Bad refereeing earns Liverpool a point against Sheffield United
New season, same old diving debates…
The penalty was not a penalty. Gerrard was not fouled, not even touched. The ref got it horribly wrong, and for what it’s worth might have robbed Sheffield United of a hard-fought home win over the much-hyped, over-achieving Liverpool.
Now before anyone says that it was Phil Jagielka who fouled Gerrard, I urge you to think again – Jagielka was no where near Gerrard in the penalty box – the closest was Chris Morgan and he didn’t even touch Stevie G.
Here’s a clip of the incident:
Rob Styles explained his penalty decision by saying:
“I saw the Sheffield United player to come in and make side contact with Steven Gerrard.
Moving at that pace it’s always going to put him off balance and he subsequently lost the opportunity to score.
There was no advantage so I gave the penalty. I certainly thought there was contact.”
(source)
I’ve seen the video a dozen times now, and here’s what I think happened:
- Morgan comes charging in from the right and puts in a sliding tackle for the ball.
- Gerrard skips over the challenge (as he has so many times in the past), loses his balance a bit and hurries his shot, which the keeper saves. If Gerrard had taken an extra half-a-second to compose himself he could have rounded the keeper or beat him, but he took the shot too quickly.
- Gerrard falls over after the save, then complains to the ref about the tackle.
- Rob Styles gives the penalty, Fowler scores, Liverpool are saved, 1-1.
The commentator at the end of the clip asks the right question – if that was a penalty, and if Morgan made contact, why not book him? Morgan already had a yellow card and if he’s giving away a penalty, you have to book him and send him off? Morgan was also the last outfield player between the goal and Gerrard, so anyway you look at it, if there’s contact then that’s a booking.
My second issue is with the statement that Gerrard ‘lost the opportunity to score’. The player got away a shot and if he hadn’t been so quick to take it, he might even still have scored. Yes, it would have been more difficult but it was still possible. The keeper hadn’t come off his line and Gerrard still had a chance to score after the missed tackle.
The third, and most obvious issue, is that there was no contact at all. Morgan slid and Gerrard skipped right over him.
A lot of you might be asking why I’m making such a fuss about this incident and not about anything else. The thing is, football stops being as much fun when referees become incompetent and players forget the spirit in which the game is played.
And of course Rafael Benitez will say that the penalty decision is correct – what else would he say?
According to Benitez, Gerrard claimed that there had been contact. I call bullshit. Not a penalty, and not a foul. A dive? you make your own decisions on that one, but watch the vid closely before you do.
Thoughts on the match
I wrote earlier that Liverpool had quite a lot to prove and expectations to match, and while I don’t think this result means that they’re a bad side, it does mean that Liverpool have some way to go before they live up to the title-challenging that the media has made them out to be.
Direct quote from yesterday’s article:
Their ability to control the game will be their greatest asset, so any team that is good enough to disrupt that control will have a chance to see how the new-look Liverpool play when they are pushed to their limits
Sheffield United got stuck into them today, and Liverpool paid the price for it.
the Hulse goal was well deserved considering that the Liverpool defence did a very poor job of marking him.
It’s a shame to see Riise get injured like that – according to this report it’s just a sprained ankle. Liverpool have said that Carragher is out of the second leg in Kiev against Maccabi Haifa although Riise could make it (I doubt he will).
Hopefully Liverpool will improve (they’ll need to if they are to get through the CL qualifying rounds) and if Sheffield United want to stay up they need to keep turning out these sort of performances.
The refereeing, I’m afraid, will still suck even if it’s improved 100%.
Topics: English Premier League, Liverpool, Sheffield United
Football News 24/7
Lfc fan here, shouldnt have been a penalty, but i dont think he dived, he just lost balance after having to take the shot so awkwardly because of him avoiding the tackle. Wrong decision but not a dive.
August 19th, 2006 @ 20:56Wow any chance you don’t like Liverpool, to devote an entire article about it? Point is Gerrard had jump over the player, which he shouldn’t have had to do if it had been a fair challenge. Penalty given for a foul – case closed.
August 19th, 2006 @ 20:58Just spoke to a Liverpool fan who was at the match (unbiased lad) he told me that he saw there was no contact from the stands, and that Gerrard was complaining after he fell over, which the referee reacted to. So, in all. Sheffield Utd have been screwed over.
Jim, if you don’t make contact it’s not a penalty, so don’t say case closed when your team earns another cheat penalty to bring them back from the dead. (ala Steven Gerrard’s dive in the champion’s league final)
Gerrard wasn’t off balance until he shot, then he fell over, and lied to the referee to save his beloved Liverpool (who he admitted, he only signed a new contract for because he and his family had recieved death threats)
If it had been the other way round, you would be so pissed off and want the case to be fully studied.
