Anthony Gordon

[plaidharper]

Let's be honest. If Gordon had only hit the deck once all game and it was the penalty shout... it still would not have been given.

Gordon is just out there trying his best. 

[Hafnia]

44 minutes ago, Bailey said:

I think this is why the penalty wasn't given.

He keeps going down far too easily and whilst I think he was given a shove yesterday (on both occasions with Trent and Matip) he flings his legs up in the air and tries to make it look more of a foul than it actually was. It doesn't take much to put you off balance when you are running at that speed (not that I have ever run anywhere that quickly) but you don't go down like that if you do.

Personally I would like it if those type of fouls weren't given but you know if it was down the other end that it would have been given.

Regardless, referees are supposed to judge on individual merit. 
 

Salah had a huge reputation for diving and rightly so…. Didn’t stop refs giving pens to him

[Palfy]

6 hours ago, Hafnia said:

Regardless, referees are supposed to judge on individual merit. 
 

Salah had a huge reputation for diving and rightly so…. Didn’t stop refs giving pens to him

Exactly they should be focusing on the incident in front of them with an open mind, and not harbouring any preconceptions based on anything from the past. 

[Shukes]

I haven’t watched it on tv yet, but standing right in front of the second one…. Everyone pretty much nodded and said the lad needs to be stronger. Didn't look like a penalty live at all.

Second I was at the opposite goal side so couldn’t see it at all, but I did see Gordon’s legs fly up like he had been shot. So wasn’t surprised they didn’t give it.

[StevO]

The second one he also had Matip standing on his foot. 

[barryj]

1 hour ago, StevO said:

The second one he also had Matip standing on his foot. 

This is what I’ve been saying to everyone and it’s not been highlighted anywhere. Sky Sport conveniently ignore this in the Ref watch. AG even mentioned this in his post match interview. The stand on the foot is for me the bigger foul but the fact he pushes at the same time is why this is as clearer pen as you’ll see. Dermot then goes on to say I’ve seen them given and also not given and he would fall down on the side of no penalty! I don’t want to sound like a raving conspiracy theorist but the decisions we get there have been and continue to be ludicrous. 

[Shukes]

7 hours ago, StevO said:

The second one he also had Matip standing on his foot. 

Ahh couldn’t see it where I stood, looked like they just came together touched and he fell. I haven’t saw it on TV yet so did t see that bit.

[patto]

2 hours ago, Shukes said:

Ahh couldn’t see it where I stood, looked like they just came together touched and he fell. I haven’t saw it on TV yet so did t see that bit.

Touched are you serious he also pushes him with his left arm Matip is nowhere near the ball ?

[The Phoenix]

14 hours ago, Palfy said:

Exactly they should be focusing on the incident in front of them with an open mind, and not harbouring any preconceptions based on anything from the past. 

The trouble with that is that the referee shit his pants when faced with making the right decision. VAR can then use their favourite narrative “clear and obvious” to back their drinking buddy. If the gobshite had have given the penalty the same rule would’ve applied and the penalty would have stood. The best thing we can do now is park the injustice we feel and move onto focusing on Chelsea. We have a serious opportunity to get something from this game as they’ve struggling for consistency at the moment. Let’s leave it out of the VAR booth and score some goals

[Bailey]

15 hours ago, StevO said:

The second one he also had Matip standing on his foot. 

It looked like Matip only stood on his foot as Gordon was trying to "win" the foul by putting his leg across him. Swings and roundabouts for me on that one as you could argue Gordon had the right to do so as he was ahead of Matip.

23 hours ago, Hafnia said:

Regardless, referees are supposed to judge on individual merit. 
 

Ref's can't see everything and they aren't robots. When it's a tight call it will be on their mind.

[Hafnia]

1 hour ago, Bailey said:

It looked like Matip only stood on his foot as Gordon was trying to "win" the foul by putting his leg across him. Swings and roundabouts for me on that one as you could argue Gordon had the right to do so as he was ahead of Matip.

Ref's can't see everything and they aren't robots. When it's a tight call it will be on their mind.

