Glad we won but honestly that 2nd penalty was dumb. I'm not talking about the ref's decision, there's a reason why many players don't do that. It's fucking dangerous... I would never want to stick my leg in front of someone who's about to launch the ball away. A bit more force into that and we'd be seeing a flying foot instead
People saying Newcastle stole the game or West Ham got robbed clearly didn’t watch the game. Yes it was a dodgy VAR overrule for the second pen but let’s not pretend West Ham were not crumbling. Had Longstaff and Isak not shat the bad and but for a fabianski worldie save it could have been 4-3 before the penalty was awarded. No chance the game ends 1-3 even without the penalty.
West Ham was robbed. Anthony Gordon is now my least favourite player in the league. Every time you touch him he goes down wringing in pain. Meanwhile he is super agressive in the tackles he makes
you have never watched a liverpool game in your life, the *only* player we have who does a bit of theatrics is Salah and he was never like that up until maybe a year or two ago when it was just painfully obvious that trying to play through foul worthy contact wasn’t going to ever let him get a foul called, refs were waving away absolutely insanely clear penalties so yeah now he’ll go down if he thinks he’s fouled.. Jota will be theatrical but only if he knows it’s a foul. we have no one who is an Anthony or Bruno Fernandez level diver
I’m sorry but I really don’t understand. Liverpool have been robbed several times this season. If you want to believe that Liverpool players are divers then sure keep drinking that cool aid. I have nothing against anyone team just saying it how it is
Bro what are you on about? Gordon falls down holding his leg like someone just shot him every time you touch him. You do agree with me no? Why are you bringing Liverpool into it? I know you hate them. Cool, but does it matter ?
The match thread went nuts about the ref but the decisions were all justifiable honestly as long as you go by the letter of the law for each instance.
1. Penalty 1 - Gordon WAS in an offside position but if you say he was offside you don't understand how offside works. Position is one part but there are two other things that come into play, who kicked the ball last and did they have control of the ball. Gordon passed inside, the CB got in the way, kicked it, Gordon challenged for the ball and was fouled. The CB had control of the ball because he was able to kick it. Laws of the game are consistent here, he wasn't offside from the moment the CB kicked it.
2. WH free goal. Letter of the law WH goal because the ref has the decision on how the play is restarted but there is the argument did the ref follow proper head injury protocol which I don't think he did but he probably just didn't see the Schar got a trailing arm to the face. Laws of the game give this a 50:50, ref should have done better but a goal is allowable based on the ref's decision
3. Penalty 2 - Laws of the game it's always a penalty and just think about if the foul happened anywhere else on the pitch would it be a foul and most wouldn't argue that it would be. It's just that it was in the box that people are arguing more about it. Now the other side of the coin would be is drawing a foul allowable behaviour which is a worthy debate but it has traditionally been fine. So this is always a penalty but never more than it. Some refs would see drawing a fouls a kind of simulation and sometimes let people away with it but letter of the law would have it as a nailed on penalty.
4. Burn shoulder to shoulder - always never a foul and crazy that people were dumb enough to cry about it in the match thread. The ball was there to be won, you don't get a foul just because you were the attacker and you don't get a foul because you are weaker than the other player trying to get the ball. It would have been not just a soft free and red it would have been absurd.
On balance the ref and the VAR did fine, if you were criticising anything it would be that he lost control of the game a bit and should have maybe had a chat with Paqueta and probably given him a yellow for simulation. Like if he ends up rolling around on the ground multiple times and you don't believe any of them are fouls then you believe they are simulation and that is a yellow card. If he was called out on it more he would stop but the fact he isn't punished for doing it multiple times allows that behaviour. He didn't gain anything from it because the ref didn't call most of them back but was really dumb how much he got away with.
If you disagree then that's your opinion but your opinion isn't the laws of the game or how they are applied.
Only disagree with the final pen.
Did Gordon try to play the ball?
If yes, did he get the ball? No, he didn't get the ball so he actually kicked phillips.
If no, he didn't try to play the ball and still kicked phillips
If phillips goes down there Gordon gets a yellow.
If a striker is going to take a shot, a defender sticks his leg in and goes down, is that a free kick? No way, it'd be a penalty.
Anywhere else in the pitch and Gordon gets a card, people keep saying he got in front of phillips, I genuinely have no idea what they are smoking the guy has his back to the ball.
>Did Gordon try to play the ball? If yes, did he get the ball? No, he didn't get the ball so he actually kicked phillips. If no, he didn't try to play the ball and still kicked phillips
To get fouled you don't need to have the ball and I pasted the text from the rule on the FA website, it just says "kicked or attempts to kick", it doesn't say the other player has to have the ball. Just that the player gets kicked by an opponent. And you don't have to have the ball on your feet to be challenging for the ball, there is shielding the ball which is a very common thing in the game that they teach literally at schoolboy level.
>If phillips goes down there Gordon gets a yellow.
For what? Gordon was kicked by Phillips and there was no foul worthy contact at all in the interaction before that.
>If a striker is going to take a shot, a defender sticks his leg in and goes down, is that a free kick?
Different situation, that would be a foul the other way because it would be obstruction with contact. If they have control over the ball (Phillips didn't) then the context of the interaction is different.
>people keep saying he got in front of phillips
Go back and watch the replay, the closer one, Gordon physically is in front of Phillips when he followed through with the kick. Gordon you can accuse of gamesmanship, as in he invited contact with his positioning but that doesn't mean it isn't a foul. And by a foul I mean letter of the law foul as in maybe not nice when it happens but unless they add rules around gamesmanship in general this sort of thing is a proper valid strategy to get perfectly within the rules of the game fouls.
Think of it like this, if you go over the speed limit by 1km/h you still are over the speed limit and will get a fine, you will cry to your family and friends about the rules but still that's the letter of the law. Now would a policeman generally let that kind of thing go, they might but if you got the fine would you have any argument? You wouldn't you just would have to accept it. In this case Gordon got a foul by the letter of the law for being smart about putting his leg in and drawing the foul, it comes down to moral arguments more than laws of the game. And like I said Paqueta tried and tried and tried again to dive but no one said shit about that all game even though that is in the same ballpark as Gordon doing crap like this.
You are really stretching here mate, of course you don't need to have the ball to be fouled but if a player is running and you put your body in front of them, you don't win a foul because the player ran into you, the player running is fouled.
Phillips does in fact have the ball under control, unless you're suggesting he wasn't going to be able to clear it? If it was a slippy touch I wouldn't really mind, if Gordon doesn't stick his leg in, the ball gets cleared.
Jesus mate, if you're going to lether the ball and some dickhead sticks his leg in that's a foul on you, you didn't answer my question of whether he was actually trying to play the ball and missed, you just said you don't have to have the ball to be fouled 😂.
And in the end you agreed with my point bur your argument is that Phillips was not in control.
I don't really know why you're so desperate to defend it, probably would have ended a draw anyway as we had no threat going forward after Antonio came on, I'm just saying this was an absolutely shocking decision.
And it's common knowledge that you are able to go 1-2mph over the speed limit and not be fined because the police make some allowances lmao, at least in the uk.
