Wolves 1-2 West Ham: Verdict Thread

[jd1981]

4 defeats out the last 6 games the inability to field our best 11 and probably 3/4 short of it is killing us now.

 

[The Dude]

This season feels very like Lage’s season.

No it doesn't.

 

[The Dude]

Anyone expecting a PL apology is going to be disappointed as they will hide behind the fact Chiwera was obstructing Fabianski, absolutely regardless of whether he had zero chance of getting the ball.
Pre VAR that goal goes in absolutely no one moans about it.
Tge only argument I can see is that if Chiwera isn’t there Fabianski can challenge for the ball but it’ll still just end up in an empty net.

The fact the header was unstoppable is completely irrelevant.

What's relevant though is Chirewa didn't obstruct Fabianski's view or ability to move.

The goal should have stood as per the laws of the game.

 

[jd1981]

The fact the header was unstoppable is completely irrelevant.

What's relevant though is Chirewa didn't obstruct Fabianski's view or ability to move.

The goal should have stood as per the laws of the game.

They’ll simply imply that him standing in there does obstruct him because he can’t move forward and challenge the ball it’s crap I agree but that’s what the PGMOL will hide behind.
Reality is it’s just zero common sense and a robotic decision.
All the arseholes stating the laws etc will no doubt be fine when they have a goal chalked of for that. As GON says your knowledge of the game is poor if you think that’s offside.

 

[Tony Towner]

Tge only argument I can see is that if Chiwera isn’t there Fabianski can challenge for the ball but it’ll still just end up in an empty net.

He's not offside at that point though. The only time he is by any interpretation is after Kilman has headed it

 

[Shotbybothsides]

I thought he was just offside at the moment Kilman connects, but looks onside a split second later as the full back moves back to his post.
I am fuming as he wasn't going to save it anyway, but can understand why the referee deems him to be obstructing his view, even though I believe he has sight of it at all times. As Moyes said "All teams put a player on the keeper, but if that player cannot be bothered to move back onside that is his own fault".

You are giving the ref a decision to make, and unfortunately they are not Wolves fans. How would we feel with the situation reversed? Very lucky undoubtedly in that scenario, but we shouldn't have given the ref a decision to make.

Still primarily angry at the club for weakening the squad to unacceptable levels. The end of the season cannot come quick enough in some ways as we fade away, and I wonder if the club will give us all a rebate on our expensive season tickets for their inability to run a club -.

 

[Tyrannosaurus Dan]

I’ve watched the highlights properly this morning and it’s an awful decision. If you take away how poorly worded and open to interpretation the law is, all the referee has to decide is if Chirewa is preventing the keeper from making the save. Of course he isn’t.

I will also say that I think we were a bit fortunate with West Ham’s disallowed goal and the penalty on Ait-Nouri could have gone either way.

 

[sycophantia]

They put the wording of the law up on motd last night and for me there is no ambiguity, should not have been disallowed.

 

[The Bear]

The counter argument is that goalkeepers don't want to have players allowed to stand right in front of them when trying to see the ball being headed and to set themselves for a save. They often take a small step forwards before diving and that would get in the way of that.

I can see both sides of it. Yes on this occasion Fabianski could just about see the ball but having a player a foot in front of him no doubt could affect his decision making.

The counter counter argument is that, is Chirewa really interfering with his ability to save it? On the corner Ward-Prose scored from Antonio was all up in Sa's grill trying to block and disrupt him. Antonio wasn't offside but interference on the GK is fine in that instance and not the other, just because of where the ball is coming from?

 

[sycophantia]

The counter argument is that goalkeepers don't want to have players allowed to stand right in front of them when trying to see the ball being headed and to set themselves for a save. They often take a small step forwards before diving and that would get in the way of that.

I can see both sides of it. Yes on this occasion Fabianski could just about see the ball but having a player a foot in front of him no doubt could affect his decision making.

The counter counter argument is that, is Chirewa really interfering with his ability to save it? On the corner Ward-Prose scored from Antonio was all up in Sa's grill trying to block and disrupt him. Antonio wasn't offside but interference on the GK is fine in that instance and not the other, just because of where the ball is coming from?

