benjii

Indeed. Thursday night is absolutely the worst time to give him his debut after all this time. He's on a hiding to nothing in a one-off event. Stick with Vest and Bednarek. Jan will be keen to make amends. Give Salisu a go at the weekend. With KWP back, Diallo, Walcott and Armstrong out then the team pretty much picks itself. The only real decision is what side to play Djenepo and Redmond. As a complete wild card, I guess a youngster could play in one of those positions, Tella, maybe.

Plus all the other better clubs, with more money, not wanting him as well. Apart from all that, could happen.

Absolutely mental.

Boomers doing boomer things.

Seen quite a bit of criticism of Ings recently, people alleging he is way off his best etc. I think it's unfair. Against Villa he single-handedly created the penalty [that we obviously should have been awarded] and he stuck the ball in the net. Had the officials done their job properly, he could well have won us the match. Yesterday we looked pretty good going forwards and his effort that came back off the post was a very decent effort in the circumstances. He could well have had three more goals (let's assume he scores the penalty against Villa) from our last three games with very fine margins / decisions going against him. He's still a very good striker and arguably too good for a bog-standard mid-table team. Very unlikely that we will find anyone as good as him for £20m or less and, as we all know, that's the market we will be looking for a replacement in. If it wasn't for him and JWP we would be struggling massively.

Just watched a replay about 1,000 times then got the red card out.

That's pathetic all round. Terrible free kick. Then they give it back to us. Instead of attacking Redmond goes back pointlessly. Then we do that with it.

Unfortunately, if you think the current set of vaccines are going to spell the complete end of restrictions any time soon, and via some sort of "back to normal, it's all over" big-bang announcement, I think you will be sadly disappointed. It will be a long time before any of these things happen: - we have a clear view on the effectiveness of vaccines in stopping transmission - we have a clear view on the extent to which transmission is driving mutations which are less susceptible to the vaccine - we have a clear view on the long-term non-fatal damage done by the virus - enough people around the world are vaccinated with a proven vaccine for seamless inter-continental travel to return It feels to me as though there are bound to be relaxing and reimposing of various restrictions - perhaps on a localised basis - for another couple of years. Whilst I'm sure every effort will be made to allow people to meet each other and go to bars / restaurants etc. I think the days of packed venues and carefree travel, other than to a small number of niche locations that can't afford not to have tourists (e.g. Maldives), are over for the foreseeable future. It absolutely sucks and please, for goodness sake, we have to hope the UK government has learnt some lessons from this and will implement them so when this happens again we can get proper track, trace and containment processes in place. That said, I want to go the pub with a bunch of friends I haven't seen for ages, I want to attend some live-music and sporting events, and I want to be able to travel internationally without the hassle of possible border closures etc. whilst there.

Good news if KWP and Rom are back. I doubt we will rush Vest straight back in now we know Bednarek is available. Shame about Armstrong but at least we have other options in wide mid. I reckon it'll be: McCarthy KWP, Stephens, Bednarek, Bertrand JWP, Romeu Minamino, Redmond Adams, Ings

Very hard to figure out how to set up for this, assuming Bednarek can't play. I doubt we will win the appeal because they can find a way to justify the decision the way the law is written and I don't think they will be reviewing whether it was a foul or not. But, will the appeal be concluded in time? If not, presumably he can play at the weekend and we might be able to time the suspension alongside Vestergaard returning? Anyways, without Diallo, Romeu and Jankewitz, JWP has to play in midfield so that means Ramsey must play. I don't think it's fair to throw Tchaepchat in - he didn't look ready the other night and if we play too many youngsters again we might get stuffed which would be pretty embarrassing considering Newcastle are one of the dourest attacking teams in the league. I quite fancy switching to a back 3 as others have suggested. Ramsay, Stephens and Bertrand. It does mean playing two of Redmond, Armstrong or Djenepo as wing backs but at least they are senior players and not youngsters being rushed through. It also means we would be vulnerable to long diagonals towards a target man but there's not a lot we can do about that. I'd go with the following, on the basis that Djenepo is a bit of a defensive liability when starting and should be kept as far up the pitch as possible - he can't tackle or press without constantly giving fouls away. -----------------McCarthy------------------ -----Ramsay----Stephens------Bertrand--- Armstrong--------JWP------------Redmond ------------Djenepo----Minamoto--------- -----------Adams--------Ings------------- If we can keep the ball there's plenty in that XI to cause some damage. Important not to give away cheap free kicks because we look pretty weak in the air.