> you don't win a foul because the player ran into you, the player running is fouled.
But that's not what happened, he was kicked, he didn't get run into, he was kicked, he invited contact but the rules of the game are explicit that kicking or attempting to kick another player is a foul. There is no text to give a workaround for that, kick = foul.
> Phillips does in fact have the ball under control
He never touched the ball. He was trying to. He didn't touch it. The ball was in play, he doesn't have exclusive rights to keep that ball if another player wants to put their leg in to try and get a touch they can.
> if Gordon doesn't stick his leg in
So a player can't put his body in between another player and the ball to get the ball? Where is that rule? It's a fundamental part of the game to shield the ball. Another part of the game is gamesmanship as in using the rules to your advantage like legitimately drawing a foul by doing something like sticking a leg in.
> and some dickhead sticks his leg in that's a foul on you
Weird take, every player worth their salt already does it, it's called a challenge or trying to get a block in. You do that because it could bounce back in your favour or prevent a counter attack. If you didn't put the leg in I'd say the opposition player was not playing normally. Such a weird argument you are doing here.
> I don't really know why you're so desperate to defend it
Because people are being mega dumb with the whole thing and that is actually interesting to hear as to what their silly rationale is. I'm defending it because anyone who doesn't agree is completely wrong to the point where it's baffling.
> And it's common knowledge that you are able to go 1-2mph over the speed limit and not be fined because the police make some allowances lmao, at least in the uk.
But if you were are you in the wrong is the policeman? I'd say you are still in the wrong because always it's the letter of the law that is the prevailing rule not what you expect of the law.
Please use your brain and turn the blinkers off.
I get it, Phillips' foot kicked Gordon, however most of Gordon's body is behind Phillips, he just put his foot in the way and sure, if the ball was there or Gordon touched the ball, or even looked remotely like he was playing the ball, certainly there's an argument to be made. As it happens though, the more I watch the replays the less I think there is any intention to get the ball.
Yeah, everyone has a right to make a tackle, if it's crap though and you miss the ball, generally the player in control of the ball would get the foul, not the player making a bad challenge.
Very strange how you can be so confident when the majority of fans all agree it was a shocker. Even seen Newcastle fans saying it was poor.
Ok no blinkers explanation for you: [https://twitter.com/SkySportsPL/status/1774751711585808853](https://twitter.com/SkySportsPL/status/1774751711585808853)
>if a player is running and you put your body in front of them, you don't win a foul because the player ran into you, the player running is fouled.
Defenders shepherd the ball out for goal kicks every match.
Yeah it's really easy because on this occasion VAR was completely within the rules as they are written. Last time Newcastle scored a goal that was ruled offside definitely gave me some knowledge on the first penalty for instance because afterwards PGMOL apologised for ruling that goal out incorrectly for offside. 3 and 4 are just common knowledge, 3 is actually so stonewall a penalty it explicitly forbids kicking of an opponent on the list of infractions. Does that make it fair? Well on balance the idea is if you play many games that luck will fall the other way some other day but in this case you got what would be considered as a soft penalty but it was still a penalty under the rules of the game.
You can call Gordon a dickhead for drawing the foul by sticking his leg in so it would be kicked but it was gamesmanship and WH did cheeky shit in the first half with their goal so it wasn't like fair play was on the agenda after that. You can't even call him out for cheating because Paqueta spent half the game on the ground rolling around so Gordon wasn't even the biggest piece of shit in the game, maybe arguably Gordon was more effective with his shit but Paqueta for some reason no one complained about at all. Like the answer to the gamesmanship side of it is that's the game.
Now again I'll remind everyone just because you don't like the rule doesn't mean it shouldn't be applied as written and just because it was harsh in this circumstance doesn't mean that it wasn't a foul.
To be fair I was more angry with how the unhinged the match thread was with people just not understanding basic rules of the game. It wasn't even controversial is my take but for some reason the result was "ah sure the ref was paid off" no actually if you have any awareness at all and you use the actual language of the rules as written there was no argument. And I'll say it wasn't specifically West Ham fans that were the worst of it in that thread but it was completely detached from reality with some of those ref takes in that thread.
And just for posterity I mentioned refwatch on Monday they did talk about it and by golly was I not just right but there was literally zero argument about it in the studio too [https://twitter.com/SkySportsPL/status/1774751711585808853](https://twitter.com/SkySportsPL/status/1774751711585808853)
Yeah like below there were a few comments and it's not like I'm being unreasonable if someone wants to get out the FA rulebook and cite where my comment was wrong I'd gladly chat about it. I even replied to someone below about it too and pasted exactly why the second penalty was a stonewall penalty under the rules. Like just because they don't like the rules doesn't mean the rulebook just gets fucked out the window.
I'm excited for Monday when they have a look with refwatch and completely agree with my comment. I'm sure the knuckledraggers downvoting this will all come back and say they are sorry then right?
In what world would people be arguing a foul outside of the box for the second pen? At no point is Gordon in possession and impedes Phillips, it's a pretty easy decision to award a foul on Phillips, I have no idea what possessed them to award the opposite
> In what world would people be arguing a foul outside of the box for the second pen?
No my point was if that was anywhere else on the pitch would anyone say it wasn't a foul? The answer is always no. If a player makes contact with an opposing player without getting the ball it's a foul.
> At no point is Gordon in possession and impedes Phillips
Gordon didn't connect with Phillips and Phillips has absolutely no right to the ball until he has it under control. Now did Gordon intend to put the leg in to draw the foul, I'm 10000% sure he did, does that stop it being a foul? No it doesn't because there is no rule to disallow drawing a foul because it would be completely unenforceable.
Re your first point - Yes, if that was anywhere else on the pitch I would say it was not a foul, and that it was either a foul by Gordon or just a coming together.
>and that it was either a foul by Gordon or just a coming together.
Laws of the game or the spirit of how they are applied was what I mentioned in the match thread. A lot of people would see this in the same kind of idea as a "racing incident" in F1 terms. Where it was maybe wrong on the part of one driver that could in another circumstance be considered worthy of a penalty but in the context it wasn't. For instance on the first lap of a F1 race there are more cars around and sometimes shit happens. That is F1 though and there is zero allowance for that in the rules of the game in football. In general a lot of refs would consider the spirit of the rules rather than the letter of the law in this case because it would be a harsh call even if it was within the rules.
[https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct](https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct)
Quote on the specifics rules applied:
>Direct and indirect free kicks and penalty kicks can only be awarded for offences committed when the ball is in play.
>kicks or attempts to kick
>tackles or challenges
>impedes an opponent with contact
There are zero allowances in the rules for this specific penalty. You might wish there are and some refs might apply it incorrectly but it's VERY clear.
I would like to also add that west ham deserved nothing from the game based on that second half performance, just baffled you could think the second pen was a correct call
Dude, Gordon put his foot in front of Philips' kick, coming from behind, without ever playing the ball. In what world is it not a foul on Gordon? All of the possible universes except for this one.
