Newcastle v Manchester City

[bloovee]

(4 mins in)

Another poor offside decision. Being kind, I can only assume the AR thought Toure had got his head to it. (The Daily Mail said he was offside for ten seconds which is an interesting way of re-reading the law!)

Let's say that is the case, rather than just missing an obvious offside. Would the AR not have asked the CR (Kevin Friend) who scored? Would Aguero's leap not have qualified as interfering with an opponent? (not easy to answer.) Aguero stands IOP at most FKs swung into the box, it's very odd.


I suppose the penalty claim is another hard call. (10 mins in) Mbemba's foot goes across Aguero's path and I'm not sure Aguero could avoid kicking the leg but is it a trip? Not the most blatant penalty City have not had this season (and not as bad as some of the bad offsides suffered, two in one match... )

And after the disallowed goal two seasons ago - 2.48 at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlc8IPdWPPA - the first goal is all the luck we could expect at Newcastle.

 

[J-K]

He was offside BUT, stop the video on 4:13 the ball has travelled 10 yds in probably less than a quarter of a second (probably a lot less), at that point Aguero is onside, the Assistant also has 4 players between his position and the ball so seeing the moment of contact is very difficult.

 

[bloovee]

I'm sorry, but that's bread and butter stuff. It's what we do.

 

[Russell Jones]

He was offside BUT, stop the video on 4:13 the ball has travelled 10 yds in probably less than a quarter of a second (probably a lot less), at that point Aguero is onside, the Assistant also has 4 players between his position and the ball so seeing the moment of contact is very difficult.

Glad to hear how tolerant you'll be towards me when I'm on the line to you next season

 

[Matthew]

He absolutely should have spotted it because Sergio was well offside, but this one definitely falls into the category of I can see why he missed it.

Should have been a penalty, but safe to say we've had our fair share of good luck at Newcastle in recent years, so one had to go against us eventually.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

If the AR isn't sure who touched the ball in a scenario like this, he needs to speak to the referee. Because if the AR is able to say 'blue 15 was in an offside position but I can't tell if he touched it' and the referee can say 'blue 15 touched the ball but I don't know if he was offside', then by discussing the incident........
And isn't that exactly what wireless comms are for?

 

[Jacob Walukiewicz]

I absolutely think he should of got this right. I was watching in real time at the angle as well and I could tell he was offside the entire time. I was shocked when the flag didn't go up.

 

[bloovee]

Not got the clips from Saturday (City v Stoke) but a bit of consistency helps. Four Stoke players IOP at a FK, all headed toward Hart in goal, and Hart elected to punch the ball out (whereas he'd probably have just parried it down but for the forwards' running toward him) - maybe not strictly interfering under the new definition (none of them got near the ball and didn't prevent the GK from playing it) but clearly interfering with the GK's decision-making. Then a City attacker over the goal-line hung back rather than be offside but came on just as a defender sliced a clearance - I doubt the defender saw him but the flag went up. (I think the AR thought the attacker intended to interfere, but so did the Stoke forwards.) It's just more examples of why the new definition will not end inconsistency.