The law on handball taken from the FA website, states as follows (my emphasis added). * * * * * * * * * * It is an offence if a player: deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, including moving the hand/arm towards the ball scores in the opponents’ goal directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper after the ball has touched their or a team-mate’s hand/arm, even if accidental, immediately: scores in the opponents’ goal creates a goal-scoring opportunity touches the ball with their hand/arm when: the hand/arm has made their body unnaturally bigger the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level (unless the player deliberately plays the ball which then touches their hand/arm The above offences apply even if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close.Except for the above offences, it is not an offence if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm: directly from the player’s own head or body (including the foot) directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close if the hand/arm is close to the body and does not make the body unnaturally bigger when a player falls and the hand/arm is between the body and the ground to support the body, but not extended laterally or vertically away from the body * * * * * * * * * The words "except for the above offences" make it quite clear that the criteria which are set out in the final four bullet points are not intended to apply to mitigate an offence listed in the first set of bullet points. In the case of Cash, he seemed to deliberately handle the ball (his arm actually moved towards the ball with a small swiping action at the last moment) but in any event he clearly made his body unnaturally bigger by sticking his arm out to form a barrier above his head and that element of the foul does not require any intent. So, in a nutshell, the grazing of the ball on some short fibres should not have mattered. The Bundesliga guidance page on this makes the point clearly: https://www.bundesliga.com/en/bundesliga/news/rule-changes-2019-20-handball-penalties-sustitutions-wall-free-kick-4824 The page says (my emphasis added again): "Many in the game believe greater clarity is needed for referees when it comes to handballs, therefore the IFAB has re-worded a number of rules. It stresses that a deliberate handball remains an offence but that the following scenarios will result in a free-kick even if accidental: if the ball goes into the goal after touching an attacking player’s hand or arm a player gains control/possession of the ball after it touches their hand/arm and then scores, or creates a goal-scoring opportunity a ball touches a player’s hand/arm which has made their body unnaturally bigger the ball touches a player’s hand/arm when it is above their shoulder (unless the player has deliberately played the ball which then touches their hand/arm) However, the following will not usually be a free-kick unless they are one of the above situations: the ball touches a player’s hand/arm directly from their own head/body/foot or the head/body/foot of another player who is close/near the ball touches a player’s hand/arm which is close to their body and has not made their body unnaturally bigger if a player is falling and the ball touches their hand/arm when it is between their body and the ground to support the body (but not extended to make the body bigger) if the goalkeeper attempts to ‘clear’ (release into play) a throw-in or deliberate kick from a teammate but the ‘clearance’ fails, the goalkeeper can then handle the ball" * * * * * * * * * * So, basically, to defend the failure to give a penalty against Cash, the PL would have to think that: - it wasn't deliberate or - he didn't make his body unnaturally bigger. The shorts thing is irrelevant, in accordance with the laws of football. If PGMOL / Premier League are taking any contact on the player's person as being an absolute defence to handball, regardless of the positioning of the arms or any consideration of intent, then they are making up their own rules as they go along. In short, we were absolutely rodgered up the Gary.