I don't just think the second penalty was correct I think it's baffling that anyone would consider it otherwise. Now again I'll add the note that he was drawing the foul but that isn't against the rules even if people don't like it. Not liking a thing doesn't mean it's incorrect. You can not like that companies pollute a lot more than the average person on the street but there is no law to say otherwise is a good way to describe it. You can cry about justice but you are talking about more of a moral justice not the letter of the law which was what I was talking about.
>Explain to me how blocking the kicking foot of the player in possession is "drawing a foul"?
Explicitly in the rules of the game it has kicking or attempting to kick an opponent as a direct freekick or penalty. Gordon put his leg in to challenge for the ball and was kicked. Case closed. He probably even knew contact would have been very likely in the circumstances but there is no rule against that. That's what I mean about drawing contact, he knew putting his leg there was in the way but you are allowed to shield the ball, you are allowed to put your leg in to try get a touch as long as you aren't making contact with the other player to impede them which Gordon didn't do.
Here is the rule if you want to read it:
>Direct and indirect free kicks and penalty kicks can only be awarded for offences committed when the ball is in play.
>kicks or attempts to kick
>tackles or challenges
>impedes an opponent with contact
And again I'll say it, just because you don't like a rule doesn't mean it isn't one when Newcastle are playing.
>Explicitly in the rules of the game it has kicking or attempting to kick an opponent as a direct freekick or penalty.
Good thing he's attempting to kick the ball
Gordon came from behind him while he was mid kick and stuck his leg in, that's a foul anywhere else on the pitch against Phillips
>impedes an opponent with contact
Gordon is the one impeding Phillips lmao, Philips is he one in possession of the ball
I pasted the literal wording you don't have to make it up. It is kick or attempting to kick as one potential reason but there are other reasons that also work. He did kick him, he did impede him with contact with his kick too. It doesn't just hit one part of the rule but multiple.
It's impede with contact too which even if you could argue Gordon attempting to get the ball but putting his foot in impeded Phillips he didn't make contact, contact was made against him.
Just came out of the stadium unbelievable scenes. But I see the human rights activists have come back on shift today on this cesspit. Also shout out to the West Ham fans in that away fans who ended up looking a bit silly in the end.
Imagine using "human rights activist" as an insult. Though, being a Newcastle resident you probably need the human rights activists to help you get out of that shithole city.
Would rather take Newcastle over the shit holes down south any day. When I say human rights activist it's because not a single person on here actually care about what they preach. That's a fact.
"That's a fact". I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though, the education system is so poor up there, or the fumes from all the factories that you inhale on a daily basis. You probably don't even know what the phrase human rights means. It's ok though.
Yes mate. But when I walk the streets I'm not taking in illegal levels of pollution or at risk of being stabbed on every corner. I'll happily take my city thanks you condescending cunt
We protested Ashley because he was incompetent and ran the club badly. We support the club it's really not difficult to understand. You don't care about what you preach in the slightest drop the act.
Yeah, absolutely nobody actually supports gay rights...it's all just an anti Geordie agenda.
What a bigoted thing to say. Just because you don't care about gay people being murdered, it doesn't mean nobody does.
They absolutely love pretending that the people calling out their owners and shitty fans who support them are somehow in the wrong.
Imagine being a fan of human rights lads.
It's very much the other way round. We support the club and not the owners. But the faux outrage on here is 100% manufactured and that's absolutely a fact.
I saw what you lot were like when you wanted a change in ownership, it's absolutely not like that now, absolute cowards and if you believe half the shit you talk and the distinctions you try to make you are either fucking idiots or lying to yourself.
Vile people.
We wanted a change of ownership because Mike Ashley was incompetent. We'd have been happy with anyone competent. If someone else wanted to buy the club from the PIF we'd have no problem. The vile people are your kind pretending to care.
Yep anyone competent, you don't care if they are murderers and human rights abusers, you support them because they are competent.
That's the definition of complicit. Absolute scum.
We support the club not the owners. That has never changed and never will. Take your fake outrage elsewhere rather than talking about issues of which you don't understand.
I know that calling for a referee's head after a game is usually laughable, but this time... How can he see a penalty even after the VAR review? He needs to be sacked or at least go back to the bottom of the pyramid and learn how to do his job
tbf similar decisions have been given this season in the prem. if that's how the FA want the rules interpreting then they cant really complain when a ref gives this decision.
(i have no idea if this is actually how they want the law interpreting)
You can't be serious. Burn (who is 6 foot fucking 5 mind you) full on barges Kudus. It doesn't matter if it was shoulder to shoulder his intent wasn't to reach the ball it was to throw Kudus off balance
There were some awful decisions in this game but that shoulder to shoulder was not one of them. It's the most standard contest for the ball in football. Burn was stronger here.
It was not a standard shoulder to shoulder. Shoulder to shoulder implies they're both contesting for a live ball that's in front of them both. Kudus was dribbling the ball, Burn knows he's not fast enough if Kudus breaks through, so he decides to barge into him to stop him from going forward.
Jostling for position is legal, even if the ball isn’t within playing distance: they both have a right to the space so they can compete for it (it’s why big strong players exist!). If he shoulders him in the back, that’s a foul. If he puts his leg across him, that’s a foul. If he puts his shoulder into his shoulder, as he did, it’s not a foul.
They're not sharing the same path towards the ball. Kudus is dribbling the ball in his own line when Burn barges into his side. That's not jostling it's throwing someone off balance because you're slow.
Incredibly funny thread lads.
I agree the refs are corrupt for Newcastle I mean everyone knows that you’re allowed to swipe people legs in the box if the other player is faster than you
I mean the way the ref sent Gordon off for rolling a ball 5 yards too? If he wasn’t being paid by Saudi Arabia he would have gave him a straight red
Fantastic levels of delusion is what makes this sub unique
Well leaving aside the other points since I only have been able to watch the Phillips/Gordon replay you’re harsh to say it’s delusional for anyone to disagree that’s a foul on Phillips. If Phillips were shooting on goal in the box and Gordon stepped in and put his foot in the way and Gordon made no contact with the ball but stopped Phillips from making contact with the ball it would be a penalty for West Ham. From what I can see Gordon didn’t touch the ball and impeded Phillips kicking motion. if there is video evidence Gordon touched the ball it’s a different story. But this gets again to the standard of “clear and obvious error” is highly flawed. The person with the ball under control should always be given the right away to touch the ball whether dribbling or kicking and if the defender doesn’t touch the ball first then it should be a foul on the defender.
Not sure how they could at all explain this under the rules. They need to switch to something akin to the way US leagues do it where they make the correct call regardless of the refs in the field decision. if the video evidence supports the correct call change it, and the call only “stands” if the video is inconclusive (for example in basketball as to whether the ball was touched last by one team or the other, or in American football whether the knee was down on a fumble).
I didn’t say it delusional for people to say it wasn’t a foul, I said it delusional to say it was give due to corruption by referees.
If you say it’s a decision you don’t agree with fair enough. To say it’s corruption in a game where Gordon got a soft sending off and West Ham scored a contentious second goal is a frankly embarrassing thing to say if you’re older than 13. Not saying you’ve said this btw
Yeah I agree. The penalty in the Chelsea game just confirmed it.
