Newcastle United v AFC Bournemouth

I am concerned that a so called expert calls it one way and then another so called expert puts his point of view across. Plus the offence started outside of the box and continues surely the foul is when it is first committed not 3 or 4 steps later. But what do we know we don't have a so called expert to give us his view.

Time to call the VAR review decisions by committee.
 
hba1 said:
I am concerned that a so called expert calls it one way and then another so called expert puts his point of view across. Plus the offence started outside of the box and continues surely the foul is when it is first committed not 3 or 4 steps later. But what do we know we don't have a so called expert to give us his view.

Time to call the VAR review decisions by committee.
Click to expand...
Doesn't everyone want VAR demolished?
Maybe they should have another vote on it.
 
Flake said:
My take from all that is that VAR wanted to give it as offside, but then the assistant VAR chimes in with, "I think it might be this" and so rather than it being a clear and obvious error it's a couple of blokes who aren't quite sure if it should be a penalty or not, deciding to tell the ref he has to give a penalty. The ref going to the monitor was pointless because they just told him to give the penalty (because he didn't know what they were on about). Michael Owen is baffled by it and thinks it's offside, so Howard Webb gives a rambling explanation which explains why they gave a type of penalty that has probably never been given before, and will never be given again.
My explanation of it is probably just as unclear and rambly.

Also, if the VAR had stuck with his original plan to rule it out for offside (before his assistant decides to suggest giving a penalty anyway) I cannot believe anyone from Newcastle would have complained that they didn't get a penalty. So while Smith is stupid for pulling the shirt, this isn't a clear and obvious mistake by the referee.
Click to expand...

One of the VAR guys knew the law and corrected his colleague and, as stupid as the law is, he was right.

The law is ridiculous but it is clear on what happens in these situations, which is what they gave.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
One of the VAR guys knew the law and corrected his colleague and, as stupid as the law is, he was right.

The law is ridiculous but it is clear on what happens in these situations, which is what they gave.
Click to expand...
Yes we understand the issue, but it is irritating when we are being hit with obscure rules. If we got the penalty nobody would have complained except the whole of geordie land.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
One of the VAR guys knew the law and corrected his colleague and, as stupid as the law is, he was right.

The law is ridiculous but it is clear on what happens in these situations, which is what they gave.
Click to expand...
Although to make it even more complicated, the shirt pulling started outside the box. At what point is the player offside, and is this when he's in the box
 
The Fish said:
No, I get it and I'm not looking to convince anybody that they should, in fact, be happy. I know I'd be livid if I were you.

You must be pretty confident of staying up now? Sheffield and Burnley look like they're competing for worst team in the league, so that's 2 spots sewn up. Everton and Forest having points deductions push them deep into the mire. Crystal Palace and Luton will complete the 6 teams in genuine danger of going down. I think Brentford have enough about them (Toney especially) to get themselves safe.

Where do you need to strengthen next season?
Click to expand...
That's fair mate. I know you're a good poster and not out for the wind up which is why I wanted to share the context of our discontent.

I'm cautiously optimistic that we'll stay up, we seem to be surviving our own mini injury crisis while remaining competitive but not had to manage without Solanke yet.

Thankfully the pattern of having a couple of teams fall apart has returned this season as it was a bit squeaky at times last season. I think Palace will probably be alright as well. A points deduction for Everton and particularly Forest would be very welcome.

To be honest, I'm pretty happy with the squad as it looks now. We could do with shedding a couple of players, some of which will just have expiring contracts.

We're probably losing Kelly at the end of the season so could do with someone to cover LB/CB if Hill doesn't look like growing into the role.

We don't have all the money in the world so I think it's a case of trying to exploit the market for anyone who would improve or has the potential to improve the team.
 
Flake said:
My take from all that is that VAR wanted to give it as offside, but then the assistant VAR chimes in with, "I think it might be this" and so rather than it being a clear and obvious error it's a couple of blokes who aren't quite sure if it should be a penalty or not, deciding to tell the ref he has to give a penalty. The ref going to the monitor was pointless because they just told him to give the penalty (because he didn't know what they were on about). Michael Owen is baffled by it and thinks it's offside, so Howard Webb gives a rambling explanation which explains why they gave a type of penalty that has probably never been given before, and will never be given again.
My explanation of it is probably just as unclear and rambly.

Also, if the VAR had stuck with his original plan to rule it out for offside (before his assistant decides to suggest giving a penalty anyway) I cannot believe anyone from Newcastle would have complained that they didn't get a penalty. So while Smith is stupid for pulling the shirt, this isn't a clear and obvious mistake by the referee.
Click to expand...
It's embarrassing watching them fumble with this notion that a player challenging for a header isn't interfering with play.

