VAR review: "It was a terrible decision," Wolves boss Gary O'Neil said after the game. "It is possibly the worst decision I have ever seen. If your knowledge and understanding of the game is really poor, you could reach the conclusion that is offside."
O'Neil has had plenty of reason to complain this season, with a number of terrible VAR decisions going against his team. Wolves have suffered three VAR mistakes -- only Liverpool and Nottingham Forest have more -- while they are the only team in the Premier League not to have a single VAR overturn in their favour all season.
You can argue against the law, but his anger is misplaced against the officials and it's a very easy overturn for the VAR, Tim Robinson.
If a player is stood directly in front of the goalkeeper in the line of vision to the ball, the goal will almost always be ruled out. Line of vision doesn't only have to mean that goalkeeper
Lukasz Fabianski can't see the ball; Chirewa's presence so close to him can impact his decision-making to move for it as well.
It's not a consideration that Fabianski has no chance of saving the ball, the law only requires that Chirewa's actions prevent him "from playing or being able to play the ball" -- ergo, could Fabianski have done something different if the Wolves player wasn't stood in front of him?
Arguing that Fabianski should move out of the way of Chirewa only underlines that the goalkeeper is impacted. If goals such as this aren't disallowed, it effectively gives attackers the right to stand in front of a goalkeeper when offside as long as the shot on goal isn't straight at them.
These offside decisions, where the ball goes into the corner, always look harsh but if the shot is from a close distance there's little chance the goal will stand -- and it's not the first time this season the law has been applied in this way. However, on the previous occasions the disallowed goal did not affect the result of the match, which may be why it caused less controversy.
In September, Manchester United's
Jonny Evans had a goal ruled out for offside as
Rasmus Højlund was stood in front of
James Trafford when the ball was headed -- though admittedly it went much closer to the
Burnley goalkeeper. The referee for that match was also Harrington.
Another goal was disallowed in a Burnley game when a Harvey Elliott strike for Liverpool was chalked off at Turf Moor when Mohamed Salah was in front of Trafford when the shot was taken.
And in February, it was Burnley's turn to have a goal disallowed when 3-0 down at
Crystal Palace.
David Datro Fofana headed home from just inside the six-yard box, but a VAR review ruled
Lorenz Assignon was in an offside position in front of
Sam Johnstone. It's unlikely the goalkeeper would have prevented the goal, but the VAR only has to determine that he was impacted.
In all three games, the Premier League's Independent Key Match Incidents Panel unanimously voted that offside was the correct decision.
The frustration of decisions like this is the unexpected nature of them -- goals being disallowed for seemingly innocuous situations, unseen as it happened, is one of the most annoying aspects of VAR. Moving to a "challenge" system, whereby managers get a set number of appeals per game, would reduce some of the negative impact but to suggest goals such as this wouldn't go to VAR is fanciful.
If you have a challenge system, clubs would have a member of staff whose sole job was to look at a goal and to find a case for an appeal. As soon as the West Ham bench saw Chirewa in front of their goalkeeper in an offside position there would be an immediate challenge.