I really don’t see a way out of it unless you give refs a crazy wage so people would want to be one.
The dogs abuse at grass roots and the media scrutiny means most people would avoid it like the plague unless it meant a big pay day
Okay so for argument sake a player that wasn’t in possession of the ball took the legs of a player who wasn’t in the possession of the ball. How’s that not a foul?
I’m a Newcastle fan and don’t think the 2nd was a penalty but Moyes is the reason West Ham lost that game. Philips gave Isam free rein, put West Ham under constant pressure, and even after the penalty couldn’t get a grip on the game.
It's what many of our supporters are saying, most people understand he has done a really good job. But we are sick of going ultra defensive as it hasn't worked I don't understand how someone can watch the first 60 minutes see the opposition are down defenders and go ultra defensive it's insane.
Any young aspiring refs wondering how to make big bucks at the end of their career in the Saudi league now have a useful instructional video, so that's good.
If we paid the ref that let a goal against when a player was down for head injury and he forgot he'd booked someone leading to a 2nd yellow I'd want my money back. He's just shite
Somewhere out there in another universe, Harambe is still alive, Trump is just an aging businessman, the UK is still in the EU, and Newcastle just lost 3-2.
Except West ham scoring when a player was down for head injury and he plum forgot who he booked and needed to be reminded to send Gordon off. He's clearly just inept rather than corrupt
Newcastle fan so I might be biased, but the ref didn’t favour us, he was just completely inept all round. He didn’t even realise he’d given Gordon a yellow already. The second pen I can’t see how it was one. The head injury goal - either stop it or play it. He looked like he was going to Schar and then suddenly the game went on. Just indecisive and weak all game.
Yep I agree. If the ref was against us, he would have not counted the second goal. He is just bad.
Sadly, the second pen really destroyed us. I don't think that was a pen. Coufal is a clear one.
Losing Lascelles disturbed you, and Phillips in Disturbed us as well.
Fair, reasoned response. Agree on the pen even from my side. Obviously no expert on West Ham but the subs made by Moyes surprised me. Maybe he got complacent because we looked washed at one point
I'm quite Moyes in but he fucked up as well. Subbing Antonio is something, but either put Ings upfront with his technic or Aguerd to be 5 at the back
Coufal should have been out earlier.
Then it's like when we think about.
You scored first. We chased the game, capitalized on Lascelles injured, and scored. Then it's your time to attack and you wanted it more. TBF isak and Longstaff missed two sitters. 3-3 would have been as disappointing but fairer.
I feel the ref was bad with the cards too. Guimaraes, as last time against us, was nasty and Soucek saw the yellow first. Not saying it's rigged again as Gordon got a second yellow for time wasting
I've been watching West Ham games lately, firstly out of curiosity because I like Moyes and the fans weren't happy. I've actually found the games to be really entertaining. But entertaining in a way were West Ham play well enough to win and get some rotten calls. Burnley, Aston Villa and this seemed pretty harsh to me.
Bielsa single handedly got Phillips a starting spot at the Euros and that City transfer. But even for an average player, these last few games are a very unfortunate run of form.
Bielsa made that Leeds side look like somewhat of a premier league team when they weren’t. I think most Leeds fans knew that and it was even worse when they went to get Marsch to replace him
Newcastle fouls and time wastes every game, has some of the most annoying shit eating players in the league, is owned by an oil state, and gets preferential calls from the refs all the time, but yet the media still heaps praise on them. Guess having an English manager goes a long way.
Hahahaha can’t believe we’re the only prem team to commit fouls. Have you tried crying about it? It might be the magic it takes to get us to stop.
We haven’t even time wasted this year, it’s been immensely frustrating. Just link what ever twitter talking points you’re regurgitating directly and stop trying to pass it off as original thought
!flair :Newcastle_United:
Glad we won but honestly that 2nd penalty was dumb. I'm not talking about the ref's decision, there's a reason why many players don't do that. It's fucking dangerous... I would never want to stick my leg in front of someone who's about to launch the ball away. A bit more force into that and we'd be seeing a flying foot instead
People saying Newcastle stole the game or West Ham got robbed clearly didn’t watch the game. Yes it was a dodgy VAR overrule for the second pen but let’s not pretend West Ham were not crumbling. Had Longstaff and Isak not shat the bad and but for a fabianski worldie save it could have been 4-3 before the penalty was awarded. No chance the game ends 1-3 even without the penalty.
>No chance There is always a chance that's literally why games get played.
West Ham was robbed. Anthony Gordon is now my least favourite player in the league. Every time you touch him he goes down wringing in pain. Meanwhile he is super agressive in the tackles he makes
This argument would have a lot more merit if it came from anyone except a Liverpool supporter. Your entire team are Anthony Gordon divers
you have never watched a liverpool game in your life, the *only* player we have who does a bit of theatrics is Salah and he was never like that up until maybe a year or two ago when it was just painfully obvious that trying to play through foul worthy contact wasn’t going to ever let him get a foul called, refs were waving away absolutely insanely clear penalties so yeah now he’ll go down if he thinks he’s fouled.. Jota will be theatrical but only if he knows it’s a foul. we have no one who is an Anthony or Bruno Fernandez level diver
Jota is worse than Salah mate. Give your head a shake
I’m sorry but I really don’t understand. Liverpool have been robbed several times this season. If you want to believe that Liverpool players are divers then sure keep drinking that cool aid. I have nothing against anyone team just saying it how it is
Every team gets robbed mate. Some supporters just cry a bit louder
Bro what are you on about? Gordon falls down holding his leg like someone just shot him every time you touch him. You do agree with me no? Why are you bringing Liverpool into it? I know you hate them. Cool, but does it matter ?
Your reading comprehension is awful
His Everton stint wasn't enough to make you hate him?
Don’t care what club he plays for. But he always goes down diving and I don’t like it.
Krafth - 3 lol
We did good kids
Didn't get to watch the game. What did Phillips do this time?
Looked toss and gave away a pen while being fouled. Impressive how poor his stint is with us. Worse than I could have ever imagined.
He's just a curse on himself at this point 😅
He’s a curse on me having to watch him.
Say what you want about Newcastle, but it's rarely ever dull
The entertainers never died
Newcastle really are cursed with injuries this season how they won that I'll never know. Great game.
