English football 2023-24

[Durhamfootman]

next you'll be telling me that a defender shouldn't be allowed to put his arm round an attacker's neck in the box and drag him to the ground

[Durhamfootman]

disappointing draw at home to a hapless Everton (who have taken 4 points off Newcastle this season). As happens every year, the endless booing and jeering directed at Pickford simply makes him play even better

However the other results go Newcastle's way again and so stay in 8th on the shoulder of WH

[sussexpob]

I've had this discussion before. It's the way the rules are written. The victims always claim that it was never a pen, yet they keep getting given. Why? Because it is a pen. It's akin to the nonsense that is the handball rule and the nonsense that is the offside rule. Gordon is very, very good at getting there first and winning a penalty. I've seen him do it 3 or 4 times this season and really it's a testament to his speed of thought and his fleetness of foot. He's a very intelligent footballer

So I'll always say that they are definite pens, because they must be or they wouldn't keep getting checked and keep getting given. Whether they should be pens is a whole different argument and not one I'm sure I'd want to defend.

Just to be clear, I'm referring to the second oenalty, not the first. Are you seriously.telling me you thought the second penalty was a penalty?

The first one, I'm giving you totally. Clumsy defence, clever play. But the second was an abomination

[sussexpob]

The second penalty, Gordon wraps his leg round Phillips as he's kicking the ball. Contact is made on various parts of Phillips body, and Gordon does not touch the ball. Gordon's challenge satisfied 5 different application of the rules for a foul on Phillips. Phillips already having been fouled by Gordon's challenge and with us leg in the air to kick the ball away, catches Gordon's leg that missed the ball and contacted his heel on his left foot. The foul was not given in real time, and was deemed a clear error.

There are no justifications in the rules. Gordon fouls Phillips on multiple levels of the rules, and even if they don't apply he misses rhe ball and physically prevents Phillips playing it, which is obstruction..

Next time Newcastle concede a penalty to a bit of play like that, you will be spitting fire. It's utter nonsense frankly.

I have reason to be bias to Newcastle too. But that just isn't a penalty.

[Durhamfootman]

Next time Newcastle concede a penalty to a bit of play like that, you will be spitting fire. It's utter nonsense frankly.

I have reason to be bias to Newcastle too. But that just isn't a penalty.

except that, by the rules, it was. should it have been? as I said, it's harder to defend that argument

It happened to Schar early in the season, so I have seen the other side.

[sussexpob]

except that, by the rules, it was. should it have been? as I said, it's harder to defend that argument

The rules state clearly that a direct free kick is given when an opponent "impedes another with contact". It is an indirect free-kick when there is no contact, so we don't need to get bogged down too much in assessing how much contact there was. "Impeding" is defined in the rules as "moving into the path of an opponent player by obstructing, blocking... their progress with the ball, when the ball is not within playing distance of either player". Shielding the ball is legal if the ball is within playing distance, but the player attempting to shield the ball cannot "hold off" his opponent (defined interchangeably as blocking) with any part of his body.

Playing distance is a misnomer, because it is defined itself in terms of distance (ie the ball has to be within the reach of a player without moving by extending their leg outwards), but also that the ball needs to be "playable". A ball is deemed within playable distance if a player can touch the ball by sticking out their leg towards it. If sticking out their leg means they cannot touch the ball, even if its within the length of their leg, it is not playable by the rules.

This makes absolutely perfect sense, because the rules are written and interpreted by assuming the player shielding the ball has "possession". It is therefore distinct from impeding or obstructing/blocking, because at all stages the player can play the ball if he needs/wants to, and the opposing player has a geniuene attempt to win the ball with a normal tackle. If all situations that is not possible, such an act is illegal. Like I said, this makes sense. A player cannot simply stop play by sitting or shielding a ball that an opponent cant win... this is football, not rugby... we dont want rucking over balls brought into the game.

So...

1.Does Gordon move into the way of Phillips while he is attempting to play the ball..... YES

2. Does this block or obstruct Phillips action of clearing the ball..... YES

3. Is the ball within playing distance of either player? Well, Gordon reaches at full stretch to touch the ball and misses it, so 100% not in his case. Phillips extends his foot outwards towards the ball, and hits Gordon instead. Ball is 100% not playable in both cases.... ANSWER....NO.

Result - Direct free kick to West Ham ... impeding a player with contact.

4. Lets just assume the ball is within playing distance of one of them. Would Gordon's shielding of the ball be justified in this scenario? Well, Phillips has no path to the ball, directly as a consquences of the fact Gordon's leg blocks his path. Additionally, Gordon missed the ball, has his foot infront of the ball and his body facing the wrong way. There is absolutely no way we can consider Gordon to be in possession of the ball, or capable of controlling it in this scenario if he wanted to.... ANSWER ... no

Result.... Direct free kick to West Ham.... same offence.