A decision so bad, it deserves its own thread. Now, I've checked the laws and if it was a foul then it should have been a red, which seems perverse but true. The red card The law says: "Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offending player is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling, pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.) the offending player must be sent off." So, if you think someone is trying not to make a challenge but does commit a foul, then a red card is correct. This is clearly an absurdity because a hack at the ball would result in a yellow. This law is terribly drafted by the inepts in charge of the game. The foul The obvious way to avoid such an absurd outcome is not to award a foul when a defender is doing what they can to avoid contact and a striker is falling over in the hope of contact which has not yet occurred. This is clearly what happened in the incident so it's quite baffling that the officials stuck with the penalty call. There are two broad categories of foul. There is the careless / reckless / excessive force group of offences. Evidently that didn't apply. The other grounds for a direct free kick are: A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences: a handball offence (except for the goalkeeper within their penalty area) holds an opponent impedes an opponent with contact bites or spits at someone throws an object at the ball, opponent or match official, or makes contact with the ball with a held object The bolded one is the only one that could possibly apply. It is quite clear that Martial was not impeded by Bednarek making contact with him. Conclusion Due to a badly drafted law, interpreted by spaccy goons who were no-doubt picked last in Games at school every week, the red card was technically correct if it was a foul. But it clearly wasn't a foul. The VAR review When Dean went to look at the monitor he wasn't shown proper replays of the incident. He didn't get a single view from the camera on the goal-line which clearly showed Martial diving in anticipation of a challenge which never came. An absolute clusterfuck of an incident.

RIP, Screech. http://www.bbc.com/news/amp/entertainment-arts-55896473 I will honour your memory by knocking one out to Kelly Kapowski. I am sure you did this too, many times.

Put Bertrand there and play our back-up left back..... oh.

If Ings leaves then it’s probably worth keeping him because we’ll be in the market for a striker and that will be the priority. We couldn’t afford to sign a dud striker and a dud Theo replacement. He’s a decent guy and will help bring the youngsters along. Yes, that sounds a bit like Shane Long but his contribution on the pitch is much better than Longy’s. His shooting and passing is often terrible but his movement is excellent and he does help to stretch the opponent. I doubt we expected him to play so much but the injuries to Ings, Moussa and Redmond have forced us to pick him constantly. However, if Ings stays then I would say it’s probably a waste of money giving Theo a longer deal.

It's not even VAR though, it's the fiddling with rules that ruins everything. It's clear that it was decided at some point to start awarding fewer penalties. You can't just change the rules or interpretation midway through a season and it has resulted in decisions seeming arbitrary. Then there are the laws and interpretations themselves. If it was correct not to award the penalty last night simply because of a completely irrelevant skim of ball on short then that needs to be changed at season end. The law needs to consider whether the deflection rendered the handball non-advantageous or not, as well as the position of the arm and the distance between player and last play of the ball. Clearly the deflection last night had no material impact on the shot heading towards the goal and it was the arm, outstretched, that stopped the shot. VAR didn't make a difference because Mason, laughably, was gesturing that the ball had hit Cash's chest / stomach so wouldn't have given it anyway. Then you have the bizarre new "sleeve" part of the handball rule. What's wrong with simply saying handball is anywhere on the arm below 90 degrees from the top of the shoulder? Why bring clothes into it? It's fecking bizarre. If offside is to be judged to the millimetre then they need to look at the best way to do so. To mind that is by looking at the feet. You'll still have hairline decisions but the feet show relative position much better than someone's forehead or sleeve.

Ralph Hasenburley

You what, mush?

That's a very fleeting state of affairs though and anyone who thought we would stay in the top 4 was an idiot. The fact remains that Gao brings nothing positive to the table and his only virtue is that he seems to keep his nose out of footballing matters and isn't a lunatic.

US and EU have done a deal promoting alignment and regulatory recognition and allowing US banks to clear Euro transactions, thereby removing the need to do this in London. Over time, London will lose much of its current importance in the financial markets as New York appears likely to be become a direct competitor in a European context. All hail Brexit! Jobs and specialisms will leave London in the FS sector and supporting sectors. As the City contributes around 10% of HMRC tax revenue this is likely to result in increases in other taxes to plug the gap. Still, we should probably give it 40 or 50 years before drawing any conclusions.

