Jump to content

Newcastle United 1 - 0 Burton Albion - 05/04/17 - NUFC relegated to League Two


Recommended Posts

No I mean it literally doesn't matter. The rules are simple:

 

http://i.imgur.com/WOPdVPc.png

That's not what he meant though, if I'm reading things correctly. Shearergol is saying that if the pen is put wide or in the back of the net, it doesn't matter if there is an encroachment.

 

If we scored as we did, Gayles encroachment should have meant a retake. If Ritchie had missed but a Burton player had encroached then it should have been retaken, if Ritchie had scored when a Burton player had encroached it should have stood. Players from both teams encroaching means a retake.

 

The rules are understood. What I mean is Gayle's encroachment had no impact on the penalty. Had the penalty been saved and Gayle scored the rebound, that in my opinion is when the rule should be applied. I'm not doubting what the rule is, I'm stating what I think it should be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Love how there is more Burton players encroaching than Newcastle :lol:

 

 

 

Encroaching should only come into play if there's a rebound. Why does it even matter if a defender is in the box if the player scores or puts it wide?

 

??? It doesn't.

 

Doesn't it? So defenders are allowed to do it???

 

Effectively yeah. If the goal is scored, the defenders' actions are rendered meaningless by the rule above. Think I've just misinterpreted your point tbh.

 

Spot on Dave, the defenders action are indeed rendered meaningless if the goal is scored.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The rules are understood. What I mean is Gayle's encroachment had no impact on the penalty. Had the penalty been saved and Gayle scored the rebound, that in my opinion is when the rule should be applied. I'm not doubting what the rule is, I'm stating what I think it should be.

 

:thup:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought Atsu was massively disappointing tonight. He looks like he should have it all but rarely delivers. So frustrating to watch.

Ritchie on the other hand. What a bloody goal! :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Love how there is more Burton players encroaching than Newcastle [emoji38]

 

 

 

Encroaching should only come into play if there's a rebound. Why does it even matter if a defender is in the box if the player scores or puts it wide?

 

??? It doesn't.

 

Doesn't it? So defenders are allowed to do it???

 

Effectively yeah. If the goal is scored, the defenders' actions are rendered meaningless by the rule above. Think I've just misinterpreted your point tbh.

 

Spot on Dave, the defenders action are indeed rendered meaningless if the goal is scored.

It's a simple extension of playing advantage.

 

But we're going off track here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Love how there is more Burton players encroaching than Newcastle :lol:

 

 

 

Encroaching should only come into play if there's a rebound. Why does it even matter if a defender is in the box if the player scores or puts it wide?

 

??? It doesn't.

 

Doesn't it? So defenders are allowed to do it???

 

Effectively yeah. If the goal is scored, the defenders' actions are rendered meaningless by the rule above. Think I've just misinterpreted your point tbh.

 

Spot on Dave, the defenders action are indeed rendered meaningless if the goal is scored.

 

I get that much. I'll give up now before it clouds the real debate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No I mean it literally doesn't matter. The rules are simple:

 

http://i.imgur.com/WOPdVPc.png

That's not what he meant though, if I'm reading things correctly. Shearergol is saying that if the pen is put wide or in the back of the net, it doesn't matter if there is an encroachment.

 

If we scored as we did, Gayles encroachment should have meant a retake. If Ritchie had missed but a Burton player had encroached then it should have been retaken, if Ritchie had scored when a Burton player had encroached it should have stood. Players from both teams encroaching means a retake.

 

The rules are understood. What I mean is Gayle's encroachment had no impact on the penalty. Had the penalty been saved and Gayle scored the rebound, that in my opinion is when the rule should be applied. I'm not doubting what the rule is, I'm stating what I think it should be.

 

I know what you mean to be fair but personally i actually agree with this rule, or players will bomb in the box all the time before the ball is struck.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No I mean it literally doesn't matter. The rules are simple:

 

http://i.imgur.com/WOPdVPc.png

That's not what he meant though, if I'm reading things correctly. Shearergol is saying that if the pen is put wide or in the back of the net, it doesn't matter if there is an encroachment.

