*****Official Match Thread v QPR*****

[sonyc 5,541]

23 minutes ago, Well b back said:

Always is with NCFC and Christmas, good news is we normally get loads better after the FA Cup 3rd round ( last year apart ).

Hope you're right! 

We need Adam Idah back, Placheta and Onel.  Mumba too.

Roll on 2021 - for more reasons than ever.

[Branston Pickle 3,696]

I’m not whining, quite the opposite- indeed QPR should have left with a rather undeserved 3 points.

[Jim Smith 2,339]

I agree with the comments about Quintilla. Sorensen has done exceptionally well but we are now being srriously hindered by our lack of a left footed player out wide on the left. The opposition know that the ball is going to come back inside into the middle every time. 

[Clint 221]

If the offside goal had counted, we’d have gone one nil up, which we did anyway. So that isn’t what cost us! 

[Pukki Blinders 96]

5 minutes ago, Ken Hairy said:

Regardless of anything that may have happened before, this cannot be offside, its that simple. 

Absolutely scandalous. How can a linesman, who is supposed to be level with play, be so incompetent that he thinks Cantwell is ahead of the ball there? 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

8 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

No he doesn't, he has to get onside again. By getting behind the ball he got onside. 

Why are people struggling with this? You'd rather make stuff up than admit you're wrong. Have I fallen into the Brexit thread? 

Have you read the rule ? By its definition Cantwell was offside. We don't like it either but he applied the law. They do communicate.

[Ken Hairy 3,781]

3 minutes ago, GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary said:

That isnt what the offside was given for...( I assume?)

BANGS HEAD ON WALL!!!!!!! 😂😂😂

[Ian 1,136]

2 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

Good to see a totally irrelevant argument about the offside: it was given so it was offside.  Simple.  Whether it was right or not is irrelevant and not an excuse for not winning against a poor side we dominated.

How is it irrelevant? Having legitimate goals chalked off is surely an absolutely valid excuse for not winning?

Just so we are clear, how many incorrectly disallowed goals and denied penalties/free kicks in a single game would it take before you would consider it relevant?

[Ken Hairy 3,781]

Just now, keelansgrandad said:

Have you read the rule ? By its definition Cantwell was offside. We don't like it either but he applied the law. They do communicate.

BANGS HEAD ON WALL AGAIN!!!!! 😂😂

[canarydan23 4,060]

Just now, Disco Dales Jockstrap said:

No need to be a patronising tw8t now is there Dan?

OTBC

I'm sure Ricardo is big enough and ugly enough to fight his own battles. 

I'll go on calling a spade a spade. If that makes me a patronising **** in your eyes then ask my family to stick it on a headstone when I inevitably die young. 

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,800]

It seems clear that Farke is just trying to get through to the Barnsley game with this core group of starting players....after which we will have a 2 week break before the next league game....in between which giving returning players minutes vs Coventry in the Cup  .i.e Gibson Quintilla Krul Placheta Rupp Steipermann Dowell...maybe Hernandez?

...I just hope this caution doesnt cost us more points vs Barnsley

[kick it off 1,956]

If anyone needs a break from the intensity of this thread, have a peek at Romaine Sawyers with a peach of a goal in the WBA game earlier.... it was in the wrong net so actually counted for Leeds though.
 

 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Winning and whining are two different things.

[canarydan23 4,060]

1 minute ago, keelansgrandad said:

Have you read the rule ? By its definition Cantwell was offside. We don't like it either but he applied the law. They do communicate.

No he wasn't and no he didn't. 

I don't really know what else to say. 

Cantwell was not offside. The goal should have stood. They are both facts. 

[ricardo 7,402]

1 minute ago, keelansgrandad said:

Have you read the rule ? By its definition Cantwell was offside. We don't like it either but he applied the law. They do communicate.

Thats how I read it.

[canarydan23 4,060]

Just now, keelansgrandad said:

Winning and whining are two different things.

So is being onside and offside.

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,800]

5 minutes ago, Ian said:

As I said, where was the free kick actually awarded? Should straighten out why it was given fairly unequivocally.

 

Not quite...if the lineman flagged when Cantwell put the ball in the net, it could be because he then became active from being offside for the initual throughball...not from the pass from Pukki

[Indy 3,322]

The strange thing having watched Liverpool v WBA it was a carbon copy! We mullered them, for 25 minutes in that second half, got a goal and didn’t finish them off! Played tippy tippy slow football after the goal and paid two points.