Why do people want to play Diallo all over the place? Fucking stupid. He's a central midfielder. If we need a makeshift right back then JWP would be a better option anyway, but we should stick with Valery if KWP isn't available. And why the hell would you play Diallo as "number 10" instead of Redmond, Walcott or Armstrong? Walcott has been gash lately but Diallo hasn't scored a goal in his career. Ralph showed yesterday the folly of weakening numerous positions at once by playing people out of posiiton. I'd bring Redmond in for Walcott and Long (yeah, I know!) in for Adams. Obviously if Vestergaard is fit then he comes in for Stephens. If Romeu is fit then I'd probably bring him back for Diallo; not that Diallo hasn't been very good but might as well keep things as fresh as possible.

This should absolutely be a priority, and let's hope this whole situation leads to some proper measures to support localism and sensible stewardship of resources. There are countries who won't want to go down that route (China, for one) and we should be having a sensible and thoughtful national conversation about how we go about decoupling ourselves from those regimes. It is massively in our long-term interests not to be reliant on cheap Asian imports, without even mentioning the global consequences of deforestation, excess carbon etc. that result from unchecked industrial exploitation to feed global supply chains, but it will take a shift in mindset to get there and will need action to support people on lower incomes who don't necessarily have the luxury of choice. Look at another coronavirus, MERS. A zoonotic disease contracted from camels with a death rate of something like 30%. If something like that starts doing the rounds you're looking at catastrophe on a completely different scale. I think Covid 19 will be impacting travel and other activity for at least another 24 months - current vaccines do not seem to supress transmission and no one knows how effective they really are yet; with further mutations inevitable there is every reason for cautious countries to continue to restrict movement of people; it will take a long time to vaccinate billions of people in any event - so let's hope this side of the debate can gain some traction. Countries and economies should be open to foreigners and to other cultures but should not be reliant on them to sustain their economies and lifestyles. When it is a regime as poisonous and destructive as the Chinese regime, even more reason not to be tied-in.

Here are my ratings: Ralph Hasenhuttl: 3. Prepared the team well but in match decision making was a complete mess. The Redmond sub and moving Diallo and Armstrong simultaneously made us weaker at left back, left mid and centre mid. Absolute brain fart of a sub/shuffle and also quite unfair on Diallo. Redmond should have come on as a straight swap for Walcott, who was terrible. Throwing the towel in when they scored the third was pretty lame. If JWP had put away that free-kick it would have looked negligent (by the way, thanks Kevin for that free-kick, you were typically awful). McCarthy: 3. Only really had one save to make, which he did in the first minute, but ultimately contributed largely to the defeat with his keeping for the second goal. Valery: 6. Grew into it quite well and looked good on the ball without making a telling contribution. People will probably say he was out of position for the first goal but that's only because Bednarek gave it away cheaply. Valery was doing what he was supposed to be doing and taking up a position further forward. Bednarek: 4. Generally did ok but messed up for the first goal. No attacking threat in the opposition box. Struggles with direct runners and movement. Stephens: 5. As above. Vokins: 6. Reminded me of Targett. Neat and tidy and played some good passes but probably lacks the dynamism to excel in the PL. Would get roasted by some of the top players but I'd still rather he covers for Bertrand than forcing someone else to play out of position. Diallo: 7. Very good again in midfield. I hope Ralph doesn't view him as a jack-of-all trades as that's unfair on him. After the first 20 minutes or so, we started to get a foothold. JWP: 7. As above. It's a shame he couldn't put that free kick away. Probably should have gone over the wall as Leno was way across to the left of the goal. Armstrong: 7.5. Our best player on the night. Tireless, picked up the ball lots and glides past players. Great goal - it was lovely to see a bit of innovation on corners, as we have very limited aerial threat without Vestergaard. Walcott: 3. Great at finding pockets of space and tracking back. Terrible at dribbling, passing and shooting. Adams: 6. Battled gamely and played a couple of lovely passes and touches. Ings: 5. Not in the game. Not necessarily his fault but can't really justify a higher rating.

Quite. If he won’t sign a new contract pronto at the end of this season then clearly we will sell him.

Salisu? 🤪