August 19th, 2006 @ 21:31Oh and also, the papers tend to dedicate whole page articles to how disgusting Drogba is every time he dives. Maybe it’s time they started pulling Stevie Cheat up on it.
August 19th, 2006 @ 21:37From what I saw there I would have awarded a penalty, the player’s challenge was lousy. If Steven Gerrard met with the full force of the challenge he’d be out for Liverpool and England, for a long time. Don’t slide in the box when you don’t have a chance of getting the ball, you leave yourself open to the exploits of football.
Any player skilled in the art of modern football would have exploited this players challenge! I’d reference the last World Cup to support my statement.
August 19th, 2006 @ 22:46I agree, referees do exploit controversial instances to help out the teams they want to win.
If that had been Gerrard making the challenge on a Sheff Utd player, the ref would NEVER have given it.
August 19th, 2006 @ 23:24Nonsense. That includes both the penalty decision and those arguments for it. The ball was there to be won. Morgan made the challenge, missed the ball and missed the player. I don’t think Gerrard dived but I also don’t think you can give the penalty. How can Styles say he took the player and prevented him an opportunity to score a goal and then choose not to even have a word with Morgan after already booking him earlier.
Styles is a grade A expletive, his decision would only have been open for explanation had he said he thought he made contact however he didn’t. The answer he has given has simply shown him up to be a liar and these sort of decisions and explanations need to be investigated fully by the FA. It is impossible for anyone to watch the incident and then read the referee’s explanation and see why he did not send the player off unless he was in some way unsure that his decision was correct. Obviously if this is the case he should not have given the penalty. Also I may add that the referee immediately sprinted up and gave the penalty without even consulting the linesman, now if he was this sure that contact had been made and this had prevented a goal scoring opportunity then why was Morgan left on the pitch.
It is difficult to write an unbiased reflection of the incident being a blade but i just cannot see the referee’s logic on this one to give a penalty and then take no further action.
Being completely honest I would say a draw was a fair result and if Liverpool had not been awarded the penalty I would have expected them to score anyway. After our goal we sat far too deep and it is unlikely we would have held out for 30 minutes. It just leaves a sickening feeling in the throat to think that come what May it is possible we will look back and need those 2 points which may have been taken away too easily. I know it’s easy to say and means not much but I am nearly 100% certain had we been playing at anfield we would never have been awarded a penalty in such circumstances.
In short, I can only just perhaps see that the referee may have seen it as a penalty but with regards to his explanation this is mere poppycock, drivel and outright lie. His remarks make a fool out of all of us who pay to watch games that swing on such nonsense.
August 20th, 2006 @ 00:22There was definately a challenge, there is no need for a contact, the ref can award a penalty without a contact, the tackle put Gerrard out of balance. Maybe he should have done like C.Ronaldo or Drogba, roll on the ground, looking at the ref all the time. The only mistake the ref made was not to book Morgan.
August 20th, 2006 @ 00:43anything else the ref didn’t do? Maybe get Stevie G a band-aid for the bruise that phantom contact gave him? Sheesh, HE stumbled, HE complained, it’s his bloody fault.
Dearly beloved, we are gathered here today to commemorate the passing of the reputation of one Stevie G . . .
August 20th, 2006 @ 01:03Villa_for_live… You have posted pro-liverpool comments on this site under a different name. I suppose you’d need some ridiculous pro Villa name to even consider posting a MORONIC theory like yours.
You can give a penalty even if there is no contact? Wrong, unless there is a clear attempt to injure another player.
The referee stated that BECAUSE HE THOUGHT HE SAW CONTACT, that it was a penalty. So contact was the reason for the penalty… If he’d have said, NO I didnt see contact, but I gave it because my darling Steven Gerrard nearly clipped his foot on him, he would have been sacked (or promoted, the referees are clearly biased towards liverpool.)
To give a free kick when someone is purposefully trying to make contact with the player is correct.
No-one EVER tries to do that in the box. Because instead of getting away with an innocuous free kick, your team is penalised a goal (via the formality of a penalty).
August 20th, 2006 @ 03:54soup – how’d you figure that one out?
and why aren’t you writing about chelsea?
August 20th, 2006 @ 04:11In situations like this the responsibility falls to the referee however much the player has the cheek to claim it. A foul (penalty) can be given if there was no contact but only if he judges there was intent. Apart from the fact that he thought he saw contact when Gerrard successfully rode the challenge untouched, he also judged that a player already on a yellow card making a last ditch attempt was going with intent to take him down. Both ideas are wrong even if the latter one made any sense (which it doesn’t).
That’s two reasons why the incompetent Styles was wrong. The third incorrect part of the decision is that if he took the view that contact was made and intent was there, then a further card is pretty much compulsory. He didn’t give it.
