Genie Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Pardew really showing that he really is a scumbag talking like that to Pelligrini. He has only apologised because he got caught on camera not because he was sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chappy Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Pardew really showing that he really is a scumbag talking like that to Pelligrini. He has only apologised because he got caught on camera not because he was sorry. I'm sure players call other players words removed all the time, as much as I dislike Pardew he was unlucky to be caught. It's a heat of the moment thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 I don't think many managers call other managers a effing old c* (word removed). I don't think that is heat of the moment personally. I think it is a distinct lack of respect at manager level. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coda Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Shut your noise, you **** old word removed. Pardew is such a scutter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Con Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 not sure how the referees managed to disallow Newcastle's first goal. Pardew understandably upset about that. Pelligrini should have allowed Newcastle to have a free goal. as it was they got a free one chalked off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8pints Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Pelligrini should have allowed Newcastle to have a free goal. as it was they got a free one chalked off. Nah, nothing that strong. Should have just made him a nice cup of tea, that would have been enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted January 13, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted January 13, 2014 I think that disallowed goal has been exaggerated to be honest. Don't get me wrong, it was a bad decision, because they were wrong. But people are acting as if it was some ludicrous decision based on incomprehensible nonsense. To me it just seemed like the player was in an offside position and the ref and/or linesman thought he had interfered with play (obstructing the keeper's view is enough to be interfering with play) They were wrong, obviously, but I can see why they chalked it off. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shillzz Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Indeed. They were wrong, but you can see why they might have called it as they did. The Newcastle player made an exagerated movement to get out of the way of the ball, he was nowhere near it, but his actions actually made it look like the ball was much closer to him than it actually was. No excuses for Pardew's actions. Should bring the smug bar steward down a peg or two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted January 13, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted January 13, 2014 (edited) I think you have to ask yourself, if the player hadn't have been there, would the ball still have gone in? In this case the answer is yes, so they were wrong. But as I said, I don't think it's as ludicrous as people are making out that they thought he might have been interfering. On a related note, this is exactly the scenario where I think refs should be allowed (or made?) to publicly explain why they made a certain call. Surely if the ref came out and said something like "You don't need to touch the ball to be interfering with play. IN this instance we thought he had obstructed the view of the goalkeeper from an offside position and thus was deemed to be offside. This may not have been the correct decision but that's how we arrived at the decision at the time" it would be better? I know it's taboo for a ref to admit they were wrong, but surely saying something like that would diffuse the situation somewhat? Edited January 13, 2014 by Stevo985 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Problem is Stevo it wouldn't be the end of it, it would then generate more questions which would end up with the officials getting all tied up in knots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted January 13, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted January 13, 2014 Maybe. I still think it's better than the complete silence we get now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliffy Biro Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Pardew calling someone else an old rocket polisher? Err someone give the man a mirror. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 The problem with refs giving interviews about decisions is that they would trot out the same line... "From the angle I saw it I had to make a split second assessment of the situation and I interpreted that as (insert* foul/pen/freekick/goal/onside/offside)" End of interview. A totally pointless exercise. Refs shouldn't be pandering to players, managers or the media. You could solve the issues overnight with two introductions a la Rugby. 1) Mic up the refs - we hear decisions being explained and what the players are saying to them 2) Only the captain can address the referee unless the ref asks to speak to a player. It would also meant that the broadcasters would put pressure on the managers to act with a little bit of class on the touchline. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted January 13, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted January 13, 2014 To mic up the refs though, they'd have to clamp down on swearing. As in, if you swear at the ref, you're booked. No excuses. Otherwise watching football matches would be like sitting through that Steve Martin rant in Planes Trains and Automobiles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 To mic up the refs though, they'd have to clamp down on swearing. As in, if you swear at the ref, you're booked. No excuses. Otherwise watching football matches would be like sitting through that Steve Martin rant in Planes Trains and Automobiles That could be another positive outcome. More respect towards refs from players (and managers) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Con Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 I think that disallowed goal has been exaggerated to be honest. Don't get me wrong, it was a bad decision, because they were