Saints 3 West Ham 2 - Match & Reactions

If the free kick for Nobles challenge went against us - can we assume the ref didn't see it? If so, is there a chance that it might get looked at retrospectively?

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Was very happy with our winning goal......... I think.

 

Great tackle from the steward..should be at Twickenham..

Great game to go to. Top atmosphere in the Northam for the winner.

Tadic should be banned from pens... another incredibly poor pen. Like his one at Stamford Bridge. Lucky boy.

Thought we were good in first half, poor in second. Would have liked to have seen Boufal.

Someone tactically smarter than me - why is Austin and Gabbiadini a no go? I think they could work well together.

If the free kick for Nobles challenge went against us - can we assume the ref didn't see it? If so, is there a chance that it might get looked at retrospectively?

 

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

It wasn't just the tackle. Noble threw the ball at Lemina after Lemina eventually got to his feet. The ref was dealing with Arnautovic's fake head injury from the prior incident so didn't see it. I would have thought the refs assistant had a clear view of it though.

Often the way. The game's played at such a pace nowadays.

 

Ooh, save from FF! Well, a block - not sure he knew too much about it.

Don't go overboard with your praise, now.

Someone tactically smarter than me - why is Austin and Gabbiadini a no go? I think they could work well together.

Yeah I wouldn't mind trying that. When was the last time we played a 4-4-2?

If the free kick for Nobles challenge went against us - can we assume the ref didn't see it? If so, is there a chance that it might get looked at retrospectively?

 

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

It should be - horrendous challenge from an odious little creature

Yeah I wouldn't mind trying that. When was the last time we played a 4-4-2?

I think its worth a shot, but the fear is if we drop from 5 mids to 4 we will get run over in midfield by attacking sides. In my opinion if we go to 4 mids we would need to keep Romeu out there for defense, Davis because he is well-rounded, and then two wide guys who are better attackers like Redmond/Tadic/Boufal/JWP. I would try a 4-4-1-1 personally and see what happens. We could have Romeu and Davis in the middle, with two of Redmond/JWP/Tadic/Boufal outside. The theory is by dropping Gabbi a little, who has good pace, this would allow Davis to help out more defensively. Austin needs to be upfront because he's only good 30 yards and in.

Amusing link.

12.22 - apparently Arnautovic "never done nothing..."

21.40 for a Hammers eye view of Austin's penalty.

Amusing link.

 

 

12.22 - apparently Arnautovic "never done nothing..."

 

21.40 for a Hammers eye view of Austin's penalty.

I actually watched the entire thing, and thoroughly enjoyed it as an excellent matchday vlog. Kudos to that guy.

However, bucket and spade? Day at the seaside? Did he think they were playing Bournemouth?

I actually watched the entire thing, and thoroughly enjoyed it as an excellent matchday vlog. Kudos to that guy.

 

However, bucket and spade? Day at the seaside? Did he think they were playing Bournemouth?

Agree it was a good effort on his part, but some of the comments around him are quite amusing (with the benefit of hindsight especially).

There were also some pretty honest assessments of the match at different stages.

Nobles challenge was more of a red than Tadics was a yellow. So much angst from the Taters about Tadics challenge - he just ran into the challenge a bit full on but never really made contact - and stayed on his feet.

Great game to go to. Top atmosphere in the Northam for the winner.

 

Tadic should be banned from pens... another incredibly poor pen. Like his one at Stamford Bridge. Lucky boy.

 

Thought we were good in first half, poor in second. Would have liked to have seen Boufal.

 

Someone tactically smarter than me - why is Austin and Gabbiadini a no go? I think they could work well together.

I dont see why you couldn't incorporate Austin and Gabbi in the current set up by playing Austin up top and Gabi in one of the three AM spots behind the striker, perhaps wide left like we did with Rodriguez and Lambert. The issue is the fact that Austin is very much a rigid player with one modus operandi which is basically just a box player, his link up pay isnt really developed enough to play as th central striker in our current set up either. Currently Gabbiadini, from what Ive seen, is pretty central to our attacks, dropping deep to recover posession and start attacking moves as well as his responsibilities as a box poacher.

Theres also a reason 442 has fallen out of favour aswell, as its too rigid. Most sides these days play with more fluidity in atack and defence, allowing most positions to be interchangeable between the two. I.e wingers that track back, CBs that come out with the ball and wing backs becoming increasingly important in attacking phases.