5. Lets indulge this further. Lets assume that both offences occur. The last of these offences is a foul in the box. The rules would govern that simaltaneous fouls are decided on the most serious offence. Phillips was not booked for the foul, so at the very least, we have to assume that the referee considered his foul careless, the lowest level of offence. Gordon's would almost 100% perfect fall inside that, but there is no need to discuss this. It has to be either equal or worse, there is no other conclusion. So if we decided a simaltaneous foul was occured, and both are of equal merit, the ball is decided by a drop ball given to the team last in possession.

Result....Phillips touches the ball last.... Drop ball given to West Ham

6. Lets indulge this further and take a scenario where one challenge is actually worse than the other. Lets say that Gordon blocks the ball with the bare minimum of contact, but Phillips then intentionally tries to remove his leg from his hip with an x-rated challenge. As soon as the offence is committed by Gordon, active play would stop. Phillips x-rated tackle would therefore be deemed out of play, and would not result in a free-kick or penalty, but can be sanctioned by a red card.

The reality, even with point 5, is that Gordon's movement to the point he blocks the ball occurs half a second before Phillips whacks him. His leg is planted in the way at that point, in between Phillips legs. There can be no debate at which element happened first. So in this scenario, the direct free kick should be awarded whatever the outcome of the foul from Phillips. There is a clearly defined timeline, they do not happen simaltaneously.

Result.... Direct free kick to West Ham... Phillips sent off for violent conduct.

There is literally no scenario in the rules that ends with Newcastle getting a penalty. If Gordon touched the ball, then we have a different story. It is 100% terrible referring. He did not apply law 12 of the game to the decision.

Lets also remember once absolutely massive element to this...... All the benefit of the doubt is on myside. The referee did not award the penalty, so must prove a clear and obvious error

[Durhamfootman]

Newcastle remain in 8th after a smash and grab 3 points at the cottage

[andy]

Everton have another points deduction

[Durhamfootman]

where's Man City's?

[Gingerfinch]

A few controversial decisions at the weekend. Gary O'Neil wasn't happy but not sure why. His players was clearly in an off-side position and more importantly, in the line of the keeper. I'm on the fence with the Liverpool penalty but hard to overturn once given.

[bigfluffylemon]

where's Man City's?

The points deductions and timing of prosecution seem wildly inconsistent. I'm all for punishing breaches of the financial rules, but you've got to have consistency, and you don't want it to affect results after the fact.

Imagine how daft it would be if, say, on a dramatic final day of the season, City squeak the title while Forest avoid the drop at Everton's expense, only to have the points deduction appeals revise the penalties and reverse those results. Would be ridiculous.

[Durhamfootman]

with appeals from Everton, Forest and Leicester (I think, although I may be wrong in that)), by the end of the season the relegation and promotion places might end up being decided in court

[sussexpob]

where's Man City's?

The points deductions and timing of prosecution seem wildly inconsistent. I'm all for punishing breaches of the financial rules, but you've got to have consistency, and you don't want it to affect results after the fact.

The difference is the complexity of the case. City's breaches are a lot more complex to evidence, and run into the 100s. The PL will be acutely aware of City's owners endless capacity to throw money at any subsequent legal case, and its imperative that once action is taken, it has water-tight legal reasonings. I expect that any attempt at sanctioning City will end in a decade of legal appeals and battles. The PL and the FA will be very wary that the cost of that battle could run into 10s or 100s of millions. They cannot simply afford to get it wrong first time.

Yes, this is ridiculous, but since when has justice not been based on cash.

[sussexpob]

Everton and Forest on the otherhand were basically put in the position of accepting a lower points deduction by assisting with the investigation, or pointlessly fighting quite clear breaches. Everton were particularly keen to settle their case, because they didn't want anyone to linger longer than was necessary on some rather questionable accountancy (money accidentally disappearing) and wouldn't want the scrutiny of a full court to be asking questions they couldnt answer.

I think Forest basically admitted they spend loads of money to stay up, and there wasnt even really a case to make. They just took the hit happy in the fact their huge spending kept them up a year or two.

[sussexpob]

A few controversial decisions at the weekend. Gary O'Neil wasn't happy but not sure why. His players was clearly in an off-side position and more importantly, in the line of the keeper. I'm on the fence with the Liverpool penalty but hard to overturn once given.

Wan Bissaka missed Elliotts foot by a mile, then Elliott initiated contact with Wan Bissaka's leg by diverting it.

Foul on Wan Bissaka for a kick, yellow card for simulation to Elliott....

Ah but yes, I forgot the rule that says Liverpool need to be given a penalty everytime they arent winning past the 75th minute, so I guess those the rules (arent they)?

It still makes me chuckle a while back that I said that to a Liverpool supporting friend, and he got really angry. I then jokingly said I predicted the penalty this week would be 86th minute....

I was bang on Thats how predictable its become. Liverpool need a goal late, you caan guarantee a dodgy penalty is coming.