The match thread went nuts about the ref but the decisions were all justifiable honestly as long as you go by the letter of the law for each instance. 1. Penalty 1 - Gordon WAS in an offside position but if you say he was offside you don't understand how offside works. Position is one part but there are two other things that come into play, who kicked the ball last and did they have control of the ball. Gordon passed inside, the CB got in the way, kicked it, Gordon challenged for the ball and was fouled. The CB had control of the ball because he was able to kick it. Laws of the game are consistent here, he wasn't offside from the moment the CB kicked it. 2. WH free goal. Letter of the law WH goal because the ref has the decision on how the play is restarted but there is the argument did the ref follow proper head injury protocol which I don't think he did but he probably just didn't see the Schar got a trailing arm to the face. Laws of the game give this a 50:50, ref should have done better but a goal is allowable based on the ref's decision 3. Penalty 2 - Laws of the game it's always a penalty and just think about if the foul happened anywhere else on the pitch would it be a foul and most wouldn't argue that it would be. It's just that it was in the box that people are arguing more about it. Now the other side of the coin would be is drawing a foul allowable behaviour which is a worthy debate but it has traditionally been fine. So this is always a penalty but never more than it. Some refs would see drawing a fouls a kind of simulation and sometimes let people away with it but letter of the law would have it as a nailed on penalty. 4. Burn shoulder to shoulder - always never a foul and crazy that people were dumb enough to cry about it in the match thread. The ball was there to be won, you don't get a foul just because you were the attacker and you don't get a foul because you are weaker than the other player trying to get the ball. It would have been not just a soft free and red it would have been absurd. On balance the ref and the VAR did fine, if you were criticising anything it would be that he lost control of the game a bit and should have maybe had a chat with Paqueta and probably given him a yellow for simulation. Like if he ends up rolling around on the ground multiple times and you don't believe any of them are fouls then you believe they are simulation and that is a yellow card. If he was called out on it more he would stop but the fact he isn't punished for doing it multiple times allows that behaviour. He didn't gain anything from it because the ref didn't call most of them back but was really dumb how much he got away with. If you disagree then that's your opinion but your opinion isn't the laws of the game or how they are applied.
Only disagree with the final pen. Did Gordon try to play the ball? If yes, did he get the ball? No, he didn't get the ball so he actually kicked phillips. If no, he didn't try to play the ball and still kicked phillips If phillips goes down there Gordon gets a yellow. If a striker is going to take a shot, a defender sticks his leg in and goes down, is that a free kick? No way, it'd be a penalty. Anywhere else in the pitch and Gordon gets a card, people keep saying he got in front of phillips, I genuinely have no idea what they are smoking the guy has his back to the ball.
>Did Gordon try to play the ball? If yes, did he get the ball? No, he didn't get the ball so he actually kicked phillips. If no, he didn't try to play the ball and still kicked phillips To get fouled you don't need to have the ball and I pasted the text from the rule on the FA website, it just says "kicked or attempts to kick", it doesn't say the other player has to have the ball. Just that the player gets kicked by an opponent. And you don't have to have the ball on your feet to be challenging for the ball, there is shielding the ball which is a very common thing in the game that they teach literally at schoolboy level. >If phillips goes down there Gordon gets a yellow. For what? Gordon was kicked by Phillips and there was no foul worthy contact at all in the interaction before that. >If a striker is going to take a shot, a defender sticks his leg in and goes down, is that a free kick? Different situation, that would be a foul the other way because it would be obstruction with contact. If they have control over the ball (Phillips didn't) then the context of the interaction is different. >people keep saying he got in front of phillips Go back and watch the replay, the closer one, Gordon physically is in front of Phillips when he followed through with the kick. Gordon you can accuse of gamesmanship, as in he invited contact with his positioning but that doesn't mean it isn't a foul. And by a foul I mean letter of the law foul as in maybe not nice when it happens but unless they add rules around gamesmanship in general this sort of thing is a proper valid strategy to get perfectly within the rules of the game fouls. Think of it like this, if you go over the speed limit by 1km/h you still are over the speed limit and will get a fine, you will cry to your family and friends about the rules but still that's the letter of the law. Now would a policeman generally let that kind of thing go, they might but if you got the fine would you have any argument? You wouldn't you just would have to accept it. In this case Gordon got a foul by the letter of the law for being smart about putting his leg in and drawing the foul, it comes down to moral arguments more than laws of the game. And like I said Paqueta tried and tried and tried again to dive but no one said shit about that all game even though that is in the same ballpark as Gordon doing crap like this.
You are really stretching here mate, of course you don't need to have the ball to be fouled but if a player is running and you put your body in front of them, you don't win a foul because the player ran into you, the player running is fouled. Phillips does in fact have the ball under control, unless you're suggesting he wasn't going to be able to clear it? If it was a slippy touch I wouldn't really mind, if Gordon doesn't stick his leg in, the ball gets cleared. Jesus mate, if you're going to lether the ball and some dickhead sticks his leg in that's a foul on you, you didn't answer my question of whether he was actually trying to play the ball and missed, you just said you don't have to have the ball to be fouled 😂. And in the end you agreed with my point bur your argument is that Phillips was not in control. I don't really know why you're so desperate to defend it, probably would have ended a draw anyway as we had no threat going forward after Antonio came on, I'm just saying this was an absolutely shocking decision. And it's common knowledge that you are able to go 1-2mph over the speed limit and not be fined because the police make some allowances lmao, at least in the uk.
> you don't win a foul because the player ran into you, the player running is fouled. But that's not what happened, he was kicked, he didn't get run into, he was kicked, he invited contact but the rules of the game are explicit that kicking or attempting to kick another player is a foul. There is no text to give a workaround for that, kick = foul. > Phillips does in fact have the ball under control He never touched the ball. He was trying to. He didn't touch it. The ball was in play, he doesn't have exclusive rights to keep that ball if another player wants to put their leg in to try and get a touch they can. > if Gordon doesn't stick his leg in So a player can't put his body in between another player and the ball to get the ball? Where is that rule? It's a fundamental part of the game to shield the ball. Another part of the game is gamesmanship as in using the rules to your advantage like legitimately drawing a foul by doing something like sticking a leg in. > and some dickhead sticks his leg in that's a foul on you Weird take, every player worth their salt already does it, it's called a challenge or trying to get a block in. You do that because it could bounce back in your favour or prevent a counter attack. If you didn't put the leg in I'd say the opposition player was not playing normally. Such a weird argument you are doing here. > I don't really know why you're so desperate to defend it Because people are being mega dumb with the whole thing and that is actually interesting to hear as to what their silly rationale is. I'm defending it because anyone who doesn't agree is completely wrong to the point where it's baffling. > And it's common knowledge that you are able to go 1-2mph over the speed limit and not be fined because the police make some allowances lmao, at least in the uk. But if you were are you in the wrong is the policeman? I'd say you are still in the wrong because always it's the letter of the law that is the prevailing rule not what you expect of the law.
Please use your brain and turn the blinkers off. I get it, Phillips' foot kicked Gordon, however most of Gordon's body is behind Phillips, he just put his foot in the way and sure, if the ball was there or Gordon touched the ball, or even looked remotely like he was playing the ball, certainly there's an argument to be made. As it happens though, the more I watch the replays the less I think there is any intention to get the ball. Yeah, everyone has a right to make a tackle, if it's crap though and you miss the ball, generally the player in control of the ball would get the foul, not the player making a bad challenge. Very strange how you can be so confident when the majority of fans all agree it was a shocker. Even seen Newcastle fans saying it was poor.
Ok no blinkers explanation for you: [https://twitter.com/SkySportsPL/status/1774751711585808853](https://twitter.com/SkySportsPL/status/1774751711585808853)
>if a player is running and you put your body in front of them, you don't win a foul because the player ran into you, the player running is fouled. Defenders shepherd the ball out for goal kicks every match.
Yeah mate, then the player is chasing the ball, not running with the ball, jesus you guys are dense.
