Wolves 2-1 Newcastle: Verdict Thread

[sycophantia]

All the three wins have been a bit disjointed but ultimately we deserved to win two of them and a bit of magic won the other one. They're all teams we should be finishing above on the evidence so far and it's good to get the bread and butter stuff done, it's important to us. Despite the fact that we regressed to just defending the box in the last 20 minutes I never really felt threatened in any way - but then Newcastle are shit with a seriously shit manager. How on earth did Joelinton play the entire 90 minutes FFS.

Sa needs to get up and protect the goal after the clash, he wasn't injured at all, don't gamble that the ref will bail you out. Good save second half mind. Neves also at fault on the goal as he knew Sa was down (playacting or not) and had the opportunity to just lamp it out of play the way he was facing. Hwang was fantastic - not just the goals, at least one of which was vastly aided by Darlow - and his link up with Raul is extremely positive, we haven't had that with anyone since Jota left. A poor game for Trincao who was on at least 20 minutes too long, strange one really given the amount of options we had, he could either have made the same change that he did or bring one of Podence or Adama on. Not that it mattered, but he wasn't getting anything right and not contributing anything defensively either (not that I particularly expect him to).

Some truly stinking banter from the South Bank, "one Mike Ashley", really?! And the spanners singing "we've got Jackie Chan" on the way back into town can get in the sea.

Agree with all this, but on the Sa incident, while agree he wasn't hurt, aren't players told to stay down when their head is contacted in a challenge?

 

[sycophantia]

There wasn't any contact with his head. Maybe a bit with his shoulder. Wasn't a foul anyway and he obviously could get up, because he did eventually. Too late though.

If he isn't busy being a dick then they don't score as there's no way Hendrick would have taken the shot on.

The view on motd looked like it was his head to me, at the game we were miles away.....looks like a trip to specsavers for me

 

[AndyWolves]

Bit harsh on Sa I think, he's done what most players would do but the ref didn't blow so he's done what I think most people would do and try to recover the situation when the whistle didn't go.

He did really well to smother the chance.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

It's not really harsh, he tried to cheat, failed and it cost us a goal against a team who to that point, hadn't had a shot of any description.

There's always something with him, every game.

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

It's not really harsh, he tried to cheat, failed and it cost us a goal against a team who to that point, hadn't had a shot of any description.

Yep, totally agree, a really poor decision by him, his first priority is to guard his goal, he took a huge risk and we were punished for it, that's all on him.

(Other players were at fault as well)

 

[The Bear]

He did get his head hit slightly. Though not enough to go down holding it really. But he should have done that any way and put the goal entirely on the ref and VAR.

 

[AndyWolves]

He should have just stayed down and got the fk. His mistake was not committing too it, either stay down or don't go down at all.

I just wish we were better at the dark arts.

 

[Tony Towner]

Not sure VAR brings it back anyway. The implementation is inconsistent as shown by Mike Dean at the weekend, but it's supposed to be did the defending side have chance to reset. You could argue we did via Neves

 

[Throbber3]

Totally agree that it looks terrible and is against everything 'we've' always known, but he was actually correct.

Blame the law meddlers who changed it about five years ago. He was offside in their half when the ball was played forward but only became active and conceeded the free kick when he came towards the ball some yards into our half. Stupid law says the offence is when he's active not where he was when the ball was played.
Ironically when giving offsides going towards goal, they draw the lines and give free kicks where the striker was when the ball was played, not where he became 'active'.

He did have a poor game though and joins the list of refs that guess and give decisions based on what they think has happened rather than what has actually happened. I know the games quick now but so often they fall for obvious gamesmanship and don't ever use their useless linesman to help out on free kicks under their noses. This is normally their directive.

Doesn’t help that he has the face of a Bond villain

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Not sure VAR brings it back anyway. The implementation is inconsistent as shown by Mike Dean at the weekend, but it's supposed to be did the defending side have chance to reset. You could argue we did via Neves

Bring what back, it wasn't a foul even if he were legitimately injured (he wasn't).

 

[Throbber3]

Not sure VAR brings it back anyway. The implementation is inconsistent as shown by Mike Dean at the weekend, but it's supposed to be did the defending side have chance to reset. You could argue we did via Neves

Not even amongst our officials and still the bastard gets a mention on our verdict thread. He is like a burrowing worm. Botfly Maggot Mike Dean, always gets under your skin .

 

[Throbber3]

Bring what back, it wasn't a foul even if he were legitimately injured (he wasn't).

Stay down fine. Get up fine. Do a bit of both was hedging his bets. He will learn. He’s nuts. But he has a real attacking instinct and his distribution is far and away better than anything we have had recently. Impressive speed off his line, backs himself with his feet even though he sometimes shouldn’t. For 6m he was a bargain.

 

[AndyWolves]

He should have just stayed down and got the fk. His mistake was not committing too it, either stay down or don't go down at all.

I just wish we were better at the dark arts.

Didn't mean to say fk, I meant to say play stopped to give us chance to sort ourselves out

I don't really care if he was injured or not, as I know most, if not all, other PL sides would have done exactly the same.

 

[Throbber3]

Didn't mean to say fk, I meant to say play stopped to give us chance to sort ourselves out

I don't really care if he was injured or not, as I know most, if not all, other PL sides would have done exactly the same.

You’re probably right. But Sa had to stick or twist and having gone down should have stayed down to give the officials a decision to make. Under the new protocols the game would have been stopped. But as he got up they let it run.

 

[Newbridge Wolf]

Pissing about with it on the edge of the box whilst your keepers prolapsed on the floor is the real crime here.

I don't blame Sa, feigning injury is part of the modern game and everyone does it (as frustrating as it is) keepers are usually protected, especially if they haven't moved off the floor after contact.

 

[AndyWolves]

You’re probably right. But Sa had to stick or twist and having gone down should have stayed down to give the officials a decision to make. Under the new protocols the game would have been stopped. But as he got up they let it run.

Yep, totally agree - one or the other but not both!

I'm happy with him as a keeper, he's very proactive!

 

[AndyWolves]

Pissing about with it on the edge of the box whilst your keepers prolapsed on the floor is the real crime here.

I don't blame Sa, feigning injury is part of the modern game and everyone does it (as frustrating as it is) keepers are usually protected, especially if they haven't moved off the floor after contact.

I'd say prostrate on the floor rather than prolapsed*, I believe a prolapse is something very different!

*Fully aware I might have this wrong!

 

[Throbber3]

I don’t know the details of Sa Trincao and Hwangs actual wages but I would guess that all three would only just add up to Rui’s 100k a week. Two of those three have already shown their value and Trincao may still come good. He certainly has shown the ability just not often enough yet. Given how dogsshit our overall window looked I am taking that as positive.

 

[Throbber3]

I'd say prostrate on the floor rather than prolapsed*, I believe a prolapse is something very different!

*Fully aware I might have this wrong!

Mike Dean is a prolapse.

 

[sycophantia]

The problem for me is the ref is taking it on himself to decide there's been no contact to the head and assuming Sa is play acting which of course he may have been but do we get that judgement on every collision? I hate players feigning injury but every player does it every game. I had this discussion with my lad after the Brentford game, his opinion was the ref should play on if he thinks players are just shithousing but I have some sympathy with refs here, they probably have a good idea when an injury is real or not but they daren't take that chance.