A&H

Newcastle Vs West Ham

Mooseybaby

Mooseybaby

Retired big bad baldy in all black!
For the neutral, one of the games of the season, it had absolutely everything including a late 2nd yellow/red for Anthony Gordon for kicking the ball away.

Any thoughts on West Ham's 2nd goal. Newcastle player down with what they claim was a facial injury, but West Ham were allowed to take a quick free kick leading them score in the 10th minute of first half stoppage time. Newcastle fuming the free kick was allowed to be taken with their player still down.
 
The Referee Store
Mooseybaby said:
For the neutral, one of the games of the season, it had absolutely everything including a late 2nd yellow/red for Anthony Gordon for kicking the ball away.

Any thoughts on West Ham's 2nd goal. Newcastle player down with what they claim was a facial injury, but West Ham were allowed to take a quick free kick leading them score in the 10th minute of first half stoppage time. Newcastle fuming the free kick was allowed to be taken with their player still down.
Click to expand...

Does not look good in my view the referee walking towards and be right by the ball and then allow West ham to take the quick free kick, too me the referees walk towards the ball suggests he's stopped play and won't allow the quick free kick.

What are people's thoughts on Newcastle seasond penalty? I'm kind of surprised there is alot of anger towards it, looks a clear pen too me. I know you could argue Gordon put his foot there to instigate the contact but it's a clear foul imo.
 
Absolutely astonishing game, don't think I've ever seen so many things happen in a single game.

I would be OK with the quick free kick if there wasn't a player down injured, and even worse down with a head injury. There's an expectation that you don't allow a restart if a player is down injured, and given you are required to stop play for a head injury you certainly shouldn't allow it to be restarted. Can only assume that Rob Jones thought that Schar wasn't really injured, that or he switched off and didn't realise he was still down.

Both penalties were very similar. The first one Gordon got in front of Coufal who clearly then tripped him, the second Gordon got in front of Phillips who absolutely hoofed his standing leg. I do have some sympathy for Phillips as he had no idea Gordon was there and was trying to clear the ball, but it is still a foul unfortunately for him. Really not sure why the VAR check took so long, both at Stockley Park and at the monitor, as it was a nailed on penalty.

Also clear that when Rob Jones showed Gordon his 2nd caution he had absolutely no idea he had already cautioned him. It took Bowen running over to him, and you would hope the other officials in his ear, to make him realise and belatedly show the red card. Gordon thought he had got away with it and had gone back into position rather than head for the tunnel. Ordinarily I'd be critical of him forgetting, especially as his first caution led to a caution for David Moyes who wanted more than yellow, but so much happened in this game he must have been mentally drained.
 
I have no issues with the 2nd penalty, although we have seen similar challenges not given or reviewed this season.
 
A
RustyRef said:
Absolutely astonishing game, don't think I've ever seen so many things happen in a single game.

I would be OK with the quick free kick if there wasn't a player down injured, and even worse down with a head injury. There's an expectation that you don't allow a restart if a player is down injured, and given you are required to stop play for a head injury you certainly shouldn't allow it to be restarted. Can only assume that Rob Jones thought that Schar wasn't really injured, that or he switched off and didn't realise he was still down.

Both penalties were very similar. The first one Gordon got in front of Coufal who clearly then tripped him, the second Gordon got in front of Phillips who absolutely hoofed his standing leg. I do have some sympathy for Phillips as he had no idea Gordon was there and was trying to clear the ball, but it is still a foul unfortunately for him. Really not sure why the VAR check took so long, both at Stockley Park and at the monitor, as it was a nailed on penalty.

Also clear that when Rob Jones showed Gordon his 2nd caution he had absolutely no idea he had already cautioned him. It took Bowen running over to him, and you would hope the other officials in his ear, to make him realise and belatedly show the red card. Gordon thought he had got away with it and had gone back into position rather than head for the tunnel. Ordinarily I'd be critical of him forgetting, especially as his first caution led to a caution for David Moyes who wanted more than yellow, but so much happened in this game he must have been mentally drained.
Click to expand...

The ironic thing, that Gordon first yellow would be where the blue card would work perfectly(he may not of even done it knowing he would have to leave the field) but of course people are too quick to judge negatively on changes and not looking at the overall picture but whilst it's only yellow cards for cynical fouls like that then players will have every right to do what Gordon did if it helps their team.
 
