SlowDownDerek
UTC Legend
One bloke making a run from deep will put a stop to that tactic soon enough.
Newcastle United v AFC Bournemouth
- Thread starter billythekid
- Start date
One bloke making a run from deep will put a stop to that tactic soon enough.
I am still shaking my head in despair at the penalty decision. Yes, I know why it was given - an exploitation to the minutest degree of a ridiculous interpretation of the law. Everyone knows it was crazy. Everyone knows that a forward running into the pen area to attack a cross is interfering with play and is offside when the ball is kicked, if he is not interfering with play wtf is he doing.
I can forgive Smith, all defenders do it many times in their careers, I certainly would not make him a scapegoat, and he had a pretty decent game as well.
Just very frustrating, in my view this kind of law/decision should have no part in football. It is offside pure and simple everything else should be irrelevant.
I can forgive Smith, all defenders do it many times in their careers, I certainly would not make him a scapegoat, and he had a pretty decent game as well.
Just very frustrating, in my view this kind of law/decision should have no part in football. It is offside pure and simple everything else should be irrelevant.
Exactly, defenders moving out en masse used to be a popular tactic at one time, particularly when the offside law was interpreted as any player being offside across the whole width of the pitch.
Kenya Cherrie
UTC Legend
I still don't know why he was in that position. He wasn't going to be of any help there. Maybe the last guy in the wall of defender's.
Kudos
UTC Legend
Smith or Schar?
Senesi was tussling with Schar and then another Newcastle player runs at him and Senesi braces while Schar ghosts past and that's when Smith grabs him.
It's a blatant foul but as mentioned not always given and it might be Smith covering for another player.
Rob151060
First Team
Well said, and I’m pretty sure the opinion of most people (at least those who go to games). Just watched Dermot Gallagher’s attempt to explain it on Sky’s ref-watch too. Not only not convincing- completely wrong. Let’s hope we don’t need 2 points at Season’s end.
zigger zaggar
Star Player
He didn't, watch it again, his feet did not slip he was moving forward then realised he needed to move backwards and lost his balance and fell over backwards.
zigger zaggar
Star Player
What narrative is that Rob?
Leeds Cherry
Reserves
I read Forest have employed Mark Clattenburg as an advisor and go between to the referees. It is bound to make referees more aware about making decisions against them.
Could we do this?
Could we do this?
Kicks_On_66
First Team
I just finished watching the match on demand (I was visiting in the Kansas City area this weekend.) To my eye it was a return to form. Our press was dynamic and had the desired effects. With a little better luck, we could have won, with a little worse luck, we could have lost. For me it's another good away point against a good side.
Hope everyone who travelled up had a good time, regardless of the result.
We're really struggling at the minute. No Pope and no Joelinton means the style that was so effective last season (and early in this one) just can't be used. This compromise we're using means we can still make chances, but we're so open at the back.
Anyone with a pacey winger (and everyone has a pacey winger) can get balls behind Dan Burn because he's not protected by Joelinton in front, nor Pope behind.
Honestly just written off this season now. We have no fit striker, only 3 fit midfielders, we're missing our first choice 'keeper. And that's likely the case for much of the remaining season. Hopefully we'll end up somewhere between 6th and 9th and next season we'll be a little less unfortunate when it comes to injuries and suspensions.
We're really struggling at the minute. No Pope and no Joelinton means the style that was so effective last season (and early in this one) just can't be used. This compromise we're using means we can still make chances, but we're so open at the back.
Anyone with a pacey winger (and everyone has a pacey winger) can get balls behind Dan Burn because he's not protected by Joelinton in front, nor Pope behind.
Honestly just written off this season now. We have no fit striker, only 3 fit midfielders, we're missing our first choice 'keeper. And that's likely the case for much of the remaining season. Hopefully we'll end up somewhere between 6th and 9th and next season we'll be a little less unfortunate when it comes to injuries and suspensions.
billythekid
UTC Legend
Your view of the penalty incident?
Probably a fair result in the end but a frustrating one for us with the penalty and late goal. Injuries have certainly cost you but it was an entertaining game. The Geordies were welcoming as usual in all the places we went to. Great city, good luck for the rest of the season and see you next year.
It's a dumb law of the game. Schar may have been in a fractionally offside position, but Smith had a handful of his shirt which is a foul and Schar wasn't definitely interfering with play, yet.
Say Smith doesn't foul Schar and the ball actually got through to Schar, then Schar is interfering with play from an offside position and you get a freekick.
I'd be aggrieved if it happened to us, but according to the laws of the game, the officials got this one right.
If the offside law was well written and made sense, there's no controversy around the penalty.
billythekid
UTC Legend
It was the different reactions to the decision.
Some thought it was a penalty others not.
Our manager still seemed bemused even after speaking to the referee.