He was absolutely perfectly placed and if is wasn't a penalty then why wasn't it a second yellow for diving?

Why didn't he refer to VAR? They are allowed to use VAR for assistance.  I mean we know this quite clearly because this is the clown who was sat in the VAR room to get Allan sent off..... I mean we are talking about a ref here who wanted to make absolutely certain the the ball was in the boundary before allowing Gordon to take a corner.

The answer to that is quite clear - he did not want to give a penalty. Are you being deliberately obtuse?  Carragher and Sounness called it a stonewall penno and here you are being all Chris Sutton.  

 

[patto]

It’s strange Gordon is now a marked man according to all the media and pundits I’ve only seen him go down a couple of times and he’s never been  given anything it’s exactly the same with Richarleson but no one ever says he gets battered week in week out. 

[Hafnia]

2 hours ago, patto said:

It’s strange Gordon is now a marked man according to all the media and pundits I’ve only seen him go down a couple of times and he’s never been  given anything it’s exactly the same with Richarleson but no one ever says he gets battered week in week out. 

Yes he has gone down looking for fouls, not gonna dispute that… but loads do it. Connor Gallagher was doing it last night. 
 

The issue is the red influenced media who blatantly ignored Salah doing it for 2 years… they have tarnished him now. 

[The Phoenix]

30 minutes ago, Hafnia said:

Yes he has gone down looking for fouls, not gonna dispute that… but loads do it. Connor Gallagher was doing it last night. 
 

The issue is the red influenced media who blatantly ignored Salah doing it for 2 years… they have tarnished him now. 

So true. It’s always the populist view that carries more weight. Harry Kane does it and it’s people doing it to the England Captain, the media darling whose shit don’t stink. One of our lads does it and he’s ringing in the death knoll of modern football. It’s a sad reflection of where football is as a sport. The haves and have nots getting treated differently, it’s a fucking joke

[Shukes]

11 hours ago, patto said:

Touched are you serious he also pushes him with his left arm Matip is nowhere near the ball ?

Yes absolutely serious. Not saying it wasn’t a foul as I haven’t watched any replays at all yet. But from where I was I didn’t see much contact other than a coming together.

But that may just have been the angle I saw it.

[Palfy]

9 minutes ago, Shukes said:

Yes absolutely serious. Not saying it wasn’t a foul as I haven’t watched any replays at all yet. But from where I was I didn’t see much contact other than a coming together.

But that may just have been the angle I saw it.

Was that the refs angle because he never saw the extended push in the back. It was a stonewall penalty mate your see that when you get a chance to see replays from different angles, but nothing we say or do now is going to change the result, so we can look forward to turning Chelsea over Sunday. 

[Shukes]

Ok I just watched a couple of different replays. Sorry… don’t think it’s a penalty. 
Gordon is running in a straight line then simply loves his right leg into the feet of Matip. The push for me is just two players coming together. 
 

Would be mad if that was given against us.

Sorry guys, don’t get mad with me.

[Shukes]

1 minute ago, Palfy said:

Was that the refs angle because he never saw the extended push in the back. It was a stonewall penalty mate your see that when you get a chance to see replays from different angles, but nothing we say or do now is going to change the result, so we can look forward to turning Chelsea over Sunday. 

To be fair I only saw it from the front view and the replay I just watched was pretty much the same angle. 
It might look different from behind or the side.

[Palfy]

2 minutes ago, Shukes said:

Ok I just watched a couple of different replays. Sorry… don’t think it’s a penalty. 
Gordon is running in a straight line then simply loves his right leg into the feet of Matip. The push for me is just two players coming together. 
 

Would be mad if that was given against us.

Sorry guys, don’t get mad with me.

Wanker

[Shukes]

Just now, Palfy said:

Wanker

Haha I’m being bullied here mods!!!!!!

[Hafnia]

24 minutes ago, Shukes said:

Haha I’m being bullied here mods!!!!!!

Shukes, once the player is in front - which Gordon was. The defender has to avoid contact, it’s exactly why when  players are ahead they run across them. 
 

this is exactly why pace is critical - it’s not Gordon’s responsibility to tread carefully- he had the ball.  Sorry mate, I just don’t think you are processing the laws correctly.

