. He was clearly ahead of both Perez and Mitrovic when he played the ball across. It's a f***ing appalling decision. Not excusing the second half capitulation by any means, but ffs. A deserved 2-0 and it's a different game. This! Had this argument with many braindead idiots. Not saying we would have gone on to win ffs, but to deny that it would have been a different game had we gone in ahead by 2 goals at HT is just stupid. It wasn't even a borderline decision, or a dubious sending off. It was a clear goal. A well worked move and a finish at the end of it. Boils my p*ss tbh. Your piss. My blood. Same pan. what a f**king image! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 When the ball was played to Jaanmat the only player in an offside position was Perez in the middle. Not interfering with play but when the ball was crossed Perez flicked it on to Mitro and he made himself active hence the offside decision to disallow the goal. This is wrong. As soon as he is back onside having been inactive in an offside position, he is allowed to become active again in the new phase of play. You sure about that? New rules were put in place this season so people become active again and hence offside. Absolutely sure, the new law is about 'obvious actions' that impact on the opponent's ability to stop a goal. Mainly the goalkeeper. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figures 1-0 Football Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 I didn't even notice when I was watching the game yesterday that the goal was actually onside - the coverage of it was extremely minimal. It was not even mentioned at half time either, I only realised when I caught a glance of it on MOTD in the pub last night. 2-0 would have been very different, not saying we would have won or anything but the game would have been entirely different. Man City had a similar issue away at Spurs, the equaliser was miles offside and was not given - Spurs go on to win 4-1. Freakily similar game to ours as well actually. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interpolic Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 If that offside call had been Man City versus Chelsea then it would have been a national talking point all week, even if Chelsea somehow managed to ship 6 goals afterwards. It wasn't, so it isn't. This is why it's getting more difficult to like football, any minor grievance on behalf of the rich sides is highlighted and everything else is swept under the carpet. See Ben Arfa getting his leg broken as the result of a savage challenge and numerous other incidents down the years. It's not a level playing field on or off the pitch. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowlingcrofty Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/34483718 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dinho lad Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 Would still score 5 goals past us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now