Liverpool were forced to settle for a point in a dramatic Premier League opener against Newcastle United, with the two sides playing out an entertaining 2-2 draw after a late penalty sparked a major debate.
The match produced plenty of talking points from the opening minutes, as Newcastle made an electric start and took the lead after just five minutes. Anthony Elanga raced through on goal and calmly finished his opportunity to give the Magpies an early advantage.
Newcastle, under new manager Matthias Jaissle, looked confident and dangerous throughout the opening stages. Liverpool struggled to find their rhythm as the hosts continued to threaten on the counterattack and created several opportunities to extend their advantage.
However, Liverpool eventually found their equaliser in the second half through Cody Gakpo. The forward’s goal appeared to shift the momentum in favour of Arne Slot’s side, but Newcastle responded almost immediately.
Just two minutes after Liverpool had levelled, Joe Willock restored Newcastle’s lead, sending the home supporters into celebration once again. The Magpies defended their advantage impressively as Liverpool pushed forward in search of another equaliser.
It appeared Newcastle had done enough to secure all three points, but the game took another dramatic turn deep into stoppage time.
With Liverpool pressing for a final opportunity, Victor Munoz went down inside the Newcastle penalty area following a challenge from Lewis Hall. Referee Stuart Attwell immediately pointed to the spot, awarding Liverpool a penalty in the 99th minute.
Dominik Szoboszlai took responsibility from 12 yards and showed considerable composure under pressure, sending the goalkeeper the wrong way to make it 2-2.
The decision immediately became one of the biggest talking points of the match.
Keith Hackett Gives His Verdict
Whenever a penalty is awarded in the final moments of a match, particularly when it directly changes the result, controversy is almost inevitable. The challenge involving Hall and Munoz was no different.
https://x.com/skysportspl/status/2091583208311705996?s=46
Newcastle manager Matthias Jaissle was particularly unhappy with Attwell’s decision and argued that the contact was far too soft to justify a penalty.
“For me, it was no penalty – it was a really soft one. If you give that, we will see many, many penalties,” Jaissle said after the game.
The Newcastle boss also defended Hall, insisting that the defender had little opportunity to avoid the contact.
“I don’t think that Lewis can do anything else, he cannot just disappear on the field! It’s a really soft penalty. If you give these penalties then you have to give a lot in this season and I’m not sure if that’s good for football.”
However, former Premier League referee and former PGMOL chief Keith Hackett offered a very different assessment of the incident.
Hackett was asked on social media for his opinion on the controversial decision and delivered a remarkably clear two-word verdict, indicating that he believed Attwell had made the correct call.
His assessment added significant weight to the argument that Liverpool were justified in being awarded the spot-kick.
Gary Neville Also Backs the Decision
Hackett was not the only former football official or pundit who believed the penalty decision was correct.
Sky Sports pundit Gary Neville also appeared to side with Attwell after watching the incident back.
https://x.com/skysportspl/status/2091583208311705996?s=46
Neville acknowledged Hall’s strong performance during the game but suggested the defender had made enough contact with Munoz to warrant the referee’s decision.
“Hall has been incredible but that is not going to be overturned. There was no touch on the ball… I think Hall knows deep inside that it was a penalty,” Neville explained.
The former Manchester United defender’s comments highlighted one of the central issues surrounding the decision: although the contact may have appeared minimal, Hall did not make contact with the ball before making contact with the Liverpool attacker.
That proved important when VAR reviewed the incident.
VAR Refuses to Overturn Penalty
Following Attwell’s decision, VAR checked the incident but determined that there was no clear and obvious error that would justify overturning the on-field decision.
As a result, the penalty stood and Szoboszlai was able to step up and rescue a point for Liverpool.
Micah Richards and Daniel Sturridge also agreed with the decision after analysing the replay.
Richards admitted that the decision was harsh on Newcastle and described Hall as unlucky, but he still believed there was sufficient contact for the penalty to be awarded.
“Yes, it’s harsh, a lot of people will be saying this is not a penalty, but he catches his knee,” Richards explained.
The debate is therefore likely to continue, particularly because Newcastle appeared to be seconds away from securing a memorable opening-day victory before the late intervention.
For Liverpool, however, the penalty ultimately ensured they avoided defeat and left Newcastle frustrated after producing a performance that could easily have earned them all three points.
The incident also underlined the increasingly fine margins surrounding penalty decisions in the Premier League. While Newcastle believe Hall’s challenge was simply normal contact inside the box, Hackett, Neville, Richards and Sturridge all felt the contact was enough to justify Attwell’s decision.
With the season only beginning, the controversy surrounding Liverpool’s late penalty has already provided another major talking point about VAR, consistency and what should constitute a foul inside the penalty area.
For Newcastle, the immediate focus will be on moving forward from the disappointment. For Liverpool, the late equaliser could prove valuable as they begin their campaign with a point.
But the debate over whether Attwell got the crucial decision right is unlikely to disappear anytime soon.