 

[StevO]

2 hours ago, Shukes said:

Ok I just watched a couple of different replays. Sorry… don’t think it’s a penalty. 
Gordon is running in a straight line then simply loves his right leg into the feet of Matip. The push for me is just two players coming together. 
 

Would be mad if that was given against us.

Sorry guys, don’t get mad with me.

Too fucking late for that now!! Tell your missus you shagged her sister and then say don’t get mad. That’s what you’ve just done Shukes!!

But seriously, if you don’t think it’s a penalty it’s your opinion. You’re entitled to it. It’s just fucking wrong and stupid. Eye test due?

[barryj]

4 hours ago, Shukes said:

Ok I just watched a couple of different replays. Sorry… don’t think it’s a penalty. 
Gordon is running in a straight line then simply loves his right leg into the feet of Matip. The push for me is just two players coming together. 
 

Would be mad if that was given against us.

Sorry guys, don’t get mad with me.

I’m not mad just disappointed!

 

Matip treads on Gordon’s foot whilst pushing him. I can’t see any other decision being at all feasible. Also if that was the other round it would 100% be given. 

[Shukes]

9 hours ago, Hafnia said:

Shukes, once the player is in front - which Gordon was. The defender has to avoid contact, it’s exactly why when  players are ahead they run across them. 
 

this is exactly why pace is critical - it’s not Gordon’s responsibility to tread carefully- he had the ball.  Sorry mate, I just don’t think you are processing the laws correctly.

 

That may be right. I just saw it differently that’s all.

I have watched quite a few penalty’s turned down the last few years with the excuse being that the player trailed his leg in front of the defender trying to get hit. That looked like one to me.

Again mate. Not saying I’m right or wrong, just how I saw it that’s all. 

[Shukes]

7 hours ago, StevO said:

Too fucking late for that now!! Tell your missus you shagged her sister and then say don’t get mad. That’s what you’ve just done Shukes!!

But seriously, if you don’t think it’s a penalty it’s your opinion. You’re entitled to it. It’s just fucking wrong and stupid. Eye test due?

I mean come on…. Just say what you feel mate haha. 
To be fair, I’ve never claimed to be an experienced ref haha!

And it wasn’t her sister, it was her best mate….. so she shouldn’t get mad if she’s a real friend!

[Hafnia]

2 hours ago, Shukes said:

That may be right. I just saw it differently that’s all.

I have watched quite a few penalty’s turned down the last few years with the excuse being that the player trailed his leg in front of the defender trying to get hit. That looked like one to me.

Again mate. Not saying I’m right or wrong, just how I saw it that’s all. 

The only legal challenge really is to get level and shoulder off the ball of risk a tackle from behind that gets the ball first and not bring them down…Very difficult. 

He knew exactly what he was doing (matip), Liverpool will continue to defend like that because quite simply the last time a penalty was given against them at anfield was 40+ games ago. 
 

 

[FairWooney]

16 hours ago, patto said:

It’s strange Gordon is now a marked man according to all the media and pundits I’ve only seen him go down a couple of times and he’s never been  given anything it’s exactly the same with Richarleson but no one ever says he gets battered week in week out. 

He does go down quite a lot but he does also win quite a lot of fouls.

If your saying neither are getting given anything, Gordon has won 1 penalty and is the 11th most fouled player in the league.  Richarlison is the 3rd most fouled player in the league.

I don't however have any stats on how the number of times they are given a foul compares to the number of times they hit the deck!  (In Richarlison's case I imagine he probably goes down about 5 times per game whilst getting given 2.4 fouls per game.

 

--

I was undecided on a foul and I'd say it could have been a penalty but I'd be inclined to say not.

This is the a frame or 2 before Gordon has his "foot stood on".

Gordon has moved his foot across and infront of Matip, they are both already through a step here and Gordon's foot comes down underneath Matip's.  Clearly this only happens because Gordon has put his leg across as 2 right legs wouldn't naturally come together no matter how close you are running together. 