By their definition it's fine to stand right in front of the 'keeper blocking his view provided you don't attempt to the play the ball. It's bollox, everyone there knows it
 
Kudos said:
It's embarrassing watching them fumble with this notion that a player challenging for a header isn't interfering with play.

By their definition it's fine to stand right in front of the 'keeper blocking his view provided you don't attempt to the play the ball. It's bollox, everyone there knows it
Click to expand...
Harry Kane got away with that last year.
 
Kenya Cherrie said:
Two of their players were offside that's why the linesman put his flag up.
Click to expand...

They were offside but being offside is not an offence. The offence is commited when challenging for the ball, which he didn't do because he was on the floor after being fouled. The rules are clear as day on this as Webb explained.
 
Kudos said:
It's embarrassing watching them fumble with this notion that a player challenging for a header isn't interfering with play.

By their definition it's fine to stand right in front of the 'keeper blocking his view provided you don't attempt to the play the ball. It's bollox, everyone there knows it
Click to expand...

No it is not acceptable to block the keeper's view. That is clear in the rules too.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
They were offside but being offside is not an offence. The offence is commited when challenging for the ball, which he didn't do because he was on the floor after being fouled. The rules are clear as day on this as Webb explained.
Click to expand...
Agree with your explanation as to the way the laws are applied (I believe you also think it’s a nuts outcome but that’s not the point).

For me, the obvious practical outcome in all of this is that, where a defending player (Smith) feels he is in a bit of a trouble because an attacking player (Scharr) has stolen half a yard on him in circumstances where that defending player believes the attacking player is likely to be offside, the defending player should nevertheless delay any form of tactical foul until the ball is much closer to them such that its far more obvious that the attacking player is going to challenge for it….That would then negate this VAR timing issue.

So in this case, Smith should have let Scharr go at first and, just as the ball was about to reach Scharr’s head, grabbed him by the scruff of the neck and yanked him to the floor.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
They were offside but being offside is not an offence. The offence is commited when challenging for the ball, which he didn't do because he was on the floor after being fouled. The rules are clear as day on this as Webb explained.
Click to expand...
You could easily argue that running into the penalty area intending to head a cross that is coming towards you is challenging for the ball. At what point is movement towards the ball deemed to be a challenge? A yard away? 5 yards ? 10 yards? The so called offence of being offside only when challenging is not black or white it is just an interpretation by whoever is on VAR duty at the time.
 
The Fish said:
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.
Click to expand...
Where do you think Ed and Jay will be just out of interest?
 
Kenya Cherrie said:
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.

50,000 fans shouting for a foul, the ref has to be influenced. it was happening all the time during the game. He was also stopping the game when one of their players went down injured, it should be play on until the ball is dead except for head injuries.
Click to expand...
Absolutely this. Christie was being pushed as well. The simple answer and is they didn't want to see that.
 
hba1 said:
I am concerned that a so called expert calls it one way and then another so called expert puts his point of view across. Plus the offence started outside of the box and continues surely the foul is when it is first committed not 3 or 4 steps later. But what do we know we don't have a so called expert to give us his view.

Time to call the VAR review decisions by committee.
Click to expand...
Two seasons ago in the Championship, Dom won a penalty for a foul that started outside the box and continued into the box. I think there are reasons to either give a penalty or just give a free kick in that specific situation. I just wish they would make up their minds and all do the same thing. For me, the reason why Schar shouldn't have got a penalty was he was offside, and if a penalty can be given, then clearly, you have to have been involved enough in play for the offside to be flagged up. Also, Christie was fouled at the same time.
 
Standent said:
Agree with your explanation as to the way the laws are applied (I believe you also think it’s a nuts outcome but that’s not the point).

For me, the obvious practical outcome in all of this is that, where a defending player (Smith) feels he is in a bit of a trouble because an attacking player (Scharr) has stolen half a yard on him in circumstances where that defending player believes the attacking player is likely to be offside, the defending player should nevertheless delay any form of tactical foul until the ball is much closer to them such that its far more obvious that the attacking player is going to challenge for it….That would then negate this VAR timing issue.

So in this case, Smith should have let Scharr go at first and, just as the ball was about to reach Scharr’s head, grabbed him by the scruff of the neck and yanked him to the floor.
Click to expand...

I don't know, really difficult for Smith to decide whether he's offside or not in the heat of the moment. What he definitely shouldn't do is pull someone's shirt like that - that's the biggest crime here even taking into account the stupid rule.
 
  • Like
Reactions: drd
You must log in or register to reply here.

;