Newcastle v ManCity: Tiote's goal should have stood

[Karl]

Jones had a wretched afternoon... Tiote's goal should have stood and Yanga-Mbiwa's scything of Nasri was an obvious red card

By Graham Poll

PUBLISHED: 11:44 EST, 12 January 2014 | UPDATED: 16:54 EST, 12 January 2014

PARDEW FUMES

Against Manchester City on Sunday, Newcastle United were denied a perfectly good equaliser for an offside given, unusually, by the referee rather than his assistant.

Mike Jones was well placed and clearly thought that there was an issue as the ball flew in to Joe Hart's net from Cheick Tiote's well-struck shot.

The fact that three Newcastle players were in offside positions was neither in dispute or an offence.
Players have to interfere with play or opponents for that offside position to become an issue and that did not happen.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo...#ixzz2qDxCq05P

[Bricktop]

the player in the offside position most definitely was active in the play...the ball was kicked directly at him...he has to move out of the way...obviously active in the play...

[Tilla]

the player in the offside position most definitely was active in the play...the ball was kicked directly at him...he has to move out of the way...obviously active in the play...

The ball was kicked towards goal. The player in the path of the ball took evasive action and in no way interfered with the goalkeeper Hart. The rules say the player has to be "involved in the play" for the referee to rule the play offside.

I could see if when the player moved out of the way of the ball, he stepped in front of Hart, thus blocking him and his view of what was happening. Anyway, that never happened and the referee got it just plain wrong.

Anyway, it so it goes sometimes.

[Bricktop]

Interfering in the play has nothing to do with obstructing the vision of the goalkeeper...the player that was in an offside position was active in the play...he was a threat to deflct the ball into the goal...the goalkeeper has no idea if that player is in an offside position or not...it is clear cut call

[Mosiah]

Jones had a wretched afternoon... Tiote's goal should have stood and Yanga-Mbiwa's scything of Nasri was an obvious red card

Red card foul for sure! What is Nasri's status? Tests done as yet?

Now for the offside. I would like to agree 100% with the majority who believe the goal should have stood, but I can only agree 60%. If the player did not have to duck out of the way, then it would be a clear, unequivocal goal. But having to take such evasive action...one can understand the officials thinking the player was interfering with the play. Does it matter that the shot was unstoppable? It kinda does, but if the goalie thinks the ball is going to strike the player, and then doesn't, isn't that interfering with the play? And if I were the goalie, you would not be able to convince me that I could not save that shot!

[Mosiah]

Interfering in the play has nothing to do with obstructing the vision of the goalkeeper...

Not necessarily! But it can!

[Peter R]

BT cannot think objectively on this... I thought at first that Hart had been interfered with whether deliberately or inadvertently... the shot was just a bullet that blew by him as well as the newcastle players who were in the offside position. None of them blocked him nor the path of the ball. The ref just screwed up! big time... $$ talks... and the the refs incompetence is what indirectly led to Nasri's nasty injury, because when the players feel that aggrieved and hard done by, that's how they react.

Not making excuses for Yanga in the least, he still deserved a red card , a minimum four match suspension and a £40+K fine IMO.

[Tilla]

Active in the play does not come into consideration in the rule. The player has to be influencing the play in some way either by touching the ball blocking the GK, and therefore interfering with play for him to be offside.

Bricktop, you are behind in your interpretation of the rule. It was changed back in the mid 2000s and therefore the player in the offside position does not constitute offside unless he is involved in the play (read that as influencing).

Read this from a former EPL referee.

Former Premier League referee Mark Halsey has claimed Mike Jones made the wrong decision to disallow Newcastle midfielder Cheick Tiote's stunning strike in the defeat to Manchester City.

With the Magpies trailing 1-0, the Ivorian thought he had drawn his side level with a stunning strike - only for the official to rule it out after consulting with his assistant.

Yoan Gouffran, who was stood in an offside position, was deemed to have obstructed Joe Hart's view, much to the anger of the St James' Park faithful and the home bench.

And former official Halsey belives they have every right to feel aggrieved, claiming the incorrect call was made by Jones.

He told Talksport: "Interfering with an opponent is defined as: preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball.

"For example, by clearly obstructing the goalkeeper's line vision or movement.

"It was a tough call but the goal that was disallowed does not meet the criteria to disallow the goal. Technically, it should have stood. That is the law."

[Tilla]

PR, it is whatever he had in his coffee this morning that is clouding his objectivity. I will see with him though as it is obvious that he is either delusional or does not know how to interpret the offside rule.

[Peter R]

Only a red card?? man get ten match ban fi a bite! which is worse? Now I know unu gwoin seh I defendin' a bite. Let me say I most definitely am not! but IMO while a bite (and this one in the end was not of the Holyfield variety in the least) is outrageous, I was definitely flabbergasted by the action, in the scheme of things, isn't that tackle (or similar ones) on Nasri a worse offence? and worthy of at least some similar sanction??

[Mosiah]

I can understand the bite being worse. Tackles, however vile, have been a part of the game. Bites now...!

Stop defend yuh bwoy Sewerez nuh man!

[Peter R]

Mosiah, you guys are so predictable and I tried to head you off by saying I AM NOT DEFENDING THE BITE!! let me be Gamma-like here and ask you to answer the question which is worse from a player perspective? THAT tackle by Yanga (AND we know there are tackles and there are tackles) which was a DELIBERATE action to kick down the man, or a nibble on the arm?

[Mosiah]

Yuh want a direct answer?

The nibble was worse!

Happy?

[Peter R]

Thanks. I'm very happy. I disagree though. So we can leave it there. If all I have is some dutty teet mark on my forearm so be it... if Nasri is out for six months, requires surgery and rehabilitation because of a a tackle that was as DELIBERATE as the bite, it's a no-brainer for me.

In fact I think asking the question to people on this board is not to whom I should pose the question... I really should be asking Nasri...

[Mosiah]

You do seem quite adept at issues that don't require a brain!