SAT, 8:45AM ET
NEW
LIV
SAT, 11AM ET
CHE
QPR
SAT, 11AM ET
ARS
BUR
SAT, 11AM ET
EVE
SWA
SAT, 11AM ET
HUL
SOU
SAT, 11AM ET
STO
WHU

Newcastle’s Cheick Tioté Scores Incredible Goal From Long-Range, But It’s Cruelly Disallowed [GIF]

newcastle man city 600x360 Newcastles Cheick Tioté Scores Incredible Goal From Long Range, But Its Cruelly Disallowed [GIF]

Newcastle United were robbed of one of the goals of the season today after Cheick Tiote’s long-range effort against Manchester City was disallowed by referee Mike Jones.

After the goal was scored, the match officials discussed the incident and disallowed it, awarding a free kick to Manchester City instead. There were two players in an offside position, but they weren’t interfering with the play. The goal should have stood.

Referee Mike Jones was in a better position and closer to the incident than the assistant referee was. And Joe Hart had a clear sight of the shot and his view was not impeded.

As the players exited the pitch after the half-time whistle was blown, Alan Pardew said the following to referee Mike Jones: “The linesman’s right, you are wrong and you know that. You know that.”

cheik tiote goal Newcastles Cheick Tioté Scores Incredible Goal From Long Range, But Its Cruelly Disallowed [GIF]

Tiote’s goal was incredible, but was it better than his goal he scored in the 4-4 draw against Arsenal in February, 2011?

Here’s a video clip of that famous goal that stood:

Editor’s note: For more Newcastle United news, analysis and opinion, visit the Newcastle United team page.

This entry was posted in Leagues: EPL, Newcastle United. Bookmark the permalink.

About Christopher Harris

Founder and publisher of World Soccer Talk, Christopher Harris is the managing editor of the site. He has been interviewed by The New York Times, The Guardian and several other publications. Plus he has made appearances on NPR, BBC World, CBC, BBC Five Live, talkSPORT and beIN SPORT. Harris, who has lived in Florida since 1984, has supported Swansea City since 1979. He's also an expert on soccer in South Florida, and got engaged during half-time of a MLS game. Harris launched EPL Talk in 2005, which was rebranded as World Soccer Talk in 2013.
View all posts by Christopher Harris →

14 Responses to Newcastle’s Cheick Tioté Scores Incredible Goal From Long-Range, But It’s Cruelly Disallowed [GIF]

  1. CTBlues says:

    Was a BS call.

    • Evan says:

      Why?

      If he didn’t jump out of the way, it would have hit him. He is clearly influencing the play from an offside position.

      • Ken says:

        It didn’t hit him though. If it did, it would have rightly been ruled offside. He didn’t touch the ball, didn’t affect the path of the ball, didn’t impede Hart’s view nor movement. Non-interference and not an offside call by every strict application of the rules any day.

      • De Selby says:

        He was not in the line between Tiote and Hart and was not obscuring Hart’s sight line. Hart wouldn’t have saved that if he had two extra arms at the end of his arms. Crap call.

      • Jon says:

        Folks need to read the new offside rule implemented this season before voicing their opinion.

        Since when is taking evasive action and jumping out of the way, as opposed to attempting to play the ball, considered interference?

        Good goal by the player, bad call by the ref.

  2. EPLWeekends says:

    This is why we should have instant replay. There was plenty of downtime there for them to look at video and make the correct call.

    To be fair, given the incompetence or corruption exhibited here by the referee and the lineman, it’s doubtful that instant reply would help.

  3. Aaron says:

    EVERY ball that crosses the line should be reviewed, provided one simple criteria, that it has left the foot of the player prior to the referee’s whistle being sounded. If the offside flag is waved then two things happen. First, a Hawkeye review to determine if the ball has crossed the line. Second, a “booth review” to review a replay and determine if the goal was scored from an onside position. There are some particulars that can be discussed, but when it comes to rules that don’t involve discretion, that are ABSOLUTE, the game must provide the solutions that take uncertainty over them out of the game as much as possible.

    • Aaron says:

      Why doesn’t the genius giving “thumbs down” muster the courage to offer their point of view rather than hiding behind a virtual thumb?

  4. Yespage says:

    I hope if Man City wins the EPL, they do so by more than four points (two each for the Newcastle and Liverpool matches). Benefactors of some really bad judgement.

  5. Pakapala says:

    To me this just a 50-50 decision. There is no way to conclusively say that Goufran was not interfering with play considering that the ball went towards him before it went in. From that gif provided I am not sure whether the ball brush him or not. However what is clear is that for Hart to have any chance of playing the ball he would have to go through Goufran.

    Funny enough if the goal was allowed, I bet you people would go nuts saying that it shouldn’t be allowed because of the player offside preventing Hart from playing the ball.

    • Ken says:

      As clear a goal with every interpretation of the rules. Ex-PL refs David Elleray, Mark Halsey and Graham Poll all concurred the goal should have stood. There was no touch from Gouffran and the ball was too cleanly hit for Hart to even react in time.

      And not one outfield Man City player nor the linesman had appealed/raised for offside in the aftermath of the goal. It took a half-hearted try-my-luck appeal from Hart and a terrible decision from Mike Jones who had a clear view to consult his assistant further off to rule a good goal offside.

      Fwiw the official word from the ref is that Gouffran had impeded Hart’s view. If anyone had impeded his view, it was his own team mates.

      • Pakapala says:

        Incorrect, the minute the ball went in you can see the linesman talking in his mic to the referee (which we can safely assume is about the validity of the goal).
        Other incorrect point made is that Mike Jones had allowed the goal then reversed it. Look at the replay many times and he never made any gesture for goal.
        As for Hart’s ability to react in time it is irrelevant to whether or not Goufran was in the way of him doing anything about the ball. If Goufran does not get out of the way, the ball hits him. From that fact (Gouffran moving out of the way) the referees on the field came to the conclusion he is interfering with the opponent

        As per the rules:
        “Interfering with an opponent
        preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or movements or making a GESTURE or MOVEMENT which, IN THE OPINION OF THE REFEREE, DECEIVES or DISTRACTS an opponent.”

        Let’s face it: What we have here is a beautiful goal that many (included neutrals) are pissed was disallowed and wished it was allowed by Mike Jones. Whether Graham Poll or whatever other ex-refs you can name would have allowed it is irrelevant as he’s not the one calling the game at that time.

        • Ken says:

          Moving AWAY from the ball is ‘a gesture or movement which deceives or distracts an opponent’? You are going to rule out many good goals with that lame interpretation. I deceive the goalie by moving AWAY. I distract the goalie by moving AWAY. Righto.

          If those ex-PL refs ain’t allowed to make a judgement call on that incident, who else would be better qualified to do so?

          Fwiw Mike Jones has been taken off this weekend schedule. An admittance from the PGMOL if you may. I sure hope they are qualified enough in your eyes.

  6. Dan Sugar says:

    I’m a USSF official, and I believe this was the correct call. The two Newcastle players were standing in an offside position when Tiote played the ball towards goal, and were in space the goalkeeper needed in order to make a play on the ball.
    Had the two Newcastle players not been in offside position when the ball was played, they would have had every right to be near the opposing goalkeeper. But they were offside, both of them, and by being where they were, they were interfering with play by interfering with the goalkeeper’s ability to play the ball because they were in space the goalkeeper needed.
    Good call!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>