Bournemouth vs Newcastle United

[Toonpack 9904]

Given his surroundings 😱 Ban incoming I reckon.

[ackas 311]

1 hour ago, Kid Dynamite said:

Definitely hit him above the sleeve like. VAR did us a favour. 
 

From the PL manual:
 

 

Dango Maradona

[Kid Dynamite 7166]

32 minutes ago, Toonpack said:

Given his surroundings 😱 Ban incoming I reckon.

That term was borderline in the 90s tbh

[Holden McGroin 6779]

It was pretty evident that the back four that started were okay defensively but pretty awful when in possession. Kelly is clearly a CB not a left back so you can excuse him. 

 

if you swap them out for a fully fit

Trippier-Schar-Botman-Hall then we are a different proposition completely. I think you’d find possession stats would massively increase. 
 

Also, Pope is shite on the ball (which doesn’t help) but he made saves look standard today that the rest our goalies would let in. 

Edited August 25 by Holden McGroin

[Kid Dynamite 7166]

50 minutes ago, ewerk said:

You can tell which of us has played in the North Tyneside Sunday league and which haven't like. Leave this stuff to the ex pros 

[Howmanheyman 33811]

12 minutes ago, Kid Dynamite said:

That term was borderline in the 90s tbh

 

My wife's disabled and she loathes it, especially when she was a kid.

[Toonpack 9904]

19 minutes ago, Kid Dynamite said:

That term was borderline in the 90s tbh

Oh I agree, probably could have worded that post better. 

[Isegrim 9894]

I am on my way back from an afternoon of heavy drinking and eating. It seems that I missed nothing apart from retarded phrases

 

JOKE ALERT 

 

Some kind of terms and phrases are absolutely not  appropriate.

[strawb 4377]

Lost there 2-0 last season so improved result if not performance 

[wykikitoon 20702]

Still unbeaten despite two poor performances. 

[OTF 7473]

8 hours ago, Kid Dynamite said:

Definitely hit him above the sleeve like. VAR did us a favour. 
 

From the PL manual:
 

 

That diagram takes into account the position of the arm when contact with the ball is made, but it's a separate consideration regarding attacking players when a goal is scored.

 

  if the ball strikes a goal scorer's arm while in the midst of a goal scoring move, regardless of arm position, intent, or any other qualifiers, a goal shall be chalked off.

 

Clearly states if the ball strikes any part of the arm considered handball then it will be chalked off. That picture which is from the angle most favourable to the attacking player still shows the ball touching the handball zone for which the goal was rightfully chalked off.

 

Further that image also shows a foul being committed against Dan Burn. And finally if the ball did entirely come off the "no handball" zone its trajectory would have been wholly different. This is the textbook example and execution of this rule and just goes to show that even when a system exists and is executed properly (which is sadly often not the case) people will still complain.

[Gemmill 45987]

Shearer, Richards, Lineker all agree it was a poor decision. Add me, KD, and acrossthepond to the list, and I'm afraid the experts have spoken. 

[thebrokendoll 9449]

13 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

Shearer, Richards, Lineker all agree it was a poor decision. Add me, KD, and acrossthepond to the list, and I'm afraid the experts have spoken. 

 

no, you're wrong.

shearer, richards and lineker have to appear impartial. you, kd and atp don't as you're nufc supporrters.

the decision went in our favour therefore it was a GOOD one.

shouldn't really need to clarify this for you to be honest.

[Gemmill 45987]

No, YOU'RE wrong. 

 

Shearer, Lineker and Richards said this on their podcast, where there is no requirement for them to be impartial. 

 

And I am talking about whether the decision was right, not whether it was good for NUFC. 

 

Now. This ends here. With you HUMILIATED. 

[thebrokendoll 9449]

it ends here with you apparently having forgotten which team you support, podcast boy.

[Gemmill 45987]

That's MISTER Podcast Boy to you. 

[OTF 7473]

39 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

Shearer, Richards, Lineker all agree it was a poor decision. Add me, KD, and acrossthepond to the list, and I'm afraid the experts have spoken. 

 

The pundits are just doing their job and drumming up drama (as well as probably don't understand the current rules). As for you, KD and ATP, well I'll let you come up with an excuse. This is as plain as can be. You can't honestly believe that part of the ball has not touched anything on the red section in the diagram KD posted. If you say that you do then you're plainly just being contrary.