442 doesnt really allow that, and so despite initially having more 'strikers' on the pitch you get better atacking thrust from 4231 which also allows defesive cover by creating a back 3 etc when the FBs bomb on.

Its early days but our play in these two games has been encouraging, we just need a few tweaks in the final third to unlock defences. Personally I think that the team needs more freedom to try long shots and early crosses, what you will lose in possession you will make up for in better chances, opposition that can't 'guess' our plays. I imagine we will not see this until Pellegrino is more comfortable with our defensive shape though.

Nobles challenge was more of a red than Tadics was a yellow. So much angst from the Taters about Tadics challenge - he just ran into the challenge a bit full on but never really made contact - and stayed on his feet.

Noble is a cheeky cockney who plays for fleet street's favourite club

Yeah I wouldn't mind trying that. When was the last time we played a 4-4-2?

Well it seems to be unfasionable to play standard 4-4-2 nowadays nothing wrong with occupying both central defenders or both wing backs from bombing forward,plus they are both very good players to hold the ball up and allow others to come into the game.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2017/08/20/premier-league-weekend-saw-best-worst-refereeing/

Kieth Hackett criticising Lee Mason, mainly seems to be about the Noble tackle which generally most people seem to think was a red, but also says -

Then there was the penalty, for Southampton's winning goal, which we all feel was a soft one.

Not my opinion and didn't seem to be the opinion of the match of the day pundits, would VAR have helped with that? I think it would have just shown what is a clear push, no way you could over turn that surely?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2017/08/20/premier-league-weekend-saw-best-worst-refereeing/

 

Kieth Hackett criticising Lee Mason, mainly seems to be about the Noble tackle which generally most people seem to think was a red, but also says -

 

 

 

Not my opinion and didn't seem to be the opinion of the match of the day pundits, would VAR have helped with that? I think it would have just shown what is a clear push, no way you could over turn that surely?

On this occasion it was a push an so a foul

West Ham spent the whole game nudging any player who went up for a header to put them off balance. Got away with it so much that they made it so obvious the ref had to give us one and he chose the best position! Soft penalty/hard penalty - one thing in common... Penalty!

It was a definite push and a penalty. I don't understand the 'soft penalty' way of describing these things. Its either a foul or not a foul.

On this occasion it was a push an so a foul

Exactly, anywhere else on the pitch it is a free kick ergo it was a penalty. Zabaletta knew he was in trouble as he had his hand up appealing for something as soon as the incident happened.

Zabaleta's been at a big club for the last however many years getting away with things like that. Absolutely no way we get that decision in the 91st minute against Man City, Chelsea, etc, but a game against West Ham is relatively out of the spotlight so the referee doesn't have "****, I'm going to be analysed to the nth degree by Gary Neville on Monday Night Football if I give anything contentious, so let's just give nothing all afternoon instead" in the back of his mind.

I'm not really sure how VAR really works, but I know in Cricket that to overturn the on field umpires decision they need clear evidence of an error.

There was none there, if they'd gone to VAR then how could be argue that it wasn't a foul, very odd comment from Hackett there, maybe this is why he's the 'ex' head of referees. I agree I don't get a description of soft, it's a foul and the defending player was trying to stop our player illegally.

It's pretty obvious what it is meant by 'soft. Some decisions are clearer than others -and this one was not clear cut. Many refs wouldn't have given it.

It's pretty obvious what it is meant by 'soft. Some decisions are clearer than others -and this one was not clear cut. Many refs wouldn't have given it.

Yep, you should know...

Clear cut?? The ref gave it so it must have been clear to him... the rest is irrelevant...

Yep, you should know...

 

Clear cut?? The ref gave it so it must have been clear to him... the rest is relevant...

The rest is relevant? English still not a strength, is it little fella? Glad, though, you're showing your true colours. Your argument basically amounts to saying that because the ref gave it, it must be correct and the rest is irrelevant. Was it correct that Noble wasn't booked or we weren't even given a free-kick for the challenge on Lemina?

There's drivel and then there's drivel and then there's ALWAYS

The rest is relevant? English still not a strength, is it little fella? Glad, though, you're showing your true colours. Your argument basically amounts to saying that because the ref gave it, it must be correct and the rest is irrelevant. Was it correct that Noble wasn't booked or we weren't even given a free-kick for the challenge on Lemina?

 

There's drivel and then there's drivel and then there's ALWAYS

coming from Mr Drivel....

