As CandH reported yesterday the controversial refereeing decision in the recent West Ham vs Liverpool match has sparked outrage from pundits and journalists.
During the 2-2 draw, West Ham goalkeeper Alphonse Areola made a critical error. He appeared to control the ball and then inexplicably set it down as if preparing for a free kick. Liverpool’s Cody Gakpo reacted instantly, attempting to capitalise on Areola’s mistake and tap the ball into an empty net. However, referee Anthony Taylor blew the whistle and stopped play before Gakpo could make contact.
Daily Mail journalist Oliver Holt devoted a whole article to it and slammed Taylor’s decision, questioning why the referee would “rescue” Areola from his mistake. He argued that goalkeepers, just like any other player, should face the consequences of their errors.
Holt’s opinion reflects a wider sentiment – that referees should not intervene to protect players from their mistakes. He emphasises consistency, suggesting that if other players are penalised for errors, goalkeepers should be held to the same standard.
Holt is not alone in his criticism. Pundits like Jeff Stelling, Ian Wright, and Alan Shearer have all expressed their disapproval of the referee’s decision. The incident highlights the ongoing issue of inconsistency in officiating within the Premier League.
Overall, the controversial decision in the West Ham vs Liverpool match has reignited the debate about the sometimes appalling refereeing standards in the Premier League. Critics argue for consistency and believe that players, regardless of position, should be held accountable for their mistakes on the field
Could it be argued that ref played advantage for Areola, but as he put the ball down (..assuming free kick), the advantage did not materialise so the ref brought the free kick back? I don’t know, just thinking that could justify the ref’s decision