Jump to content
Newcastle-Online

Newcastle United 1-2 Liverpool (27/08/23)

Yorkie

by Yorkie
in Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

Wullie

Wullie

Posted
Posted

The "genuine attempt to play the ball" rule only comes into play if the foul is in the box (a change to the old double jeopardy rule where a mistimed last ditch tackle would be punished by both a red and a penalty).

 

Outside the box it's completely irrelevant.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ExiledGeordie

ExiledGeordie

Posted
Posted (edited)

So I watched the match at the back end of a massive bender in Berlin. To say that one hurt was a massive understatement given I was already on the ropes in the 12th round anyway ? It just had to be these cunts again didn’t it. One of our good pals in the group is a massive scouser and Pool fan and we were able to have a laugh about it after. That Nunez winner was as tough as a sucker punch I can remember in recent times. 
 

I just think this game summed up why we’re not quite there yet but then considering how far we’ve come in 18 months it’s been amazing progression. It’s cliched but the players will learn more from this result than possibly any other loss. Whatever you think of Liverpool they have a knack and experience of staying in games and having some unbelievable comebacks. We’re still learning. 
 

Yes there’s debate over substitutions, tactics, losing our shape and intensity second half, Bruno losing the ball in a key situation…..but ultimately we just didn’t take our chances to finish them off and they took theirs. We need to learn to keep our foot on someone’s throat and finish things off, that’s what top sides do.
 

We’re not there yet but we’re developing and learning how to get there. I think you need to take a step back after a result as hurting as this and just look at the bigger picture; it’s one result, the club is looking to build and move forwards which is the main thing after the dark days of Ashley. 

 

 

 

 

Edited by ExiledGeordie

Link to post
Share on other sites
leffe186

leffe186

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Displayname said:

What wasnt clear cut with the red card? That is was a foul or that it would have been a clear goal scoring oppurtunity if he hadnt been fouled?

 

Both seem obvious to me.


I mean, it was a foul. He gets the ball, but he goes through him to get it. If he didn’t take Isak’s right foot first then is Isak clean through? Maybe. But since VVD did get the ball as Isak was falling I don’t think we have a definitive answer. Thus I would have probably erred on the side of caution and yellow-carded him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
El Prontonise

El Prontonise

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, leffe186 said:


I mean, it was a foul. He gets the ball, but he goes through him to get it. If he didn’t take Isak’s right foot first then is Isak clean through? Maybe. But since VVD did get the ball as Isak was falling I don’t think we have a definitive answer. Thus I would have probably erred on the side of caution and yellow-carded him.

 

I think some refs would give a red card, some a yellow.

 

 

Edited by El Prontonise

Link to post
Share on other sites
leffe186

leffe186

Posted
Posted
Just now, El Prontonise said:

 

I think some refs would give a red card, some a yellow.

 


I agree. Like I say, that’s why I was surprised when I saw it after reading the thread. Nothing crazy, just expected it to be more blatant.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gallowgate Toon

Gallowgate Toon

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, leffe186 said:


I mean, it was a foul. He gets the ball, but he goes through him to get it. If he didn’t take Isak’s right foot first then is Isak clean through? Maybe. But since VVD did get the ball as Isak was falling I don’t think we have a definitive answer. Thus I would have probably erred on the side of caution and yellow-carded him.

You can't really apply shoulda, woulda, coulda here though, can you? The only thing we know is that VVD is last man on the edge of the box and takes Isak out. His only route to getting the ball at that time was to go through him. Making cases about what might've happened if he didn't make the challenge is kinda endless; lots of things could've happened but it's very reasonable to assume that he makes the move then because he knows he's been beaten.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Displayname

Displayname

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, leffe186 said:


I mean, it was a foul. He gets the ball, but he goes through him to get it. If he didn’t take Isak’s right foot first then is Isak clean through? Maybe. But since VVD did get the ball as Isak was falling I don’t think we have a definitive answer. Thus I would have probably erred on the side of caution and yellow-carded him.

Not sure what you mean by this. The pathway and speed of the ball was pretty much perfectly laid up for Isak who was in front of VVD.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Erikse

Erikse

Posted
Posted (edited)

I think in situations like these, positioning relative to other defenders (and the goal) + chances of being able to control the ball is much more important to consider than what the guy who commited the foul could've done instead.. The opportunities of the player who commited the foul probably doesn't even count, we already know that he ended up making the error of commiting the foul instead of following Isak to pressure him.

 

 

Edited by Erikse

Link to post
Share on other sites
TRon

TRon

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, Displayname said:

Not sure what you mean by this. The pathway and speed of the ball was pretty much perfectly laid up for Isak who was in front of VVD.

 

Isak would have scored if VVD hadn't taken him out. It wasn't an obvious foul because of the angle he came in at, but it was one of the few decisions the ref actually got right.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wullie

Wullie

Posted
Posted

I don't understand how that can possibly be a contentious red card like. Without the challenge, Isak is 1 on 1 with the goalkeeper. I think it's as clear an example of DOGSO that you will see, short of a player being scythed down from behind (e.g. Solskjaer on Lee).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kid Icarus

Kid Icarus

Posted
Posted (edited)

I honestly just think they needed a talking point from the weekend and shoehorned that in. It really should have been about Arsenal scoring after Saka had fouled and injured that Fulham player imo.

 

You have to love the Carragher argument though, it's essentially 'well we don't know if it was a goalscoring opportunity because VVD fouled him before we knew for sure' :lol: As Jack Nicholson put it in As Good as it Gets, "I'm drowning here, and you're describing the water"

 

 

Edited by Kid Icarus

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lush Vlad

Lush Vlad

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, ExiledGeordie said:

Yes there’s debate over substitutions, tactics, losing our shape and intensity second half, Bruno losing the ball in a key situation…..but ultimately we just didn’t take our chances to finish them off and they took theirs. We need to learn to keep our foot on someone’s throat and finish things off, that’s what top sides do.

 

 

 

 

 


This is it, for me. Used the exact same term about ‘foot on their throat’ to a few mates after the game. We were far too timid second half and played like we were scared to lose. If it was 2-0, I would have understood it. But with their manager, style of play and the attacking players they have at their disposal. Doing that at 1-0 seemed daft. 
 

I know we still should have scored a couple more. But it wasn’t like we had endless pressure, with world class save after save. We didn’t really stretch them or sustain pressure and attacks for long enough periods. 
 

Ah well. Live and learn. 

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
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...