To clarify for mr drivel the argument is irrelevant (earlier typo fixed) as nothing will change regarding the penalty or Noble challenge

It's pretty obvious what it is meant by 'soft. Some decisions are clearer than others -and this one was not clear cut. Many refs wouldn't have given it.

It is a shame that Hackett singles out Mason who IMO made 2 perfectly good penalty decisions

Why was it not clear cut? Yoshida was pushed in the back to stop him getting a clear chance, a foul. Nothing soft or borderline. I agree some refs wouldn't give it as they bottle the decision, much like Fontes pull on Davis, Ive seen him get away with those in the past but they are fouls and the ref is correct.

It is a shame that Hackett singles out Mason who IMO made 2 perfectly good penalty decisions

If Yoshida had nudged Sakho just before his header leading to the second goal and a penalty was given, would you have felt aggrieved, or at the very least have thought "that wouldn't have been given against a Liverpool or Chelsea defender"?

You could argue that the foul on Tadic last week by Swansea would also have been a 'soft' penalty - it would surely have been given if the incident was on the half way line - but referees are reluctant to effectively decide the game on such a moment. Tadic wasn't about to score, and I'm not sure Yoshida was going to either. Doesn't make it the wrong decision, just that you often don't see them made, especially in the last minute.

Wet Spam end of season cruise looking good already.

If Yoshida had nudged Sakho just before his header leading to the second goal and a penalty was given, would you have felt aggrieved, or at the very least have thought "that wouldn't have been given against a Liverpool or Chelsea defender"?

 

You could argue that the foul on Tadic last week by Swansea would also have been a 'soft' penalty - it would surely have been given if the incident was on the half way line - but referees are reluctant to effectively decide the game on such a moment. Tadic wasn't about to score, and I'm not sure Yoshida was going to either. Doesn't make it the wrong decision, just that you often don't see them made, especially in the last minute.

I agree that you don't often see them given, but that is not down to the rules but refs not wanting the aggro.

If he had pushed him like Yoshida was then I would have accepted it. If it was a fair challenge or marginal then and then given I would be upset., Zabaletta was not going for the ball and pushed our player. Tadics was a penalty, as it was a foul. It doesn't matter what way he was running.

I agree that you don't often see them given, but that is not down to the rules but refs not wanting the aggro.

True enough, you're probably right to claim that 'soft' should be more about how obvious or severe a foul it was, rather than how often they're given. I'm sure West Ham fans would argue it "wasn't much of a push", but rather than the blaming the ref they should probably focus on Zabaleta who gave the ref a decision to make.

Do you think Stephens handball was a penalty? I certainly think there was a case, even if it would have been...ahem..."soft"!

I hope Noble gets suspended retrospectively. Could have broken our new £18m player's leg in his first half of Premier League football...

It's pretty obvious what it is meant by 'soft. Some decisions are clearer than others -and this one was not clear cut. Many refs wouldn't have given it.

Eh?

Soft is a pretty stupid term to describe a decision, in most cases it's a foul or not a foul, this was a clear cut foul, it's in the box thus it's a penalty.

If most refs wouldn't have given it then that is them not doing their job correctly.

If one of our defenders had shoved a West Ham player like that in the box and they got a penalty I'd find it very hard to criticise the ref for it and would be lambasting our defender for such a silly decision and not doing his job properly.

Like they said on MOTD he got most of the big decisions right, the one he didn't was Noble's tackle on Lemina. Probably highlights the problem with football and why it's so hard for referees when they get most of their decision right but people still criticise them. More refs should stop bottling blatant fouls in the box and defenders would stop doing them.

Do you think Stephens handball was a penalty? I certainly think there was a case, even if it would have been...ahem..."soft"!

.

No, if you look at the laws then it's about hands in unnatural positions, movement towards the ball, and distance the ball has travelled. All of that to me said no penalty, he was really close to the ball, his arm was by his side and he didn't move his arm to the ball. if you give pens for stuff like that then people will start instructing their players to just kick the ball at people's arms and hands in the box.

Eh?

 

Soft is a pretty stupid term to describe a decision, in most cases it's a foul or not a foul, this was a clear cut foul, it's in the box thus it's a penalty.

 

If most refs wouldn't have given it then that is them not doing their job correctly.

 

If one of our defenders had shoved a West Ham player like that in the box and they got a penalty I'd find it very hard to criticise the ref for it and would be lambasting our defender for such a silly decision and not doing his job properly.