wrong. But people are acting as if it was some ludicrous decision based on incomprehensible nonsense. To me it just seemed like the player was in an offside position and the ref and/or linesman thought he had interfered with play (obstructing the keeper's view is enough to be interfering with play) They were wrong, obviously, but I can see why they chalked it off. it was incomprehensible. the player was not in an offside position was nowhere near the keeper or the ball. it was a regular long range effort that happened to go in. you don't expect those to be chalked off. ridiculous decision. if it was an Aston Villa goal chalked off I would be demanding the other manager let us have a free goal. the referee and linesman between them had the perfect view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCforever1991 Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 (edited) I think that disallowed goal has been exaggerated to be honest. Don't get me wrong, it was a bad decision, because they were wrong. But people are acting as if it was some ludicrous decision based on incomprehensible nonsense. To me it just seemed like the player was in an offside position and the ref and/or linesman thought he had interfered with play (obstructing the keeper's view is enough to be interfering with play) They were wrong, obviously, but I can see why they chalked it off. it was incomprehensible. the player was not in an offside position was nowhere near the keeper or the ball. it was a regular long range effort that happened to go in. you don't expect those to be chalked off. ridiculous decision. if it was an Aston Villa goal chalked off I would be demanding the other manager let us have a free goal. the referee and linesman between them had the perfect view. How is it Pellegrini's fault that the ref **** up? please explain. Edited January 13, 2014 by AVFCforever1991 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted January 13, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted January 13, 2014 I think that disallowed goal has been exaggerated to be honest. Don't get me wrong, it was a bad decision, because they were wrong. But people are acting as if it was some ludicrous decision based on incomprehensible nonsense. To me it just seemed like the player was in an offside position and the ref and/or linesman thought he had interfered with play (obstructing the keeper's view is enough to be interfering with play)They were wrong, obviously, but I can see why they chalked it off. it was incomprehensible. the player was not in an offside positionYes he waswas nowhere near the keeper or the ball.Yes he wasit was a regular long range effort that happened to go in. you don't expect those to be chalked off. ridiculous decision. if it was an Aston Villa goal chalked off I would be demanding the other manager let us have a free goal. the referee and linesman between them had the perfect view.it was a bad decision. I never said it wasn't.What I said was it isn't as ludicrous as people (evidently you) are making out. I can see why the officials thought it was a legitimate offside, although they were ultimately wrong.The rest of your post about giving up a free goal is quite frankly absurd, but I would assume that's exactly what you were going for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Con Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 I think that disallowed goal has been exaggerated to be honest. Don't get me wrong, it was a bad decision, because they were wrong. But people are acting as if it was some ludicrous decision based on incomprehensible nonsense. To me it just seemed like the player was in an offside position and the ref and/or linesman thought he had interfered with play (obstructing the keeper's view is enough to be interfering with play) They were wrong, obviously, but I can see why they chalked it off. it was incomprehensible. the player was not in an offside position was nowhere near the keeper or the ball. it was a regular long range effort that happened to go in. you don't expect those to be chalked off. ridiculous decision. if it was an Aston Villa goal chalked off I would be demanding the other manager let us have a free goal. the referee and linesman between them had the perfect view. How is it Pellegrini's fault that the ref **** up? please explain. not his fault but it's called sportsmanship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Con Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 (edited) I think that disallowed goal has been exaggerated to be honest. Don't get me wrong, it was a bad decision, because they were wrong. But people are acting as if it was some ludicrous decision based on incomprehensible nonsense. To me it just seemed like the player was in an offside position and the ref and/or linesman thought he had interfered with play (obstructing the keeper's view is enough to be interfering with play) They were wrong, obviously, but I can see why they chalked it off. it was incomprehensible. the player was not in an offside position Yes he was was nowhere near the keeper or the ball. Yes he was it was a regular long range effort that happened to go in. you don't expect those to be chalked off. ridiculous decision. if it was an Aston Villa goal chalked off I would be demanding the other manager let us have a free goal. the referee and linesman between them had the perfect view. it was a bad decision. I never said it wasn't. What I said was it isn't as ludicrous as people (evidently you) are making out. I can see why the officials thought it was a legitimate offside, although they were ultimately wrong. The rest of your post about giving up a free goal is quite frankly absurd, but I would assume that's exactly what you were going for. According to the laws of the game the player was not offside. I don't know how you can say he was offside. Only players interfering with play can be offside. The Newcastle player furthest forward did not deflect the ball and was not obstructing the goalkeeper - he was clearly a couple of meters in front of him from the linesman's perspective. The free goal idea has a precedent in a cup game, as recently as last year I think, one team was allowed to walk one in because of an officiating error. Edited January 13, 2014 by Con Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts