Football
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
30 Mar 24
15:20
Joined:
Date Joined:
10 Jan 02
Opinions?
Show More
Probably technically a pen - very unlucky for Phillips..
you could argue incidental contact as Gordon doesn't make any contact with the ball prior to the contact and has just placed his foot in front of Phillips swinging leg..
probably get a different decision sometimes with a different VAR panel or on a different week.
you could argue incidental contact as Gordon doesn't make any contact with the ball prior to the contact and has just placed his foot in front of Phillips swinging leg..
probably get a different decision sometimes with a different VAR panel or on a different week.
West Ham have been slaughtered by VAR decisions this season.
Both penalties were a result of Gordon purposefully trying to initiate contact with opposing player ,he got criticism for same thing at Everton ,which seems to be forgotten about .Only gets away with it as refs are still naive to his ways it seems.
Weird decision. Gordon was never in contact with the ball or in possession of it. Its like throwing yourself under a diving goalie and claiming a foul when he falls on you.
As I said on a different thread; if one of the so called big six teams players done it; it would be classed as being clever to get a penalty; because it is Gordon though; he is being classed as a cheat
If you kick somebody it's a foul.
We had this last season with Bruno, and this season with Schar.
Gordon doesn't have to move out of the way.
It's like the rule about shepherding the ball out
of play, you don't need to have touched the ball
to have the right to be there.
We had this last season with Bruno, and this season with Schar.
Gordon doesn't have to move out of the way.
It's like the rule about shepherding the ball out
of play, you don't need to have touched the ball
to have the right to be there.
But Gordon isn't there -he puts himself between a foot that has already starting a kicking motion and the ball . How can Phillips stop the motion ?
He was there though, and Phillips kicked him
I saw it, devestated it wasn't given after we missed sitters
Knew VAR would give it as its pretty much same as one
where VAR were criticised for not overturning.
You might argue against the law, but it's been correctly applied
I saw it, devestated it wasn't given after we missed sitters
Knew VAR would give it as its pretty much same as one
where VAR were criticised for not overturning.
You might argue against the law, but it's been correctly applied
Just watched it again on you tube ,99% of the comments from neutrals say no pen .In both pens Gordon moves towards the player not the ball ,trying to initiate contact ,if you start giving pens for it ,there will be a lot of penalties about .Luckily most players are interested in the ball ,not trying to get kicked so as to con the ref.
Sadly neutrals don't know the laws of the game
Still nice to agree with the know nowts, eh?
Still nice to agree with the know nowts, eh?
The only people who think Gordon isn't a serial cheat and diver are Newcastle fans.
he knows the laws of the game and if he's there
and gets kicked it's a penalty.
Sad little trolls like nobby the knob know nowt neither.
and gets kicked it's a penalty.
Sad little trolls like nobby the knob know nowt neither.
You just know that Anthony Gordon, after a season of getting away with murder in the EPL will go to the Euros and try the same trick. He will get a yellow card for his troubles off the foreign ref.
And no one apart from the pundits in the english media, will be at all surprised.
And no one apart from the pundits in the english media, will be at all surprised.
You know when ----you-have-to-laugh--- has no argument, he reverts to type and gets abusive & starts calling people names.
You can always spot nobby the knob is a troll
The only people who think Gordon isn't a serial cheat and diver are Newcastle fans.
And then when called for being the knob troll that he is
he gets all righteous, and hopes people forget what a knob he is.
The only people who think Gordon isn't a serial cheat and diver are Newcastle fans.
And then when called for being the knob troll that he is
he gets all righteous, and hopes people forget what a knob he is.
The first was not a pen, the second was a certain pen.
After rewatching I stick by my original decision, that it was a foul by Gordon. Had it been at the other end I'd have expected a penalty to West Ham. VAR was duped because it was Gordon who went down.
Good job you know the rules when betting on the game.
From refchat....
"Had an incident today where “blue” right back receives the ball facing his own goal, “yellow” winger comes in from behind, wraps his leg round the side of him, clearly gets the ball but also gets the player. The contact with the player is from the side not through the back of him, although “yellow” got the ball he had to make contact to get it so I gave the foul,"
Gordon comes in from behind (clearly), wraps his leg around the side of Phillips, (doesn't even get the ball). The split second planting of the foot and falling over, obfuscates the fact that he fouls Phillips. who was in control of the ball and situation imo.
"Had an incident today where “blue” right back receives the ball facing his own goal, “yellow” winger comes in from behind, wraps his leg round the side of him, clearly gets the ball but also gets the player. The contact with the player is from the side not through the back of him, although “yellow” got the ball he had to make contact to get it so I gave the foul,"
Gordon comes in from behind (clearly), wraps his leg around the side of Phillips, (doesn't even get the ball). The split second planting of the foot and falling over, obfuscates the fact that he fouls Phillips. who was in control of the ball and situation imo.
The key is that Gordon's body is at all times behind Phillips and the football.
Gordon doesn't need to get the ball.
He gets there clean,
Foul is therefore by phillips
He gets there clean,
Foul is therefore by phillips
I've been calling Antony Gordon the Tom Daley of the north all season.
Maybe he took lessons off Ashley Young when they were at Everton together.
Maybe he took lessons off Ashley Young when they were at Everton together.
Nobby the knob bragging about trolling
Lol.
Lol.
Both players go for the ball, neither gets it and both make contact with each other. It's a 'coming together' and not a foul by either imo. Just because more force comes from Phillips is irrelevant. They both move towards each other and it takes two to tango. Completely different if Gordon gets the ball. Similar situation with Zaha against Man U last season where he stepped over the ball and the defender went for it but he looped his leg over the ball and the defender caught him instead. No penalty given.
Similar in a play-off final a year or two ago Sheff Weds v Bristol C I think where two players swung for the ball and the video was inconclusive as to who (if any) got the ball first. More force came from the Weds player but the other player stuck his leg out into the path of the Weds player. Forwards will abuse this if pens are given for it.
Similar in a play-off final a year or two ago Sheff Weds v Bristol C I think where two players swung for the ball and the video was inconclusive as to who (if any) got the ball first. More force came from the Weds player but the other player stuck his leg out into the path of the Weds player. Forwards will abuse this if pens are given for it.
Possible offside: Gordon before penalty award
What happened: Newcastle United were given a penalty in the third minute when Vladimír Coufal brought down Anthony Gordon inside the area. Referee Rob Jones immediately pointed to the spot, but was the Newcastle midfielder offside before he was fouled?
VAR decision: Penalty stands, scored by Alexander Isak.
VAR review: The VAR, David Coote, didn't need long to confirm that Gordon, who was caught after he had moved in front of Coufal to collect a loose ball, had been fouled. There was a greater question over the offside phase, requiring a delay of two minutes 42 seconds from the award to the VAR check being completed.
When the ball was touched by Fabian Schär, Gordon was in an offside position -- but just being stood there isn't an offence. After Schar's touch, the ball was helped on by West Ham defender Konstantinos Mavropanos before Gordon moved for it and was brought down.
For Coote and the VAR team it's about whether Mavropanos' touch should be deemed a "deliberate play." If so, that resets the phase, Gordon cannot be offside and the penalty must stand. However, if the VAR decides that Mavropanos has no control, or has just made a block, then the original offside phase is active and Gordon cannot become involved in the move.
In this context the phrase "deliberate play" often causes confusion. It's really about a defender being able to make a controlled pass or clearance, and doesn't simply excuse a poor play of the ball.
There are many different aspects that a referee can take into account to determine a "deliberate play," including how long a defender has to react, and whether they are stretching or off balance.
This is an edge case, it can be argued that Mavropanos instinctively just tries to get something on the ball. Yet at the same time he's not fully under pressure, is facing the ball and could have cleared better. Jones told the VAR he felt it was a "deliberate play" by Mavropanos, and there's not enough to say that was clear and obvious error.
What happened: Newcastle United were given a penalty in the third minute when Vladimír Coufal brought down Anthony Gordon inside the area. Referee Rob Jones immediately pointed to the spot, but was the Newcastle midfielder offside before he was fouled?
VAR decision: Penalty stands, scored by Alexander Isak.
VAR review: The VAR, David Coote, didn't need long to confirm that Gordon, who was caught after he had moved in front of Coufal to collect a loose ball, had been fouled. There was a greater question over the offside phase, requiring a delay of two minutes 42 seconds from the award to the VAR check being completed.
When the ball was touched by Fabian Schär, Gordon was in an offside position -- but just being stood there isn't an offence. After Schar's touch, the ball was helped on by West Ham defender Konstantinos Mavropanos before Gordon moved for it and was brought down.
For Coote and the VAR team it's about whether Mavropanos' touch should be deemed a "deliberate play." If so, that resets the phase, Gordon cannot be offside and the penalty must stand. However, if the VAR decides that Mavropanos has no control, or has just made a block, then the original offside phase is active and Gordon cannot become involved in the move.
In this context the phrase "deliberate play" often causes confusion. It's really about a defender being able to make a controlled pass or clearance, and doesn't simply excuse a poor play of the ball.
There are many different aspects that a referee can take into account to determine a "deliberate play," including how long a defender has to react, and whether they are stretching or off balance.
This is an edge case, it can be argued that Mavropanos instinctively just tries to get something on the ball. Yet at the same time he's not fully under pressure, is facing the ball and could have cleared better. Jones told the VAR he felt it was a "deliberate play" by Mavropanos, and there's not enough to say that was clear and obvious error.
Possible penalty: Phillips challenge on Gordon
What happened: Newcastle were on the attack in the 74th minute. The ball fell to West Ham midfielder Kalvin Phillips inside the area, who made contact with Gordon as he attempted to clear. Referee Jones ignored claims for a penalty, with the situation being checked by the VAR when the ball went out of play.
VAR decision: Penalty, scored by Isak
VAR review: This caused a huge amount of controversy, yet it's not quite as straightforward as it may seem. I don't believe this should be a penalty, but that doesn't mean it's an error for the VAR to get involved.
It not actually that different from the Coufal incident, in that Gordon gets in front of an opponent and receives a tackle from behind. Yet Gordon seems to at least have some intention of playing the ball in the first case.
There's two sides to this argument. Phillips is making a clearance and that he isn't aware of Gordon isn't in itself any kind of watertight defence, in fact we often see penalties given in similar circumstance when an attacker comes from behind a defender and is then kicked.
Kalvin Phillips kicks the leg of Anthony Gordon after the Newcastle United player had placed it in front of him. Stu Forster/Getty Images
However, in those circumstance the attacker has usually touched or taken possession of the ball. Gordon seems to have only one intention with his actions: to place his foot in front of Phillips before he has the chance to kick the ball. Isn't this a clear case of initiating contact? Phillips is trying to play the ball, and Gordon's actions prevent him from doing so. Why should the VAR be rewarding Gordon for that? It feels like it would be much better if the game just continued.
That said, whatever we may feel about this individually, the general opinion from within the game and refereeing circles has been that this was a penalty due to the level of force in Phillips' kick. It would therefore be a surprise if the Independent Panel ruled this to be an error.
It does feel that if the VAR hadn't got involved it wouldn't have caused much controversy.
Both Dale Johnson of ESPN
What happened: Newcastle were on the attack in the 74th minute. The ball fell to West Ham midfielder Kalvin Phillips inside the area, who made contact with Gordon as he attempted to clear. Referee Jones ignored claims for a penalty, with the situation being checked by the VAR when the ball went out of play.
VAR decision: Penalty, scored by Isak
VAR review: This caused a huge amount of controversy, yet it's not quite as straightforward as it may seem. I don't believe this should be a penalty, but that doesn't mean it's an error for the VAR to get involved.
It not actually that different from the Coufal incident, in that Gordon gets in front of an opponent and receives a tackle from behind. Yet Gordon seems to at least have some intention of playing the ball in the first case.
There's two sides to this argument. Phillips is making a clearance and that he isn't aware of Gordon isn't in itself any kind of watertight defence, in fact we often see penalties given in similar circumstance when an attacker comes from behind a defender and is then kicked.
Kalvin Phillips kicks the leg of Anthony Gordon after the Newcastle United player had placed it in front of him. Stu Forster/Getty Images
However, in those circumstance the attacker has usually touched or taken possession of the ball. Gordon seems to have only one intention with his actions: to place his foot in front of Phillips before he has the chance to kick the ball. Isn't this a clear case of initiating contact? Phillips is trying to play the ball, and Gordon's actions prevent him from doing so. Why should the VAR be rewarding Gordon for that? It feels like it would be much better if the game just continued.
That said, whatever we may feel about this individually, the general opinion from within the game and refereeing circles has been that this was a penalty due to the level of force in Phillips' kick. It would therefore be a surprise if the Independent Panel ruled this to be an error.
It does feel that if the VAR hadn't got involved it wouldn't have caused much controversy.
Both Dale Johnson of ESPN
Laughable when you consider Refs and VAR ignore all-in wrestling at most corners.
The rules should be rigidly enforced.
Allowing the Refs and VAR to make judgement calls makes them the far too powerful. Makes games too easy to fix.
Allowing the Refs and VAR to make judgement calls makes them the far too powerful. Makes games too easy to fix.
'The level of force in Phillips kick' as an excuse is laughable, he is trying to clear the ball not make a tackle. All Gordon does is effectively block Phillips from kicking the ball by getting his leg in the way. If Gordon gets the ball it should be a pen, if he doesn't then play on (or even a free to Philips).
You are going to get attackers who have no chance of getting the ball sticking their leg out to block a defender clearing the ball and get pens when they previously wouldn't even go for the ball if you give pens for that.
You are going to get attackers who have no chance of getting the ball sticking their leg out to block a defender clearing the ball and get pens when they previously wouldn't even go for the ball if you give pens for that.
No Gordon doesn't have to play the ball.
Same as shepherding ball out.
You simply need to be in a position to play ball.
The force seems laughable I thought it was his April fool, but
seemingly he is serious.
Same as shepherding ball out.
You simply need to be in a position to play ball.
The force seems laughable I thought it was his April fool, but
seemingly he is serious.
"Completely different if Gordon gets the ball. Similar situation with Zaha against Man U last season where he stepped over the ball and the defender went for it but he looped his"
Sorry you saying if Gordon gets the ball threw me
He doesn't need to get the ball nor play the ball
Sorry you saying if Gordon gets the ball threw me
He doesn't need to get the ball nor play the ball
It's a pointless debate.
Being owned by the execution-happy MBS means any wonderous results Newcastle achieve will always be tainted with the suspicion of corruption.
Being owned by the execution-happy MBS means any wonderous results Newcastle achieve will always be tainted with the suspicion of corruption.
All the people who have accused Newcastle of corruption are quiet tonight I see 
All the people who have accused Newcastle of corruption are quiet tonight I see
AFAIK no one has accused Newcastle of corruption. It's their Saudi owners who worry people.
We've seen how City's owners' behaviour has caused alarm in Britain, Germany and the rest of the Europe. Football fans are rightly alarmed by the financial power of all oil states. PGMOL needs to get its act together before it is way too late. The current situation of their officials taking lucrative work with the Saudi PIF is just wrong.
AFAIK no one has accused Newcastle of corruption. It's their Saudi owners who worry people.
We've seen how City's owners' behaviour has caused alarm in Britain, Germany and the rest of the Europe. Football fans are rightly alarmed by the financial power of all oil states. PGMOL needs to get its act together before it is way too late. The current situation of their officials taking lucrative work with the Saudi PIF is just wrong.
Trolls keep on trolling, poor nobby seeking attention from big club.
Premier League referees freelancing in the UAE and Saudi? Webb has got himself in a tangle
in an era when two of the Premier League’s pre-eminent clubs are owned by the vice president of the United Arab Emirates and the sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia respectively, would the PGMOL allow its leading match officials to take lucrative assignments in the UAE Pro League and the Saudi Pro League?
The optics? Not great. Everyone knows that Sheikh Mansour, vice-president and deputy prime minister of the UAE, owns Manchester City. Less well known is that the UAE Football Association has held talks with City Football Group chief executive Ferran Soriano about a “framework of joint cooperation” and that the UAE Pro League’s main sponsor is the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC), whose board members include City chairman Khaldoon Al-Mubarak.
In that context, allowing a group of PGMOL officials to fly to the UAE last week to take charge of a match between Sharjah and Al-Ain — Oliver as referee, Stuart Burt and Cook as assistants, England as VAR — looks inadvisable in the extreme. Not because of doubts about integrity among the officials or the authorities in the UAE, but because having referees on the payroll of another league, with close links to the ownership of Premier League clubs, inevitably brings an extra level of scrutiny that match officials really could do without.
State ownership has brought so many unwanted complications and entanglements into football, but this is one area where the game’s authorities have the opportunity to respond with a polite no — which is exactly what the PGMOL should have done when receiving requests for their referees to work in the UAE and Saudi Arabia.
Webb has supported the principle of Premier League referees taking overseas assignments, believing they will be better for the experience of working in the UAE, or in Saudi Arabia, as Oliver, Burt, England and Simon Bennett did for a match between Al Nassr and Al Hilal in April — or in Super League Greece, as Craig Pawson did last May, or Japan’s J1 League, as Andrew Madley did in June — and for the increased international exposure. Beyond that, having worked for both the Saudi Arabian Football Federation and Major League Soccer, Webb has been keen to strengthen links between the PGMOL and other refereeing bodies.
https://theathletic.com/4922732/2023/10/03/referees-var-diaz-liverpool/
in an era when two of the Premier League’s pre-eminent clubs are owned by the vice president of the United Arab Emirates and the sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia respectively, would the PGMOL allow its leading match officials to take lucrative assignments in the UAE Pro League and the Saudi Pro League?
The optics? Not great. Everyone knows that Sheikh Mansour, vice-president and deputy prime minister of the UAE, owns Manchester City. Less well known is that the UAE Football Association has held talks with City Football Group chief executive Ferran Soriano about a “framework of joint cooperation” and that the UAE Pro League’s main sponsor is the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC), whose board members include City chairman Khaldoon Al-Mubarak.
In that context, allowing a group of PGMOL officials to fly to the UAE last week to take charge of a match between Sharjah and Al-Ain — Oliver as referee, Stuart Burt and Cook as assistants, England as VAR — looks inadvisable in the extreme. Not because of doubts about integrity among the officials or the authorities in the UAE, but because having referees on the payroll of another league, with close links to the ownership of Premier League clubs, inevitably brings an extra level of scrutiny that match officials really could do without.
State ownership has brought so many unwanted complications and entanglements into football, but this is one area where the game’s authorities have the opportunity to respond with a polite no — which is exactly what the PGMOL should have done when receiving requests for their referees to work in the UAE and Saudi Arabia.
Webb has supported the principle of Premier League referees taking overseas assignments, believing they will be better for the experience of working in the UAE, or in Saudi Arabia, as Oliver, Burt, England and Simon Bennett did for a match between Al Nassr and Al Hilal in April — or in Super League Greece, as Craig Pawson did last May, or Japan’s J1 League, as Andrew Madley did in June — and for the increased international exposure. Beyond that, having worked for both the Saudi Arabian Football Federation and Major League Soccer, Webb has been keen to strengthen links between the PGMOL and other refereeing bodies.
https://theathletic.com/4922732/2023/10/03/referees-var-diaz-liverpool/
Howard Webb himself has worked for the Saudis!!!
Restoring the integrity of English football should be the No.1 task of any football regulator. Howard Webb needs to go.
there should be complete transparency who is paying the referees on their overseas jollies
Are they flying out to the middle east first class with Emirates for example and who is paying for the flights
Are they flying out to the middle east first class with Emirates for example and who is paying for the flights
Every club more than £500m in debt should be kicked out of football.
It's not just the money these Refs are earning from owners such as UAE, Qatar & Saudi, it is the 'extras' they get.
I had a mate back in the 80s who worked for a well known trainer company. He used to arrange escorts for some very famous runners who would struggle to pull a dog.
I had a mate back in the 80s who worked for a well known trainer company. He used to arrange escorts for some very famous runners who would struggle to pull a dog.
35 years, at least, without a mate... who guessed.
How much did Man U pay the refs back in the day? Scandalous how they got away with it. Deducted 400 points retrospectively.
nobby you should add other equally good cars were available.
Have you seen the money Escorts go for nowadays!
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539