 

Like they said on MOTD he got most of the big decisions right, the one he didn't was Noble's tackle on Lemina. Probably highlights the problem with football and why it's so hard for referees when they get most of their decision right but people still criticise them. More refs should stop bottling blatant fouls in the box and defenders would stop doing them.

you could argue that stephens should have been done for handball.

we sure would have wanted that had fonte did the same thing and we were losing

Bertrand pushes Hart, Long's header disallowed no problem. Zabaleta pushes Yoshida under the cross to prevent him scoring. Anywhere else on the field it was a foul even more so in the six yard box with a goal chance. If Zabaleta hadn't shoved Yoshida he would have had a real chance of burying the header. Gallagher on Sky's Ref watch endorsed all of Mason's decisions except the Noble tackle which he put down to being distracted by Arnautovic's injury and stopping play. Doesn't excuse the linesman though.

Bertrand pushes Hart, Long's header disallowed no problem. Zabaleta pushes Yoshida under the cross to prevent him scoring. Anywhere else on the field it was a foul even more so in the six yard box with a goal chance. If Zabaleta hadn't shoved Yoshida he would have had a real chance of burying the header. Gallagher on Sky's Ref watch endorsed all of Mason's decisions except the Noble tackle which he put down to being distracted by Arnautovic's injury and stopping play. Doesn't excuse the linesman though.

Zabaleta was lucky not to get a red card. He had no chance of playing the ball.

That's the key thing for me - often there is contact when players compete for a header and if both have a chance of winning the ball then a bit of jostling and leaning isn't a foul (obviously shirt pulling should always be a foul, if identified). In the Zabaleta / Yoshida incident, Zabaleta was the wrong side of Yoshida and had no chance of competing for the header. The only reason to touch Yoshida was to knock him off balance. Definite peno (although I agree that referees often don't give them).

The Stephens incident - definite no peno. Arm in natural position and no real opportunity to get out of the way.

Noble, red card.

So, basically, the ref got everything right, except they should have had three red cards instead of one.

Bertrand pushes Hart, Long's header disallowed no problem. Zabaleta pushes Yoshida under the cross to prevent him scoring. Anywhere else on the field it was a foul even more so in the six yard box with a goal chance. If Zabaleta hadn't shoved Yoshida he would have had a real chance of burying the header. Gallagher on Sky's Ref watch endorsed all of Mason's decisions except the Noble tackle which he put down to being distracted by Arnautovic's injury and stopping play. Doesn't excuse the linesman though.

Comparing the Bertrand and Zabaleta incidents is ridiculous. The speed at which contact occurred and the change in body angle are completely different. FWIW the ball was going slightly behind Yoshida. As I said at the time, I can see why the penalty was given but it was at the softer end of the continuum. Graham Poll wouldn't have given it.

Comparing Bertrand and Zabaleta is ridiculous. The speed at which contact occurred and the change in body angle are completely different. FWIW the ball was going behind Yoshida. As I said at the time, I can see why the penalty was given but it was at the softer end of the continuum. Graham Poll wouldn't have given it.

There's no way an unimpeded Yoshida was getting that header on target - I suspect the shove only added a few inches of elevation on a ball that was destined to skim off the top of his head at an unfortunate angle anyway. Seen them given, seen them not, but felt we were pretty fortunate to get such a favourable decision at such a decisive moment in the game.

There's no way an unimpeded Yoshida was getting that header on target - I suspect the shove only added a few inches of elevation on a ball that was destined to skim off the top of his head at an unfortunate angle anyway. Seen them given, seen them not, but felt we were pretty fortunate to get such a favourable decision at such a decisive moment in the game.

Comparing the Bertrand and Zabaleta incidents is ridiculous. The speed at which contact occurred and the change in body angle are completely different. FWIW the ball was going slightly behind Yoshida. As I said at the time, I can see why the penalty was given but it was at the softer end of the continuum. Graham Poll wouldn't have given it.

If he wasn't going to get the ball (and I don't think he would have got an on-target header) there was no need to push him, was there? So back to the defender making a stupid mistake...

You could say it was a soft penalty to -give away - but it was West Ham being generous, not the ref.

There's no way an unimpeded Yoshida was getting that header on target - I suspect the shove only added a few inches of elevation on a ball that was destined to skim off the top of his head at an unfortunate angle anyway. Seen them given, seen them not, but felt we were pretty fortunate to get such a favourable decision at such a decisive moment in the game.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

added a few inches of elevation? How you can say he was going to miss or score it is impossible to say. Fact is it was a push and a foul. There was no reason to push him expect to gain an advantage

I wasn't contesting whether it was technically a foul or not - my point was more that we got lucky because there was no way that chance turned into a goal without Zabaleta's unnecessary intervention.