 

In summary: The decision made by VAR was categorically correct. Part of the arm touched the ball which is not allowed in any way by an attacking player during a goal scoring action. You're demonstrably feeble minded if you honestly don't believe that.

[Gemmill 45987]

6 minutes ago, OTF said:

 

The pundits are just doing their job and drumming up drama (as well as probably don't understand the current rules). As for you, KD and ATP, well I'll let you come up with an excuse. This is as plain as can be. You can't honestly believe that part of the ball has not touched anything on the red section in the diagram KD posted. If you say that you do then you're plainly just being contrary.

 

In summary: The decision made by VAR was categorically correct. Part of the arm touched the ball which is not allowed in any way by an attacking player during a goal scoring action. You're demonstrably feeble minded if you honestly don't believe that.

 

It is currently 4:44pm AEST, and you sir, are HUMILIATED. 

[PaddockLad 17639]

Good game yesterday….. if you were a neutral….Our improvement in the second half obviously hinged on our substitutions. Which were good and positive. They also coincided with Bruno getting more space and time on the ball. Cook and Christie hadn’t given him any room whatsoever for an hour but they seemed to run out of steam and when Christie was subbed off that really helped open things up. I think teams now know if you put Bruno under a bit of pressure you can pretty much eliminate him from influencing the game to any great extent.
 

Pleased with the point in the end after the abject first half. The VAR thing at the end is weird. It’s more an arm round Burns shoulders that appears to be the offence to me, if there is one at all. They seemed a lot fitter all round, which doesn’t reflect particularly well on our new “performance director” .  Lots of reactive chat about team selection; someone reckoned Barnes starts in our first choice XI, this after lots of questions asking if he’s not scoring what does he contribute last season… fuck knows tbh. Still lots of players from the Bruce era who might have one decent game in three or four starts. The financial situation we’re in makes wholesale changes difficult though. We could be in for another season of huffing and puffing away from home. SJP is where we’ll be mounting any challenge for honours from iyam. 

Edited August 26 by PaddockLad

[Holden McGroin 6779]

Chicken Nonce has confirmed it’s factually not handball to the letter of the law.

 

https://x.com/lukeedwardstele/status/1827835041595924671?s=46&t=hRvO1DcFPkz8iRb2xP6ivw

 

so that blows Gemmill defence apart 

[Gemmill 45987]

Oh so NOW Luke Edwards is the man to listen to, is he? This discussion is over. It's BEEN over. 

[Holden McGroin 6779]

Just now, Gemmill said:

Oh so NOW Luke Edwards is the man to listen to, is he? This discussion is over. It's BEEN over. 

Well my point is he is the man NOT to listen to. 

[Renton 21974]

5 hours ago, OTF said:

 

That diagram takes into account the position of the arm when contact with the ball is made, but it's a separate consideration regarding attacking players when a goal is scored.

 

  if the ball strikes a goal scorer's arm while in the midst of a goal scoring move, regardless of arm position, intent, or any other qualifiers, a goal shall be chalked off.

 

Clearly states if the ball strikes any part of the arm considered handball then it will be chalked off. That picture which is from the angle most favourable to the attacking player still shows the ball touching the handball zone for which the goal was rightfully chalked off.

 

Further that image also shows a foul being committed against Dan Burn. And finally if the ball did entirely come off the "no handball" zone its trajectory would have been wholly different. This is the textbook example and execution of this rule and just goes to show that even when a system exists and is executed properly (which is sadly often not the case) people will still complain.

 

Thanks for this, seems quite conclusive to me. I obviously haven't read the rules of the game, but intuitively it seems more egregious if the hand ball happens during the actual goal movement. Seems like the rule makers agree and have taken this into account. Seems like Gemmill is wrong, again. 

[MMXXVIII 1295]

Comes off his arm and goes in, it was handball. It's only generating any drama cos it happened late on.

[Toonpack 9904]

1 minute ago, Renton said:

 

Thanks for this, seems quite conclusive to me. I obviously haven't read the rules of the game, but intuitively it seems more egregious if the hand ball happens during the actual goal movement. Seems like the rule makers agree and have taken this into account. Seems like Gemmill is wrong, again. 

Top Tip: On those occasions when Gemmill is wrong, avoid the risk of RSI from the typing of “Gemmill is wrong” by adopting “Gemmill is wrong” as a default position, only type “Gemmill is correct” on the rare (mythical even) occasion he is indeed correct.