 

If we scored as we did, Gayles encroachment should have meant a retake. If Ritchie had missed but a Burton player had encroached then it should have been retaken, if Ritchie had scored when a Burton player had encroached it should have stood. Players from both teams encroaching means a retake.

 

The rules are understood. What I mean is Gayle's encroachment had no impact on the penalty. Had the penalty been saved and Gayle scored the rebound, that in my opinion is when the rule should be applied. I'm not doubting what the rule is, I'm stating what I think it should be.

 

I know what you mean to be fair but personally i actually agree with this rule, or players will bomb in the box all the time before the ball is struck.

 

Which wouldn't matter unless the ball rebounds. Suppose it might put the keeper or taker off though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, watching those highlights we definitely should have been more comfortable. The pen obvs, but Perez missed a sitter and Diame should have done a bit better with an effort. Shelvey whacked a couple over too. And that volley over for them was way harder than they made out on the coverage at the time. Would have been a stunning goal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest reefatoon

Yeah, we picked it up over the last 25 mins, but we only tested their keeper once in the first hour.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, watching those highlights we definitely should have been more comfortable. The pen obvs, but Perez missed a sitter and Diame should have done a bit better with an effort. Shelvey whacked a couple over too. And that volley over for them was way harder than they made out on the coverage at the time. Would have been a stunning goal.

 

Didn't even show that first pen incident.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No I mean it literally doesn't matter. The rules are simple:

 

http://i.imgur.com/WOPdVPc.png

That's not what he meant though, if I'm reading things correctly. Shearergol is saying that if the pen is put wide or in the back of the net, it doesn't matter if there is an encroachment.

 

If we scored as we did, Gayles encroachment should have meant a retake. If Ritchie had missed but a Burton player had encroached then it should have been retaken, if Ritchie had scored when a Burton player had encroached it should have stood. Players from both teams encroaching means a retake.

 

The rules are understood. What I mean is Gayle's encroachment had no impact on the penalty. Had the penalty been saved and Gayle scored the rebound, that in my opinion is when the rule should be applied. I'm not doubting what the rule is, I'm stating what I think it should be.

 

I know what you mean to be fair but personally i actually agree with this rule, or players will bomb in the box all the time before the ball is struck.

 

Which wouldn't matter unless the ball rebounds. Suppose it might put the keeper or taker off though.

 

I can understand that bit as well, it seems ok in practice but just wouldn't look or seem right imo. I think it's one of the more sensible rules actually, and funnily enough one of the few they can't feck around with. Hopefully.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, watching those highlights we definitely should have been more comfortable. The pen obvs, but Perez missed a sitter and Diame should have done a bit better with an effort. Shelvey whacked a couple over too. And that volley over for them was way harder than they made out on the coverage at the time. Would have been a stunning goal.

 

Didn't even show that first pen incident.

 

Thought he got the ball tbf. Nee idea how a corner wasn't given like.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest reefatoon

The weirdest thing I've ever seen.

 

Obviously you didn't see Rob Lee's 70-yard left footer Vs Brentford that was disallowed so we could have a free kick for offside? :lol:

 

Yep, that was just as frustrating and baffling. Poor Rob Lee, it was a peach.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://i.imgur.com/t2EUuts.png

 

Source: FIFA

 

That doesn't make sense.

 

If an attacking player encroaches, surely the outcome should be the same whether the penalty is scored, or not.

 

Depends when the ref stops play. It does make sense.

 

You're absolutely right, my apologies. The high pollen count is messing with my brain.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Missed all of this. To recap, correct me if I'm wrong, we won but the level of N-O bitchin' n' moanin' reached critical mass at some point?

 

The ref made the worst mistake I have ever seen basically. He didn't know the rules.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Missed all of this. To recap, correct me if I'm wrong, we won but the level of N-O bitchin' n' moanin' reached critical mass at some point?

 

The ref made the worst mistake I have ever seen basically. He didn't know the rules.

 

:thup:

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...