On our game we look unbeatable at this level, slow it all down we look predictable and lethargic.

Frustration is we know just what this side is capable off, the last two games have only shown glimpses of it!

We’re all rightly frustrated and I’m sure Farke is too!

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

1 minute ago, Ken Hairy said:

BANGS HEAD ON WALL AGAIN!!!!! 😂😂

Careful. 

2 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

No he wasn't and no he didn't. 

I don't really know what else to say. 

Cantwell was not offside. The goal should have stood. They are both facts. 

According to you.

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

 

18 minutes ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

 

 

 

 

 

I'll post it again - watch Hugill's goal from 2:51.

The initial offside is relevant! 

Cantwell was behind the ball when Pukki played it, it 100% should've been a goal. 

Edited December 29, 2020 by Hank shoots Skyler
Sorry @Ken Hairy didn't mean to quote your post

[nutty nigel 7,645]

8 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

I’m not whining, quite the opposite- indeed QPR should have left with a rather undeserved 3 points.

They should have scored at the end for that to happen. But if Cantwell goal was allowed that end wouldn't have happened. Whether the referee was right or not doesn't alter that fact.

Had we been in the stadium today we would have put so much pressure on that ref I'm sure we'd have won the game.

Edited December 29, 2020 by nutty nigel

[Disco Dales Jockstrap 1,898]

 

7 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

 If that makes me a patronising **** in your eyes...

Yes, it does. Because what you said was.

7 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

If that makes me a patronising **** in your eyes then ask my family to stick it on a headstone 

I'll just ask them to say it to your face, rather than behind your back, thanks.

OTBC

Edited December 29, 2020 by Disco Dales Jockstrap

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,800]

So if a player is standing offside on the 6 line yard line...but an initial ball isnt played through to him...however a ball is then subsequently played across to him and he scores....people are trying to say he wouldnt be offside??.....I dont think so

[canarydan23 4,060]

1 minute ago, Disco Dales Jockstrap said:

 

Yes, it does. Because what you said was.

I'll just ask them to say it to your face, rather than behind your back, thanks.

OTBC

Ok hun.

[nutty nigel 7,645]

1 minute ago, GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary said:

So if a player is standing offside on the 6 line yard line...but an initial ball isnt played through to him...however a ball is then subsequently played across to him and he scores....people are trying to say he wouldnt be offside??.....I dont think so

Is that what happened?

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

2 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

They should have scored at the end for that to happen. But if Cantwell goal was allowed that end wouldn't have happened. Whether the referee was right or not doesn't alter that fact.

Had we been in the stadium today we would have put so much pressure on that ref I'm sure we'd have win the game.

That is just conjecture Double N. Fact is we had enough opportunity to have been ahead before what will be known in Canary folklore as the Cantwell incident.

You and I have seen enough games to not get upset anymore.

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,800]

Just now, nutty nigel said:

Is that what happened?

It amounts to the same thing...cantwell was offside for the initial throughball...offside is offside

[Ken Hairy 3,781]

6 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Careful. 

According to you.

According to the bloody rules, what on earth do you not get about that??? 😂😂

[canarydan23 4,060]

4 minutes ago, GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary said:

So if a player is standing offside on the 6 line yard line...but an initial ball isnt played through to him...however a ball is then subsequently played across to him and he scores....people are trying to say he wouldnt be offside??.....I dont think so

If when the ball is subsequently played to him he had got back onside, then absolutely he wouldn't be offside.

I genuinely don't get what the issue is here. I know it's not always nice to say you got it wrong, but to double down like this is bizarre.

The pertinent (is pertinent a bit too patronising @Disco Dales Jockstrap?) questions are; 

When the ball was played to Pukki, was Pukki offside?

When the ball was played to Cantwell, was Cantwell offside?

That's it. That's what matters in accordance with the rules. Cantwell could literally have been standing in front of the keeper when the ball was played to Pukki. If he had then got back onside by being behind Pukki when the ball was played to him, he would not have been offside.

Edited December 29, 2020 by canarydan23

[Fiery Zac 1,066]

29 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Er no, surely to get back onside it has to be behind an opponent. 

Wow, you really don’t understand the offside law?