And just to wind up Soupdragon2 a little more regarding what would’ve happened to Drogba, wasn’t it Rob Styles who booked Drogba for diving in the area in a game against (I think) Villa in the early part of his time in England, only to review the footage and decide it wasn’t a dive but a foul exactly as claimed? He apologised retrospectively, but the game had already finished 0-0 instead of a late Chelsea penalty from which Lampard would’ve scored just as he’s always done for Chelsea (but not England).
Styles is a serial incompetent, yet still he gets the games. As above, he even admits to his own cock-ups too. H is a walking advertisement for bringing video decisions into the game for when the ref isn’t up to the task of adjudicating properly. Further evidence for that is provided by the ridiculous penalty decision given against Chris Powell yesterday. Other refs are no better
August 20th, 2006 @ 12:31(I’m writing on Chelsea’s behalf, LOL)
Seriously though, the ref is on drugs.
Have you ever seen a ref give a penalty because an innocuous sliding challenge NEARLY hit a player??
People arent stupid, and therefore if you slide in and the player avoids you, then ASKS for a penalty and gets it… you start to wonder whether there is actually some Pro-Liverpool cult that exists between all the referees. They get the rub of the green in EVERY match.
It’s absolutely awful and i’m glad Warnock didn’t see the replay before he had his interview, he would have hunted Styles down and given him a lobotomy.
August 20th, 2006 @ 13:13“hunted Styles down and given him a lobotomy” ?
Because there’s some kind of brain there to lobotomise? Surely a redundant act.
Now, disembowelling is a different matter…
August 20th, 2006 @ 15:36Soupdragon2, this was my first post on this site, I saw it on newsnow and I just wanted to make my point here
ok the ref said there was a contact wich we both now is wrong. But the laws of the game clearly say there is no need to contact to be made.
Just read Law 12
Law 12 – Fouls & Misconduct
Direct free kick
A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following six offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:
* kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
August 20th, 2006 @ 18:12* trips or attempts to trip an opponent
* jumps at an opponent
* charges an opponent
* strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
* pushes an opponent
Don’t show me the rules for direct free-kicks.
He didn’t attempt to trip him up, he slid for the ball, and got it dinked past him. Gerrard then flung his leg back to PRETEND he was hit.
August 21st, 2006 @ 01:49Thanks for letting us all know about rule 12. We have all changed our minds and now admit that rather than being incompetent Styles is actually a hero for giving the first ever penalty for this reason.
Seriously, how can you suggest that “the sheffield united player” attempted to trip “Stevie” rather than win the ball which at the point of the tackle was there to be won.
The simple fact is the referee saw contact that wasn’t there, gave a penalty without even thinking of consulting his linesman having sprinted to stand on the penalty spot. He had the conviction of thought to give the penalty but then decided he wasn’t too sure after all so he didn’t take any further action when in fact had it been a foul it should have been a straight red. Following this he does an interview on sky saying that there was contact, decides then maybe there wasn’t so on a later interview with MOTD he decides to change his story to “intent to trip” without any further explanation behind the change of tact or what psychic powers he used to decide Morgan’s intent in that split second where he was forced to slide in.
The guy is an outright disgrace and has ridiculed himself and in fact the rest of english football in the way he has tried to defend this decision. I would have some respect if he had stuck with the initial “i thought there was contact” excuse. I’m not really sure how much of this came across on TV but at the game he warmed up with the Liverpool players, at half time he was walking side by side with Benitez out onto the pitch to the centre circle deep in discussion and after the game he tops this by failing to even remember the name of the United player he had already booked and gave a penalty against. Even if he isn’t being influenced by these points why the hell did he leave himself open to such complaints?
I know this is only the first game of the season and Unitedites are happy as a whole with a draw against such a good team it really pisses me off to wait 12 years to get back into the premiership and then suffer such a blow. I will restate my initial question “would we have got a penalty like that away at anfield?” ask yourself this and see what the answer is. After seeing Watford suffer at the hands of two equally unfair penalty claims I now look forward to a long season of such refereeing inconsistencies.
Best league in the world?
Then why do we put up with biased refereeing decisions?
August 21st, 2006 @ 05:41I agree with every comment you made good sir.
The most pertinent point you made was the fact that a penalty of that nature has NEVER, EVER been given before.
So, reason 1. “He hit him.” (If he thought he hit Gerrard and he then explained that HIS INTENTION TO HIT GERRARD was enough, why was no red card shown?)
reason 2. “Oh, really? Looked like he did, intention is enough.” (So, he thought there was contact and didn’t card him, then when he is told he DIDNT SEE the contact, says that he saw the intent to take Gerrard down.)
