City at the geordies

Pull this thread back up in May, Newcastle will still be a PL club next season, as i have stated before, Howe will buy the type of players to get them out of a relegation battle then most likely leave with a fat bonus
 
Erimus74 said:
Pull this thread back up in May, Newcastle will still be a PL club next season, as i have stated before, Howe will buy the type of players to get them out of a relegation battle then most likely leave with a fat bonus
Click to expand...
wishful thinking erimus its almost like you want them to stay up
 
I would like to hear an official explanation of that decision. But lets look at it as dispassionately as we can. Newcastle would still have lost, so it is largely academic.

A few questions for those who think it should have been a penalty

1. Does Ederson deliberately "take out" Fraser?

2. Would Fraser have got to the ball if he hadn't fallen over Ederson?

3. Could Fraser have jumped over Ederson if he wanted to?

My answers would be 1. No 2. No 3. Yes

1 and 2 are the important ones here. I think Ederson was trying to avoid contact, hence why he went to ground as he realised that Cancelo was going to get there before him. 2. As stated Cancelo has the ball and is turning away when Fraser is in contact with Ederson. As Ederson is trying to avoid contact it is simply a collision which anywhere else on the pitch would not be penalised. Additionally, I think that (3.) Fraser deliberately "fails" to jump over Ederson. Now this is just my inexpert thinking through of it and I would like to hear an official explanation as to why it wasn't given.
 
Personally don't think it's a penalty.

Both Fraser and Ederson were going at speed. Neither could stop. Neither had the ball.

It was an off the ball collision due to both players trying to get to the ball, but instead Cancelo got the ball and both Fraser & Ederson collided.

Those saying Ederson fouled Fraser, could you not say Fraser fouled Ederson then?

If Fraser had the ball under control and knocked it past Ederson and Ederson collided with him, then yes, it would've been a penalty, but that's not what happened.
 
Muttley said:
I would like to hear an official explanation of that decision. But lets look at it as dispassionately as we can. Newcastle would still have lost, so it is largely academic.

A few questions for those who think it should have been a penalty

1. Does Ederson deliberately "take out" Fraser?

2. Would Fraser have got to the ball if he hadn't fallen over Ederson?

3. Could Fraser have jumped over Ederson if he wanted to?

My answers would be 1. No 2. No 3. Yes

1 and 2 are the important ones here. I think Ederson was trying to avoid contact, hence why he went to ground as he realised that Cancelo was going to get there before him. 2. As stated Cancelo has the ball and is turning away when Fraser is in contact with Ederson. As Ederson is trying to avoid contact it is simply a collision which anywhere else on the pitch would not be penalised. Additionally, I think that (3.) Fraser deliberately "fails" to jump over Ederson. Now this is just my inexpert thinking through of it and I would like to hear an official explanation as to why it wasn't given.
Click to expand...
Good points but...
on point 3, is it upto fraser to get out of someones way? someone who is out of control?

Out of control is the key for me, which is a sending off as part of the new rules.
Same reason kane should have been off he didn't deliberately take robertson out but was out of control and followed through the man.
 
If anything, Fraser could've hurdled the collision. Instead he thought contact might bring him a penalty, and he's lucky neither him or Ederson ended up injured.

I just thought it was one of those things where both went for the ball, neither had control of the ball initially and neither ended up with the ball.

And neither of them went in aggressively or dangerously. If anything, Ederson can be seen trying to pull out but the initial speed meant he couldn't stop dead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top