This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
trapperjohn Horsham 05 Sep 22 8.31am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by steeleye20
The PGMOL have reviewed and found the goal should have stood. Which of course makes it obvious it was correctly ruled out! Offside and foul on the keeper. I really enjoyed the dismay at the final whistle when they realised all their money couldn't even buy them a goal.
Even now Peter Walton in the Times disagrees and says decision was correct. So hardly a clear cut “mistake”
I got vision, and the rest of the world wears bifocals. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
taylors lovechild 05 Sep 22 8.35am | |
---|---|
Whether it should have stood or not, it would have been a lucky goal not one that was crafted out. Newcastle look like they might do quite well as a premium-quality Burnley this season with big, strong lads and lots of direct balls. However, I still can't shake the thought out of my head that the day Shearer and the owners take to social media to complain about a VAR call a woman in Saudi Arabia is sentenced to 45 years for sharing a few tweets to her 153 followers, while orphan girls are dragged into the street and beaten for asking for rights.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Putitout Oxford 05 Sep 22 9.26am | |
---|---|
Referees, their decisions, have always been sport. Always will , as we will never avoid the contentious in football decisions. Even with VAR that remains the case as VAR highlights the contentious decision. It doesn’t stop it being contentious.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
eritheagle Erith 05 Sep 22 9.26am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by trapperjohn
Even now Peter Walton in the Times disagrees and says decision was correct. So hardly a clear cut “mistake” I think that in past seasons the goal may have been ruled ok or a penalty given but I think that this season with the new 'letting minimal contact go' stance then they decided to rule it out.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Putitout Oxford 05 Sep 22 9.47am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by eritheagle
I think that in past seasons the goal may have been ruled ok or a penalty given but I think that this season with the new 'letting minimal contact go' stance then they decided to rule it out. I agree Mitchells hand on Willock was minimal touch. Players are putting hands on all the time, it has been ignored by refs for years now. And this year in particular ,due to pressure from clubs ,managers, players, and others referees are allowing more and more of this if not considered extreme. The clear fact was Willock flattened the goalkeeper and you really can not do that, the strength of any push was difficult to assess ,flattening the goalkeeper wasn’t. The rules used to be fairly simple, applied simply . Now all those involved tend to want it all ways, that’s until what they wanted smacks them in the face.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Willo South coast - west of Brighton. 05 Sep 22 9.48am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by eritheagle
I think that in past seasons the goal may have been ruled ok or a penalty given but I think that this season with the new 'letting minimal contact go' stance then they decided to rule it out. So far as I can see with my aged eyes, Mitchell just put his hand up as they were both challenging for the ball and any contact was minimal, there was no shove, Willock then leapt into Guaita and knocked him to the ground.FOUL. I suspect three will be those who are of the opinion that I am in dire need of an urgent visit to 'SpecSavers'! Edited by Willo (05 Sep 2022 9.55am)
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Putitout Oxford 05 Sep 22 9.56am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Willo
So far as I can see with my aged eyes, Mitchell just put his hand up as they were both challenging for the ball and any contact was minimal, there was no shove, Willock then leapt into Guaita and knocked him to the ground.FOUL. Edited by Willo (05 Sep 2022 9.49am) I start to wonder if the much hyped atmosphere that is St James park nowadays is being allowed to influence how this particular decision is being viewed even by such as the PGMOL.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Wilesy01 Bristol 05 Sep 22 9.58am | |
---|---|
Willock's momentum was going to wipe out Guiata regardless of the contact from Mitchell. I really do not understand the furore over this incident. Yes, I'd be cheesed off if I was a Toon fan but it's certainly not on the level as the Mendy incident against West Ham on Saturday and it's disingenuous to pretend that it is. Really starting to dislike Newcastle.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Willo South coast - west of Brighton. 05 Sep 22 10.03am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Wilesy01
Willock's momentum was going to wipe out Guiata regardless of the contact from Mitchell. I really do not understand the furore over this incident. Yes, I'd be cheesed off if I was a Toon fan but it's certainly not on the level as the Mendy incident against West Ham on Saturday and it's disingenuous to pretend that it is. Really starting to dislike Newcastle. I would have been molten with anger, as a long-standing fan of our club, if the goal had been awarded. If the goal had been allowed to stand I suspect many of us would have concluded that the decision was based on the fact that the incident took place at St James' Park, favouring the Home team and their 50,000 supporters. Edited by Willo (05 Sep 2022 10.05am)
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
palace chick South Croydon 05 Sep 22 10.08am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Willo
So far as I can see with my aged eyes, Mitchell just put his hand up as they were both challenging for the ball and any contact was minimal, there was no shove, Willock then leapt into Guaita and knocked him to the ground.FOUL. I suspect three will be those who are of the opinion that I am in dire need of an urgent visit to 'SpecSavers'! Edited by Willo (05 Sep 2022 9.55am) As you say the Newcastle player flattened our goalkeeper. Doesn’t matter if he could get the ball or not. It was a foul and with it or without VAR it was correct not to allow the goal. VAR then the ref looking at the screen made the correct decision. I would like to think I would feel the same way if it was a goal for us being overruled if one of our players flattened the opponents goalkeeper :-)
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
doombear Too far from Selhurst Park 05 Sep 22 11.42am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Willo
So far as I can see with my aged eyes, Mitchell just put his hand up as they were both challenging for the ball and any contact was minimal, there was no shove, Willock then leapt into Guaita and knocked him to the ground.FOUL. I suspect three will be those who are of the opinion that I am in dire need of an urgent visit to 'SpecSavers'! Edited by Willo (05 Sep 2022 9.55am)
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
mtp1958 Oswestry 05 Sep 22 11.50am | |
---|---|
Just seen the disallowed goal , the ref didnt make a clear and obvious mistake so he didnt need to change , it was a goal , but makes a change to get in our favour ,
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Registration is now on our new message board
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.