Don't think there is any argument to say Chirewa is interfering with his ability to save it, he's 2 feet I front of him and keeper has a clear sight of the ball from when it arrives at Kilman till it hits the back of the net.
Anyway I need to get off this bandwagon, game is over, we lost.

 

[Tony Towner]

I’ve watched the highlights properly this morning and it’s an awful decision. If you take away how poorly worded and open to interpretation the law is, all the referee has to decide is if Chirewa is preventing the keeper from making the save. Of course he isn’t.

I will also say that I think we were a bit fortunate with West Ham’s disallowed goal and the penalty on Ait-Nouri could have gone either way.

Still not watched the highlights, but from my view in the North Bank, for our penalty he clearly and cleanly won the ball, so unless there's a second movement I didn't see with the naked eye then I thought it was a poor decision, everyone by me expected VAR to cancel it. For the disallowed goal, although Semedo flopped, the foul is given pretty much all the time in this day and age. For the penalty the ball travelled too far for Kilman to have any excuse for his arm to be out there.

 

[jd1981]

As said it’s a decision that’s got zero common sense to it. The law kind of backs up the decision but also backs up our anger.
As @Tony Towner says the offence isn’t present until the header is made at which point he can see and move clearly.
As we’ve said if that goal is scored in 2018 no one moans a jot.
Having said all this I think we were extremely fortunate for the Emerson goal being disallowed, contact is minimal and certainly not enough to hit the deck.
It’s basic case of officials rewarding crap defending and penalising good attacking play in both cases.

 

[AndyWolves]

Speaking of putting players on goal keepers

https://twitter.com/x/status/1776809210052837885

 

[Wilf Wolf]

Anyone watching at the ground would have seen a complete reluctance to give Doherty the ball if an alternative option was available. In that role he offers so little. He did win a good header at the back post and made a good covering tackle but that can be weighed against giving the ball away in the lead up to their penalty and twice just playing the ball backwards when easier forward options were available. He moves like a glacier, will never beat a man and offers nothing in possession. If I was Bueno I’d be looking to move in the summer if GO is going to pick a player so limited ahead of him.

 

[Tony Towner]

One of those where there'd be a foul on ever corner if you give it. You certainly aren't getting it if Sa doesn't sell it

 

[Templeton Peck]

Seen it now. Kilman goal is a perfect example of why the offside law should never have been changed. If you're off you're off - end of story. Can't spend time trying to get in people's heads working out what may or may not be distracting them.

 

[Lycan]

Anyone watching at the ground would have seen a complete reluctance to give Doherty the ball if an alternative option was available. In that role he offers so little. He did win a good header at the back post and made a good covering tackle but that can be weighed against giving the ball away in the lead up to their penalty and twice just playing the ball backwards when easier forward options were available. He moves like a glacier, will never beat a man and offers nothing in possession. If I was Bueno I’d be looking to move in the summer if GO is going to pick a player so limited ahead of him.

He was at fault for the disallowed WHU goal as well. Lumbering out of position chasing a ball he was never going to win and then making no attempt to get back.

O'Neil absolutely blasted him for it directly afterwards.

 

[Tony Towner]

Seen it now. Kilman goal is a perfect example of why the offside law should never have been changed. If you're off you're off - end of story. Can't spend time trying to get in people's heads working out what may or may not be distracting them.

Nah, watch the Big Match on a Saturday morning and look at some of the ridiculous offsides goals were ruled out for. We don't want to go back to that. Add VAR into the mix and you are removing any level of common sense discretion which may have been used back then. You'd be having goals disallowed from shots from the right of goal because someone stood by the left touchline was off

 

[jd1981]

Big example of that was Leeds disallowed goal EC final in 1975 goal scored from the edge the box disallowed due to some slightly off nowhere near the play.

 

[Templeton Peck]

Nah, watch the Big Match on a Saturday morning and look at some of the ridiculous offsides goals were ruled out for. We don't want to go back to that. Add VAR into the mix and you are removing any level of common sense discretion which may have been used back then. You'd be having goals disallowed from shots from the right of goal because someone stood by the left touchline was off

The other way is too complex. Need to try and remove subjectivity as far as possible - otherwise we get all this bollocks which VAR has made worse.