Think this has the potential to be the "Liv-Man C thread 2.0"

I don't actually think the second is a penalty IMHO, Gordon doesn't win the ball, he attempts to win the ball, misses it and as a result puts his leg in the way of Phillips' kick. Struggling to work out what law would be applied (possibly PIADM) but Gordon basically endangers himself and the opponent, as a result, he gets a clump.

If Gordon wins the ball then it's a non contest.
 
The Ginger Ref said:
Think this has the potential to be the "Liv-Man C thread 2.0"

I don't actually think the second is a penalty IMHO, Gordon doesn't win the ball, he attempts to win the ball, misses it and as a result puts his leg in the way of Phillips' kick. Struggling to work out what law would be applied (possibly PIADM) but Gordon basically endangers himself and the opponent, as a result, he gets a clump.

If Gordon wins the ball then it's a non contest.
Click to expand...
Yeah I think there are multiple valid interpretations on the second Gordon one - I’d lean towards PK but also pretty sympathetic to this view given that he has no ability to play the ball.
 
From what I am reading elsewhere this sounds like exactly the scenario I was referring to in the Liv V City about trying to avoid attackers just putting themselves into harms way...

Disclaimer: I am yet to see the challenge so only based upon what I am reading.
 
It’s difficult for Phillips as he’s making the kicking action as Gordon puts his foot infront. Absolutely nothing Phillips could do about it but Gordon is their first and Phillips clobbers his leg. It’s a tricky one. In slow motion it’s easy to see why it’s been given but in real time it’s a lot different
 
By Gordon not playing at the ball (I,e, getting in between Phillips and the ball during Phillips action of attempting to clear it), could it not be seen that he was in fact impeding Phillips?

I'm only saying this because the LOTG glossary has impeding defined as "To delay, block or prevent an opponent’s action or movement"
 
Both penalties for me. Not what I was originally thinking at all. Can see why the room is split on second but for me I'd have given both
 
The biggest problem with all this, goes back to the players playacting again. Was he looking to stop them game because it was a head injury, but then realised the defender was just acting ? (BTW playacting for head injuries seems to becoming quite common...and it's a really distasteful thing to do)
 
BCMilan said:
The biggest problem with all this, goes back to the players playacting again. Was he looking to stop them game because it was a head injury, but then realised the defender was just acting ?
Click to expand...
The first half was littered with players holding their heads after minimal contact with Guimarães and Paquetá being the worst offenders. I think the ref had probably had enough by that stage, so let the free kick be taken quickly.
 
The Ginger Ref said:
Think this has the potential to be the "Liv-Man C thread 2.0"

I don't actually think the second is a penalty IMHO, Gordon doesn't win the ball, he attempts to win the ball, misses it and as a result puts his leg in the way of Phillips' kick. Struggling to work out what law would be applied (possibly PIADM) but Gordon basically endangers himself and the opponent, as a result, he gets a clump.

If Gordon wins the ball then it's a non contest.
Click to expand...

If Gordon had arrive fractionally later as Phillips is mid kick - PIADM?
 
Jorik0907 said:
Can't be piadm with contact
Click to expand...
I would argue it is PIADM by Gordon, because Gordon doesn't make contact with Phillips, but endagers himself and Phillips (the easier sell might be impeding).

Does anyone know whether this could be intepreted as obstruction? I think it would be a really hard sell, but Gordon does ineffect obstruct Phillips from the ball.
 
The Ginger Ref said:
I would argue it is PIADM by Gordon, because Gordon doesn't make contact with Phillips, but endagers himself and Phillips (the easier sell might be impeding).

Does anyone know whether this could be intepreted as obstruction? I think it would be a really hard sell, but Gordon does ineffect obstruct Phillips from the ball.
Click to expand...
Obstruction is not a thing. 😊
 
JamesL said:
Obstruction is not a thing. 😊
Click to expand...

Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the opponent’s path to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction when the ball is not within playing distance of either player.

FA Laws of the Game

--

Obstruction, or impeding the progress of an opponent, is when a player unfairly uses their body to prevent an opponent from getting to and/or playing the ball.

IFAB
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top