That's not me saying that he's necessarily deliberately played for the foul but it is a coming together that you can't fault the defender for.

Some would say from the image that he's "holding" Gordon and that he shoved him but I don't really see that, yeah he has his arm on him but no more than the average situation where 2 players are running.  He doesn't shove him, Gordon is going down as soon as he gets Matip's foot on his.  Matip may have given a bit of a push on the way as his arm came off Gordon but that was about it.

Would it have been given a foul in the middle of the pitch?  PROBABLY

Should it have been referred to VAR for a check?  DEFINITELY

The ref as you can see was in a good position but he can't see the angle that we are seeing so this is exactly the kind of thing that should go to VAR.  The ref can see close contact and a player going down in the box, doesn't think it's a pen but with a minute or two's check can be completely sure by seeing all angles.

I don't believe he would have given it after a VAR check but at least it would have been rightly considered.

[Hafnia]

57 minutes ago, FairWooney said:

He does go down quite a lot but he does also win quite a lot of fouls.

If your saying neither are getting given anything, Gordon has won 1 penalty and is the 11th most fouled player in the league.  Richarlison is the 3rd most fouled player in the league.

I don't however have any stats on how the number of times they are given a foul compares to the number of times they hit the deck!  (In Richarlison's case I imagine he probably goes down about 5 times per game whilst getting given 2.4 fouls per game.

 

--

I was undecided on a foul and I'd say it could have been a penalty but I'd be inclined to say not.

This is the a frame or 2 before Gordon has his "foot stood on".

Gordon has moved his foot across and infront of Matip, they are both already through a step here and Gordon's foot comes down underneath Matip's.  Clearly this only happens because Gordon has put his leg across as 2 right legs wouldn't naturally come together no matter how close you are running together. 

That's not me saying that he's necessarily deliberately played for the foul but it is a coming together that you can't fault the defender for.

Some would say from the image that he's "holding" Gordon and that he shoved him but I don't really see that, yeah he has his arm on him but no more than the average situation where 2 players are running.  He doesn't shove him, Gordon is going down as soon as he gets Matip's foot on his.  Matip may have given a bit of a push on the way as his arm came off Gordon but that was about it.

Would it have been given a foul in the middle of the pitch?  PROBABLY

Should it have been referred to VAR for a check?  DEFINITELY

The ref as you can see was in a good position but he can't see the angle that we are seeing so this is exactly the kind of thing that should go to VAR.  The ref can see close contact and a player going down in the box, doesn't think it's a pen but with a minute or two's check can be completely sure by seeing all angles.

I don't believe he would have given it after a VAR check but at least it would have been rightly considered.

Again, if you have the ball - you move across the defender to put him in the situation to either foul you or let you go.  That is why pace is such a premium.  Every single player steps across the defender when they have the ball.  This is why technically lesser players like Kyle Walker and Godfrey are wanted in team’s defences…. They have recovery pace. 

[StevO]

I’ll make this really short and simple. Should have been a penalty. Done. 

[Bailey]

22 hours ago, Hafnia said:

He was absolutely perfectly placed and if is wasn't a penalty then why wasn't it a second yellow for diving?

Why didn't he refer to VAR? They are allowed to use VAR for assistance.  I mean we know this quite clearly because this is the clown who was sat in the VAR room to get Allan sent off..... I mean we are talking about a ref here who wanted to make absolutely certain the the ball was in the boundary before allowing Gordon to take a corner.

The answer to that is quite clear - he did not want to give a penalty. Are you being deliberately obtuse?  Carragher and Sounness called it a stonewall penno and here you are being all Chris Sutton.  

 

It wasn't a booking because two players can come together and it not be a foul and not be a dive.

The ref doesn't refer anything to VAR. VAR steps in when there has been a clear and obvious error (at least that is now I understand it). It wasn't clear and obvious IMO and I can see why it wasn't given. On the other hand, if it was given, there also wouldn't be enough to overturn it either. It is a bit like an umpires call on the cricket.

I can see both arguments and as I said before, I wish more of these type of fouls weren't given generally because IMO it ruins the game.