Owing to the slimness of the opportunity and the lateness of the moment, I'd say we got lucky that the ref didn't decide to turn a blind eye rather than changing the game so decisively in injury time.

Eh?

 

Soft is a pretty stupid term to describe a decision, in most cases it's a foul or not a foul, this was a clear cut foul, it's in the box thus it's a penalty.

 

If most refs wouldn't have given it then that is them not doing their job correctly.

 

If one of our defenders had shoved a West Ham player like that in the box and they got a penalty I'd find it very hard to criticise the ref for it and would be lambasting our defender for such a silly decision and not doing his job properly.

 

Like they said on MOTD he got most of the big decisions right, the one he didn't was Noble's tackle on Lemina. Probably highlights the problem with football and why it's so hard for referees when they get most of their decision right but people still criticise them. More refs should stop bottling blatant fouls in the box and defenders would stop doing them.

 

 

 

No, if you look at the laws then it's about hands in unnatural positions, movement towards the ball, and distance the ball has travelled. All of that to me said no penalty, he was really close to the ball, his arm was by his side and he didn't move his arm to the ball. if you give pens for stuff like that then people will start instructing their players to just kick the ball at people's arms and hands in the box.

I'd probably say "no penalty" to Stephens' handball as well, BUT... the ball was close but not particularly 'fired' at him, and he does move his elbow up towards the ball in an unnatural way. I think the best explanation might be that it was an instinctive reaction by Stephens rather than an intention to block with his arm, but I don't think it was the same scenario as someone blasting a shot at goal and it hitting the defender on an arm by his side.

I am afraid I can't agree with all the tactical geniuses who explain playing 1 up front as the footballing equivalent of Alchemy. I think we got Lemina in to stiffen up the midfield so Pellegrino can play 4-4-2. Lemina just needs to get his full match fitness then I reckon we will see a great Gabbi-Austin partnership begin to develop. Until then no way am I having an isolated Gabbi in my Fantasy Premier team.

I'd probably say "no penalty" to Stephens' handball as well, BUT... the ball was close but not particularly 'fired' at him, and he does move his elbow up towards the ball in an unnatural way. I think the best explanation might be that it was an instinctive reaction by Stephens rather than an intention to block with his arm, but I don't think it was the same scenario as someone blasting a shot at goal and it hitting the defender on an arm by his side.

We've already seen them given against Stephens for a near-identical scenario up at Liverpool last season. Perhaps slightly fortunate that the referee looked to have 4 or 5 bodies in the way so there was no way he'd be able to see it clearly.

We've already seen them given against Stephens for a near-identical scenario up at Liverpool last season. Perhaps slightly fortunate that the referee looked to have 4 or 5 bodies in the way so there was no way he'd be able to see it clearly.

Yes exactly, they were remarkably similar. Difference is at Anfield (if I recall), there was also a case of Stephens not knowing where the ball was. Not sure you could say that on Saturday...!

Yes exactly, they were remarkably similar. Difference is at Anfield (if I recall), there was also a case of Stephens not knowing where the ball was. Not sure you could say that on Saturday...!

Azpilicueta was given handball against him on Sunday running through midfield, arms and legs doing what they do naturally when you are running, ball bounces randomly up at him off a very close Spurs player unexpectedly and faster than he could humanly react to change direction, handball given, same ball same scenario in the box ref would have waved it off as too close. The lines of interpretation from refs are very fuzzy regardless of position and viewing it in real time despite a lino to help him out in most cases.

On a different matter, seeing as it's now Tuesday I guess Nobles studs up tackle on Lemina and also his un-gentlemanly attempt at getting a reaction when Lemina walked away, is just one of those things that happens in football, as it was merely Southampton v West Ham.

I wasn't contesting whether it was technically a foul or not - my point was more that we got lucky because there was no way that chance turned into a goal without Zabaleta's unnecessary intervention.

 

Owing to the slimness of the opportunity and the lateness of the moment, I'd say we got lucky that the ref didn't decide to turn a blind eye rather than changing the game so decisively in injury time.

We did get lucky, but mainly because Zabaleta decided to change the game so decisively in injury time - not because the ref decided to. It's a blatant push, and any decent ref who sees it has to give the penalty. Chance quality and lateness in the game are irrelevant.