Matchday 2 - Its a marathon not a sprint

[NUFC Tiger]

They looked sharp, especially in the first half. Sunderland threw a lot at them for a 15 minute period in the second half but they held firm. I think they'll have a decent season.

It's refreshing for another team to reign supreme in the north east!

Hopefully no points donations from us will result in the Mackem menace finally going down!

 

[moomba]

Just had a look at our highlights. Thought Dean got all three penalty decisions wrong. Otamendi was holding Shawcross as much as the other way around. Kolarov was pretty blatant. Sterling wasnt a foul in any way. You are allowed to touch a player.

 

[Cruyff14]

Just had a look at our highlights. Thought Dean got all three penalty decisions wrong. Otamendi was holding Shawcross as much as the other way around. Kolarov was pretty blatant. Sterling wasnt a foul in any way. You are allowed to touch a player.

Can't really disagree with that.

 

[typeclub]

The FA trying to boost the confidence of the big teams back up with these soft as s**t pens and not sending off players.

 

[Zidane98]

The FA trying to boost the confidence of the big teams back up with these soft as s**t pens and not sending off players.

Have you considered a job at a KGB troll factory? Can see you fitting in there perfectly.

 

[SM]

Just had a look at our highlights. Thought Dean got all three penalty decisions wrong. Otamendi was holding Shawcross as much as the other way around. Kolarov was pretty blatant. Sterling wasnt a foul in any way. You are allowed to touch a player.

You aren't allowed to touch if you aren't even looking at the ball. As soon as Sterling touched he was seen to be impeding. Right call for me.

Shawcross as well was the right call. Again he's the one grappling and not looking for the ball, Otamendi may be holding as well but he's at least trying to make a play for it. Kolarov call was wrong though.

 

[moomba]

You aren't allowed to touch if you aren't even looking at the ball.

What rule number is that?

Surely you're only impeding if you impede someone.

 

[SM]

What rule number is that?

Surely you're only impeding if you impede someone.

Well, yes.. and I would say grabbing someone while not looking at the ball is an attempt to impede. I suppose you could say it should have only been an indirect free kick but those are so rarely given.

 

[moomba]

Well, yes.. and I would say grabbing someone while not looking at the ball is an attempt to impede. I suppose you could say it should have only been an indirect free kick but those are so rarely given.

No. It should have been play on. If he fouled Shawcross then it should absolutely have been a penalty. But neither looking the wrong way, or touching someone constitutes a foul under the laws of the game.

To me it falls into that category of made up rules that a lot of commentators like to spout. "He got the ball", "it wasn't a deliberate handball", "he felt contact".

All bollocks. A foul is a foul.

 

[Zidane98]

No. It should have been play on. If he fouled Shawcross then it should absolutely have been a penalty. But neither looking the wrong way, or touching someone constitutes a foul under the laws of the game.

To me it falls into that category of made up rules that a lot of commentators like to spout. "He got the ball", "it wasn't a deliberate handball", "he felt contact".

All bollocks. A foul is a foul.

SM is correct on this one. Obstruction is listed under the law of the game. Sterling had his back to the ball and was attempting to block Shawcross. It is soft but payable under the laws of the game.

 

[Cooldude]

They probably would've paid a free to it for a shepherd in footy, it's pretty blatant

 

[moomba]

SM is correct on this one. Obstruction is listed under the law of the game. Sterling had his back to the ball and was attempting to block Shawcross. It is soft but payable under the laws of the game.

He didnt obstruct anyone imo.

 

[Zidane98]

He didnt obstruct anyone.

He did by moving to block Shawcross. If he had of challenged for the ball no problems. It was there to give although a lot of referees may let it go.

 

[moomba]

He did by moving to block Shawcross. If he had of challenged for the ball no problems. It was there to give although a lot of referees may let it go.

I'll agree to disagree.

 

[jd2010]

Sterling with all his might cant obstruct Shawcross

 

[moomba]

Sterling with all his might cant obstruct Shawcross

If he did try to block him he would do well to avoid Shawcross post match interview.

You wouldnt want to give it your best shot and have your target say he barely noticed ha ha.

 

[SM]

No. It should have been play on. If he fouled Shawcross then it should absolutely have been a penalty. But neither looking the wrong way, or touching someone constitutes a foul under the laws of the game.

To me it falls into that category of made up rules that a lot of commentators like to spout. "He got the ball", "it wasn't a deliberate handball", "he felt contact".

All bollocks. A foul is a foul.

You do realise that a handball being deliberate is one of the criteria under which a free kick can be paid..?

 

[SM]

He didnt obstruct anyone imo.

Yeah.. and that's where the conversation ends.

 

[moomba]

You do realise that a handball being deliberate is one of the criteria under which a free kick can be paid..?

You do realise that you don't have to deliberately handle the ball to commit a handball offence?

 

[SM]

You do realise that you don't have to deliberately handle the ball to commit a handball offence?

Where did I say otherwise?

 

[moomba]

You're a strange boy.

 

[SM]

You're a strange boy.

You need to learn to read.

"You do realise that a handball being deliberate is one of the criteria under which a free kick can be paid..?"

If a handball is deliberate, it's a free kick.

If the hand is at an unnatural angle - whilst not being deliberate, it's a free kick.

I.e. you can have your hand at a natural angle, but be deliberately blocking the ball, and it's a free kick.

I think you need to go read that rule book of yours again before you start spouting off as if you know more about the laws of the game than the professional referees.

 

[moomba]

That was entirely my point. Commentators go on about a handball not being deliberate often don't know the rules of the game where a handball doesn't need to be deliberate to be an offence.

It was one example of where people make up laws of the game that don't exist. Like looking the wrong way, or getting the ball first.

So forgive me for being baffled by your post. I just presumed you were being a knobhead again.

 

[SM]

That was entirely my point. Commentators go on about a handball not being deliberate often don't know the rules of the game where a handball doesn't need to be deliberate to be an offence.

It was one example of where people make up laws of the game that don't exist. Like looking the wrong way, or getting the ball first.

So forgive me for being baffled by your post.

I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse now..

You complained about them using the line "It wasn't a deliberate handball" without any context. I pointed out that one of the criteria for a handball being given is it being deliberate.. meaning that there are occasions where an unintentional handball isn't a free kick. So using the argument "That wasn't deliberate" is a valid defence for why a handball isn't given.

If the handball is unintentional and the arm is in a natural position it's play on. That is a law of the game. They have made up nothing. Looking the wrong way and holding a player is obstruction. I'm not sure why you're having a sob about a penalty in a game you won 4-1 but you're way off base on that one too.

Again, not sure what was baffling about a post where I pretty clearly said deliberate was one criteria for handball, not the only criteria.

 

[moomba]

Seems I was right with my first impression of your post.