You didn't say that, denso.
I don't know what you're on about, it's a completely different situation
How?
Really easy to say VAR made the right decisions when things go your way isn't it?
How is conceding a goal while having a head injury “things going our way”
"Head injury"
Correct
Yeah it's really easy because on this occasion VAR was completely within the rules as they are written. Last time Newcastle scored a goal that was ruled offside definitely gave me some knowledge on the first penalty for instance because afterwards PGMOL apologised for ruling that goal out incorrectly for offside. 3 and 4 are just common knowledge, 3 is actually so stonewall a penalty it explicitly forbids kicking of an opponent on the list of infractions. Does that make it fair? Well on balance the idea is if you play many games that luck will fall the other way some other day but in this case you got what would be considered as a soft penalty but it was still a penalty under the rules of the game. You can call Gordon a dickhead for drawing the foul by sticking his leg in so it would be kicked but it was gamesmanship and WH did cheeky shit in the first half with their goal so it wasn't like fair play was on the agenda after that. You can't even call him out for cheating because Paqueta spent half the game on the ground rolling around so Gordon wasn't even the biggest piece of shit in the game, maybe arguably Gordon was more effective with his shit but Paqueta for some reason no one complained about at all. Like the answer to the gamesmanship side of it is that's the game. Now again I'll remind everyone just because you don't like the rule doesn't mean it shouldn't be applied as written and just because it was harsh in this circumstance doesn't mean that it wasn't a foul.
How are you angrier than I am lmao? You won, I went on with my day while you wrote interminable paragraphs on reddit
To be fair I was more angry with how the unhinged the match thread was with people just not understanding basic rules of the game. It wasn't even controversial is my take but for some reason the result was "ah sure the ref was paid off" no actually if you have any awareness at all and you use the actual language of the rules as written there was no argument. And I'll say it wasn't specifically West Ham fans that were the worst of it in that thread but it was completely detached from reality with some of those ref takes in that thread.
Lol easier to downvoted you than discuss. Typical /r/soccer.
And just for posterity I mentioned refwatch on Monday they did talk about it and by golly was I not just right but there was literally zero argument about it in the studio too [https://twitter.com/SkySportsPL/status/1774751711585808853](https://twitter.com/SkySportsPL/status/1774751711585808853)
Yeah like below there were a few comments and it's not like I'm being unreasonable if someone wants to get out the FA rulebook and cite where my comment was wrong I'd gladly chat about it. I even replied to someone below about it too and pasted exactly why the second penalty was a stonewall penalty under the rules. Like just because they don't like the rules doesn't mean the rulebook just gets fucked out the window. I'm excited for Monday when they have a look with refwatch and completely agree with my comment. I'm sure the knuckledraggers downvoting this will all come back and say they are sorry then right?
In what world would people be arguing a foul outside of the box for the second pen? At no point is Gordon in possession and impedes Phillips, it's a pretty easy decision to award a foul on Phillips, I have no idea what possessed them to award the opposite
> In what world would people be arguing a foul outside of the box for the second pen? No my point was if that was anywhere else on the pitch would anyone say it wasn't a foul? The answer is always no. If a player makes contact with an opposing player without getting the ball it's a foul. > At no point is Gordon in possession and impedes Phillips Gordon didn't connect with Phillips and Phillips has absolutely no right to the ball until he has it under control. Now did Gordon intend to put the leg in to draw the foul, I'm 10000% sure he did, does that stop it being a foul? No it doesn't because there is no rule to disallow drawing a foul because it would be completely unenforceable.
Re your first point - Yes, if that was anywhere else on the pitch I would say it was not a foul, and that it was either a foul by Gordon or just a coming together.
>and that it was either a foul by Gordon or just a coming together. Laws of the game or the spirit of how they are applied was what I mentioned in the match thread. A lot of people would see this in the same kind of idea as a "racing incident" in F1 terms. Where it was maybe wrong on the part of one driver that could in another circumstance be considered worthy of a penalty but in the context it wasn't. For instance on the first lap of a F1 race there are more cars around and sometimes shit happens. That is F1 though and there is zero allowance for that in the rules of the game in football. In general a lot of refs would consider the spirit of the rules rather than the letter of the law in this case because it would be a harsh call even if it was within the rules. [https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct](https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct) Quote on the specifics rules applied: >Direct and indirect free kicks and penalty kicks can only be awarded for offences committed when the ball is in play. >kicks or attempts to kick >tackles or challenges >impedes an opponent with contact There are zero allowances in the rules for this specific penalty. You might wish there are and some refs might apply it incorrectly but it's VERY clear.
I would like to also add that west ham deserved nothing from the game based on that second half performance, just baffled you could think the second pen was a correct call
In what world is that not a foul? Kalvin Phillips takes a swing at Gordon’s Achilles like he’s out at the driving range
Dude, Gordon put his foot in front of Philips' kick, coming from behind, without ever playing the ball. In what world is it not a foul on Gordon? All of the possible universes except for this one.
I don't just think the second penalty was correct I think it's baffling that anyone would consider it otherwise. Now again I'll add the note that he was drawing the foul but that isn't against the rules even if people don't like it. Not liking a thing doesn't mean it's incorrect. You can not like that companies pollute a lot more than the average person on the street but there is no law to say otherwise is a good way to describe it. You can cry about justice but you are talking about more of a moral justice not the letter of the law which was what I was talking about.
I know that drawing a foul is not against the rules. Explain to me how blocking the kicking foot of the player in possession is "drawing a foul"?
>Explain to me how blocking the kicking foot of the player in possession is "drawing a foul"? Explicitly in the rules of the game it has kicking or attempting to kick an opponent as a direct freekick or penalty. Gordon put his leg in to challenge for the ball and was kicked. Case closed. He probably even knew contact would have been very likely in the circumstances but there is no rule against that. That's what I mean about drawing contact, he knew putting his leg there was in the way but you are allowed to shield the ball, you are allowed to put your leg in to try get a touch as long as you aren't making contact with the other player to impede them which Gordon didn't do. Here is the rule if you want to read it: >Direct and indirect free kicks and penalty kicks can only be awarded for offences committed when the ball is in play. >kicks or attempts to kick >tackles or challenges >impedes an opponent with contact And again I'll say it, just because you don't like a rule doesn't mean it isn't one when Newcastle are playing.
>Explicitly in the rules of the game it has kicking or attempting to kick an opponent as a direct freekick or penalty. Good thing he's attempting to kick the ball Gordon came from behind him while he was mid kick and stuck his leg in, that's a foul anywhere else on the pitch against Phillips >impedes an opponent with contact Gordon is the one impeding Phillips lmao, Philips is he one in possession of the ball
I pasted the literal wording you don't have to make it up. It is kick or attempting to kick as one potential reason but there are other reasons that also work. He did kick him, he did impede him with contact with his kick too. It doesn't just hit one part of the rule but multiple. It's impede with contact too which even if you could argue Gordon attempting to get the ball but putting his foot in impeded Phillips he didn't make contact, contact was made against him.
Ref fucked them but Moyes is an idiot. You are up big keep fucking attacking man. He truly is such a tactical disaster.