Why did he IMMEDIATELY run to the penalty spot not issuing a card if he hadn’t seen the lack of contact and half witnessed what he thought was INTENT to take Gerrard down.
Justifying all of this is impossible, and his attempt to justify the validity of the penalty by saying “HERES A NEW TAKE ON THE RULE THAT’S NEVER BEEN SEEN BEFORE, EVEN THOUGH MY ORIGINAL REASON FOR GIVING THE PENALTY HAS BEEN PROVEN WRONG” shows that he has an inclination to defend Liverpool, as if him spotting the phantom contact when everyone else saw he dived wasn’t enough.
August 21st, 2006 @ 21:44I don’t think I have ever been exposed to a more ludicrously biased bunch of blind people in my life. There is even a clip provided for those of us who are blessed with the gift of sight.
August 22nd, 2006 @ 00:24We firstly discuss the backward logic of the ref having made the wrong decision because if it had have been a fowl the player should have been sent off. Absolutely grotesque use of mental faculties this is. We then discuss the notion of intent as though every fowl ever given has been defined as a deliberate attemppt to take the player and not the ball. If there is no contact there has to be intent and if there is no intent then there is no fowl. Rational thought at its best…Some of the most significant sending offs in history started out with the purest of intentions but didn’t quite turn out to be the purest realisation of these intentions.
What the ref did in this instance was to use the personal fredom they are alloted in the game of football to judge an action unfair in the context of the free flow of a football game.
Steven Gerrard was through on goal, the last defender was beaten. A reckless tackle came in from this last defender who, i’m sure, on initiating the tackle had no intention of bringing Gerrard down, the suggestion of which somewhat stretches the imagination; what player in the world intends to give away a penalty? As a result of Gerrard’s speed and footballing ability, the object of the defender’s intention, ie the ball, was no longer in the area it was when the tackle was initiated. However the tackle still continued. Gerrard made a perfectly valid attempt to continue on and score the goal, his main intention in being in the box in the first place. He was unable to do this, he was impeded by the mistimed lunge of a player reckless enough to slide in with what was very almost a two footed challenge in a last ditch attempt to save what was almost certainly going to be a goal. Have any of you seen Gerrard strike a ball before or was that the first game of football you listened to ( hardly watched due to mass blindness ) ???.
Thousands of fowls have been given over the years in football when the ref judges the direct consequences of a players action to be not in keeping with the spirit of the game, ie impeding in an unfair manner the progress of a player towards the opposition goal. Do we need full contact ? No. Did Gerrard make every attempt to avoid the tackle? Yes, wouldn’t you ?. Do we need intention and what constitutes intention ? Maybe if we found a note in the united changing room stating ‘I intend to bring Gerrard down in the box today,’ dated 19th August 2006, maybe this would satisfy the cynics amongst you.
One genius referenced the European Cup Final, the greatest sporting spectacle any of you have ever had the grace from God of witnessing and are ever likely to witness, oh sorry, hear, as a supporting incident when Gerrard had hands all over him on his way into the box. Absolutely ludicrous Man United speak, nothing else.
If ti wasn’t Gerrard nothing else would have been said. The bottom line is this; Steven Gerrard played a penetrating one two that completely left the United defence for dead. On witnessing this the last man made a ridiculous attempt to get the ball, which wasn’t there. As a consequence of this challenge Gerrard’s run on goal was hindered to the extent that he was unable to finish with a strong enough strike to beat the keeper. The ref judged this challenge unfair, remember the rules are there to be interpreted and applied by the ref to the best of their ability, and in judging this challenge unfair and realising that there was no advantage to be gained, went on to award a penalty. Stevie should be reverred for not going over straight away and attempting to play on, not comprehensively slated.
I agree that Styles has serious limitations on his ability but in this instance of awarding the penalty he was absolutely spot on. What is reprehensible is that the last defender stayed on the pitch. Even in his finest moment his decision is steeped in incompetence. It was a clear penalty and if you can’t see this please reevaluate your understanding of the game. If that doesn’t work you could always try speeding down the road at 100 miles per hour and you can get even more penalties you can argue weren’t justified.
hei Soupdragon2, this is football..
August 22nd, 2006 @ 13:37Gregorgrease.. If every time a player ran quickly they got a foul, the ball would never be in play.
There was no contact, no intention to hit Gerrard as you admitted, and therefore… no fucking penalty. That is it.
August 23rd, 2006 @ 03:17yes i know this is football.
Football is full of liars and cheats. I tried to point that out and 20 people defend the undefendable.
August 23rd, 2006 @ 03:19the only thing undefendable was the pass to Gerrard in the box. hence the reason for such a tackle.
August 23rd, 2006 @ 05:31It wasn’t a penalty but Gerrard didnt dive.It was the mistake on the ref’s part.
September 2nd, 2006 @ 22:30