Durhamfootman wrote: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