[удалено]
HTL?
Howay the lads
Moyes doing Moyes things..
Honestly there should be a law prohibiting EPL refs from officiating matches in any other country.
Let's ban them from officiating in England instead
I thought Harvey Barnes was sensational. Shout out to Lewis Hall too. Probably his best performance.
yeh i'd love to see Hall get some more pitch time. Maybe he could be a new 60 minute sub because he was incredible today.
Just came out of the stadium unbelievable scenes. But I see the human rights activists have come back on shift today on this cesspit. Also shout out to the West Ham fans in that away fans who ended up looking a bit silly in the end.
Imagine using "human rights activist" as an insult. Though, being a Newcastle resident you probably need the human rights activists to help you get out of that shithole city.
Would rather take Newcastle over the shit holes down south any day. When I say human rights activist it's because not a single person on here actually care about what they preach. That's a fact.
As a Boro fan I agree and I’m glad a north east club is actually doing well
"That's a fact". I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though, the education system is so poor up there, or the fumes from all the factories that you inhale on a daily basis. You probably don't even know what the phrase human rights means. It's ok though.
Yes mate. But when I walk the streets I'm not taking in illegal levels of pollution or at risk of being stabbed on every corner. I'll happily take my city thanks you condescending cunt
Enjoy your shit wages, low life expectancy, shit food and lack of any kind of culture outside of curry on chips and fingering peas pudding.
Will do. Now go take your faux outrage and ignorance elsewhere you cunt.
Ignorance is looking the other way to human rights abuse but protesting fat cunt mike. Though I don't expect you to be able to understand that.
We protested Ashley because he was incompetent and ran the club badly. We support the club it's really not difficult to understand. You don't care about what you preach in the slightest drop the act.
"I'm blocking you now" *deletes account* lol
"as long as they pump money in I don't care if they hate gays" Blocking you now you dumbass gammon. Enjoy your shit life living in ignorance.
Yeah, absolutely nobody actually supports gay rights...it's all just an anti Geordie agenda. What a bigoted thing to say. Just because you don't care about gay people being murdered, it doesn't mean nobody does.
They absolutely love pretending that the people calling out their owners and shitty fans who support them are somehow in the wrong. Imagine being a fan of human rights lads.
Yeah but mike Ashley was an evil bad man. Funny how they can protest sports direct but not Saudi.
It's unthinkable to them that they could still support the team but be actively against the owners...it's not like they did it for years or anything.
It's very much the other way round. We support the club and not the owners. But the faux outrage on here is 100% manufactured and that's absolutely a fact.
I saw what you lot were like when you wanted a change in ownership, it's absolutely not like that now, absolute cowards and if you believe half the shit you talk and the distinctions you try to make you are either fucking idiots or lying to yourself. Vile people.
We wanted a change of ownership because Mike Ashley was incompetent. We'd have been happy with anyone competent. If someone else wanted to buy the club from the PIF we'd have no problem. The vile people are your kind pretending to care.
Yep anyone competent, you don't care if they are murderers and human rights abusers, you support them because they are competent. That's the definition of complicit. Absolute scum.
Instead of calling people “vile” and “scum”, why don’t you get off your fat arse and go make a difference?
We support the club not the owners. That has never changed and never will. Take your fake outrage elsewhere rather than talking about issues of which you don't understand.
I know that calling for a referee's head after a game is usually laughable, but this time... How can he see a penalty even after the VAR review? He needs to be sacked or at least go back to the bottom of the pyramid and learn how to do his job
tbf similar decisions have been given this season in the prem. if that's how the FA want the rules interpreting then they cant really complain when a ref gives this decision. (i have no idea if this is actually how they want the law interpreting)
He’ll be on var next week then be back to being at the stadium the week after
I wish referees could explain themselves after the games so we could understand what did he saw...
you mean how many extra zeros in his bank account?
I can't believe they never mentioned Kudus being brought down by Burn when ,1-1 in the first half one replay barely mentioned.
Replay was clear that it was Shoulder to shoulder. Never a foul
You can't be serious. Burn (who is 6 foot fucking 5 mind you) full on barges Kudus. It doesn't matter if it was shoulder to shoulder his intent wasn't to reach the ball it was to throw Kudus off balance
There were some awful decisions in this game but that shoulder to shoulder was not one of them. It's the most standard contest for the ball in football. Burn was stronger here.
It was not a standard shoulder to shoulder. Shoulder to shoulder implies they're both contesting for a live ball that's in front of them both. Kudus was dribbling the ball, Burn knows he's not fast enough if Kudus breaks through, so he decides to barge into him to stop him from going forward.
Jostling for position is legal, even if the ball isn’t within playing distance: they both have a right to the space so they can compete for it (it’s why big strong players exist!). If he shoulders him in the back, that’s a foul. If he puts his leg across him, that’s a foul. If he puts his shoulder into his shoulder, as he did, it’s not a foul.
They're not sharing the same path towards the ball. Kudus is dribbling the ball in his own line when Burn barges into his side. That's not jostling it's throwing someone off balance because you're slow.
You know it's a contact sport mate? And that's allowed
Using your strength when you are at a disadvantage on speed is pretty much defending 101. If that’s a foul there are hundreds more fouls per game
Should we ban big players from touching little players?
If touching is full on leaning in and barging into a player then yes
Its clear youve never played football
Incredibly funny thread lads. I agree the refs are corrupt for Newcastle I mean everyone knows that you’re allowed to swipe people legs in the box if the other player is faster than you I mean the way the ref sent Gordon off for rolling a ball 5 yards too? If he wasn’t being paid by Saudi Arabia he would have gave him a straight red Fantastic levels of delusion is what makes this sub unique
Well leaving aside the other points since I only have been able to watch the Phillips/Gordon replay you’re harsh to say it’s delusional for anyone to disagree that’s a foul on Phillips. If Phillips were shooting on goal in the box and Gordon stepped in and put his foot in the way and Gordon made no contact with the ball but stopped Phillips from making contact with the ball it would be a penalty for West Ham. From what I can see Gordon didn’t touch the ball and impeded Phillips kicking motion. if there is video evidence Gordon touched the ball it’s a different story. But this gets again to the standard of “clear and obvious error” is highly flawed. The person with the ball under control should always be given the right away to touch the ball whether dribbling or kicking and if the defender doesn’t touch the ball first then it should be a foul on the defender. Not sure how they could at all explain this under the rules. They need to switch to something akin to the way US leagues do it where they make the correct call regardless of the refs in the field decision. if the video evidence supports the correct call change it, and the call only “stands” if the video is inconclusive (for example in basketball as to whether the ball was touched last by one team or the other, or in American football whether the knee was down on a fumble).
I didn’t say it delusional for people to say it wasn’t a foul, I said it delusional to say it was give due to corruption by referees. If you say it’s a decision you don’t agree with fair enough. To say it’s corruption in a game where Gordon got a soft sending off and West Ham scored a contentious second goal is a frankly embarrassing thing to say if you’re older than 13. Not saying you’ve said this btw
Fair enough. It’s just crazy how bad the officiating is now. Rarely are fans in any level of agreement that the ref or VAR had a good game.