Then they had that discussion with Dermot Gallagher, disagreement there.
Twelve times to be viewed by the referee, so he must have had doubt, plus he didn’t have a wide screen view.
As you say, probably like our fans are not happy about it, let alone our manager, if it was as you say on the other foot, not sure Eddie would have been happy with it. Be interesting now, that he might have seen it what his view would be.
Thanks for your point of view on the incident.
Last edited:
billythekid
UTC Legend
Same referee involved in discussion after the game with Gary O’Neil.
O’Neil revealed that in a lengthy post-match meeting in the referee’s room, referee Michael Salisbury admitted that he made a mistake for the first Fulham penalty, which was given after Nelson Semedo caught Tom Cairney on the edge of the box.
Later on, O'Neil was told that Fulham’s Tim Ream and Carlos Vinicius should have been sent off for separate incidents.
He (Salisbury) doesn't think the first one is a penalty because he thinks he should have been sent to the (VAR) screen and he would have overturned it from the images that we watched together in his room. He regrets the fact that he wasn’t sent to the screen,’ said O’Neil.
‘The last penalty is the most contentious one. They think they got it right. I disagree but the fact that he's not sent to the screen for the one that is a clear and obvious error and then is sent to the screen for the last one is really confusing.'
www.dailymail.co.uk
O’Neil revealed that in a lengthy post-match meeting in the referee’s room, referee Michael Salisbury admitted that he made a mistake for the first Fulham penalty, which was given after Nelson Semedo caught Tom Cairney on the edge of the box.
Later on, O'Neil was told that Fulham’s Tim Ream and Carlos Vinicius should have been sent off for separate incidents.
He (Salisbury) doesn't think the first one is a penalty because he thinks he should have been sent to the (VAR) screen and he would have overturned it from the images that we watched together in his room. He regrets the fact that he wasn’t sent to the screen,’ said O’Neil.
‘The last penalty is the most contentious one. They think they got it right. I disagree but the fact that he's not sent to the screen for the one that is a clear and obvious error and then is sent to the screen for the last one is really confusing.'
Referee admitted he 'got it wrong' with Fulham's first pen - O'Neil
AADAM PATEL AT CRAVEN COTTAGE: Gary O'Neil's side have found themselves on the wrong end of a series of decisions this season and here was another on a controversial night.
Yeah, not to get all Old Man Shouting at Clouds, but it used to be that the offside law was there to prevent a player getting an unfair advantage by posting up between defence and goalkeeper. I don't think having your big toe an inch ahead of the defender is an unfair advantage. It doesn't account for gait, stride length, or shoe size.
Did Schar gain an unfair advantage? Not for me, he was still in the melee.
And now you have arguments about phases of play, was the player interfering with play or not, it's a mess. So is the handball law.
The only reasonable thing to do is tear it all up, award us the League and Cup double and start the whole thing over. It's the only way to be sure.
billythekid
UTC Legend
But why wasn't it a foul on Christie and a free kick to us instead ?
I can see that it was a foul on Schär but If you watch that passage of play, Christie is being wrestled much more aggressively than Schär was, the only difference being that he kept trying to free himself rather than throw himself to the ground.
In situations like that, there are always multiple "fouls" going on but somehow the one on Schär takes precedence, despite the fact that he was offside anyway ? Presumably because he threw himself to the floor, waved his arms in the air and because Newcastle were playing at home in front of a vociferous crowd ?
I notice too that apart from Schär, none of the other NUFC players thought it was worth appealing for anything.
For me that remains one of the softest penalties I have ever seen.
The fact that he ended up offside in the end anyway, makes it even more galling.
Credit to the lads for not letting it get to them.
They got their heads down, kept playing and managed to get ahead again.
This game was a return to form for us, after a couple of games where we looked like we had lost our mojo. We deserved to win but still came away with a point despite an unfortunate decision going against us.
Happy with that and the lads should be too !
I can see that it was a foul on Schär but If you watch that passage of play, Christie is being wrestled much more aggressively than Schär was, the only difference being that he kept trying to free himself rather than throw himself to the ground.
In situations like that, there are always multiple "fouls" going on but somehow the one on Schär takes precedence, despite the fact that he was offside anyway ? Presumably because he threw himself to the floor, waved his arms in the air and because Newcastle were playing at home in front of a vociferous crowd ?
I notice too that apart from Schär, none of the other NUFC players thought it was worth appealing for anything.
For me that remains one of the softest penalties I have ever seen.
The fact that he ended up offside in the end anyway, makes it even more galling.
Credit to the lads for not letting it get to them.
They got their heads down, kept playing and managed to get ahead again.
This game was a return to form for us, after a couple of games where we looked like we had lost our mojo. We deserved to win but still came away with a point despite an unfortunate decision going against us.
Happy with that and the lads should be too !