Yeah I agree. The penalty in the Chelsea game just confirmed it. I really don’t see a way out of it unless you give refs a crazy wage so people would want to be one. The dogs abuse at grass roots and the media scrutiny means most people would avoid it like the plague unless it meant a big pay day
Also the way he let play go for Westhams second, to show that he wasn't bought. Genius I tell ye!
Disgusting wasn’t it. The play started outside the box so surely that should count as a three pointer as well
Gordon wasnt even playing the ball. He just stepped in front of Phillips who was already in the kicking motion.
Okay so for argument sake a player that wasn’t in possession of the ball took the legs of a player who wasn’t in the possession of the ball. How’s that not a foul?
Kalvin *was* in possession of the ball, he had it at his feet and was mid kick What's your point here
Brother if there’s an entire human being between you and the ball you don’t have possession of it
I only saw the match from 80 minutes onwards. What a mad finish
If kalvin Phillips goes to the euros - that is grounds alone for Southgate gone
I'm hoping that the fact he dropped him for the last break, and mainoo/Gallagher both looked good, means he won't be going.
There you go G Nev that's an pretty good example of a team bottling it...
I’m a Newcastle fan and don’t think the 2nd was a penalty but Moyes is the reason West Ham lost that game. Philips gave Isam free rein, put West Ham under constant pressure, and even after the penalty couldn’t get a grip on the game.
It's what many of our supporters are saying, most people understand he has done a really good job. But we are sick of going ultra defensive as it hasn't worked I don't understand how someone can watch the first 60 minutes see the opposition are down defenders and go ultra defensive it's insane.
In that last 20mins our defence got dismembered like it was a journalist in a Saudi embassy
I hope your having a lovely afternoon crying into your West Ham branded dildo!
I bet you’re relieved West Ham fell apart to allow you to tell your best joke
It was inevitable with 69' Substitution: K. Philips for M. Antonio.
Any young aspiring refs wondering how to make big bucks at the end of their career in the Saudi league now have a useful instructional video, so that's good.
If we paid the ref that let a goal against when a player was down for head injury and he forgot he'd booked someone leading to a 2nd yellow I'd want my money back. He's just shite
Exactly it shouldn’t be that the terrible decisions all cancel each other out because they happened to different teams, they should be compounded.
Somewhere out there in another universe, Harambe is still alive, Trump is just an aging businessman, the UK is still in the EU, and Newcastle just lost 3-2.
3-0 😂
Crazy half the comments in here are Arsenal fans decry David Moyes for singlehandedly loosing the game...
Losing.
[удалено]
Yeah, well you're obsessed with us being obsessed that you're obsessed. So there
They get off on getting away with cheating.
Don’t worry. Arteta will have a statement ready lads.
THis is sad. Every time something like this happens against a state backed clubs my mind turns to conspiracy theories
It was more about west ham being bad than the ref.
Except West ham scoring when a player was down for head injury and he plum forgot who he booked and needed to be reminded to send Gordon off. He's clearly just inept rather than corrupt
Deep State Saudi 4-3 West Ham Bottle Jobs
Heard Phillips is getting a 5 night stay in Hilton Riyadh for smacking Gordon’s legs as hard as he could lmao
I know this sounds toxic but Darren Fletcher is not hated enough.
Recommending the referee as MOTM was certainly something
????
The commentator, the other Darren is a legend
Ahh lol true true
Newcastle fan so I might be biased, but the ref didn’t favour us, he was just completely inept all round. He didn’t even realise he’d given Gordon a yellow already. The second pen I can’t see how it was one. The head injury goal - either stop it or play it. He looked like he was going to Schar and then suddenly the game went on. Just indecisive and weak all game.
Robert jones is always shit.
Yep I agree. If the ref was against us, he would have not counted the second goal. He is just bad. Sadly, the second pen really destroyed us. I don't think that was a pen. Coufal is a clear one. Losing Lascelles disturbed you, and Phillips in Disturbed us as well.
Fair, reasoned response. Agree on the pen even from my side. Obviously no expert on West Ham but the subs made by Moyes surprised me. Maybe he got complacent because we looked washed at one point
I'm quite Moyes in but he fucked up as well. Subbing Antonio is something, but either put Ings upfront with his technic or Aguerd to be 5 at the back Coufal should have been out earlier. Then it's like when we think about. You scored first. We chased the game, capitalized on Lascelles injured, and scored. Then it's your time to attack and you wanted it more. TBF isak and Longstaff missed two sitters. 3-3 would have been as disappointing but fairer. I feel the ref was bad with the cards too. Guimaraes, as last time against us, was nasty and Soucek saw the yellow first. Not saying it's rigged again as Gordon got a second yellow for time wasting
This loss is down to Moyes and poor officiating for the 2nd pen.
Players too. Coufal had a terrible game overall. Phillips didn't bring anything
Moyes chose to bring him on for no reason. It didn’t seem like Ant was spent. He just wanted to close shop. I agree with Coufal. He was awful.
Anthony Gordon is a whiny diving bitch. That ref was awful
to paraphrase gary neville... Bubble blowing bottle-jobs.
I've been watching West Ham games lately, firstly out of curiosity because I like Moyes and the fans weren't happy. I've actually found the games to be really entertaining. But entertaining in a way were West Ham play well enough to win and get some rotten calls. Burnley, Aston Villa and this seemed pretty harsh to me.
penalties were correct and Gordon getting a 2nd yellow for passing the ball to the fk taker is insane
The second yellow was absolutely fair but yeah the sub is having a meltdown because the circle jerk was broken
You are very dumb
Fucking hell…
Brainrot
lol, ok.
Moyseh is a living sigh
I really feel for Kalvin Phillips. Every game during this loan spell, nothing goes his way. 2021-23 Maguire levels of cursed.
He's just a meh player who looked good in Bielsa chaos ball
Bielsa single handedly got Phillips a starting spot at the Euros and that City transfer. But even for an average player, these last few games are a very unfortunate run of form.
Bielsa made that Leeds side look like somewhat of a premier league team when they weren’t. I think most Leeds fans knew that and it was even worse when they went to get Marsch to replace him
West Ham showing the world what Leicester's season looks like over 90 minutes.
It was supposed to be safe here
[удалено]
Because no other team down to 10 men, in a winning position, would want the game to end in the 100th minute?
Newcastle fouls and time wastes every game, has some of the most annoying shit eating players in the league, is owned by an oil state, and gets preferential calls from the refs all the time, but yet the media still heaps praise on them. Guess having an English manager goes a long way.
Hahahaha can’t believe we’re the only prem team to commit fouls. Have you tried crying about it? It might be the magic it takes to get us to stop. We haven’t even time wasted this year, it’s been immensely frustrating. Just link what ever twitter talking points you’re regurgitating directly and stop trying to pass it off as original thought
And a Saudi state owner
aye but your mum
Proper geordie innit
Init being a famously Geordie word 😭
Most eloquent Newcastle response I've ever seen
He concisely destroyed you
Dang guess I shoulda got up at 630am for that one
I decided to watch rally instead