Wolves 1-2 West Ham: Verdict Thread

[Jinky]

He’s been fined for calling a completely shambolic call exactly that.

Unfortunately, nothing will change whilst the officials are protected as much as they are.

The managers & players have to be accountable when they have a clanger. I’d love to see the officials hauled out in front of the cameras to answer questions when they cock it up. It used to happen!

 

[Tony Towner]

In their world he didn't cock it up though, they rarely do

 

[Jinky]

In their world he didn't cock it up though, they rarely do

Again, part of the problem

 

[MobNet Wolf]

I had this blasphemous thought in my mind at the time, and now the heat of the moment has died down, I'm going to say it.

It's definitely offside isn't it. I'd be livid if a goal was given against us in similar circumstances.

Chirewa is standing right in front of Fabianski. If you need to start drawing lines to suggest Fabianski can see over him, or around him, you've already lost the argument. His presence will have had an affect. Whether Fabianski could ever save the header is irrelevant.

 

[Tony Towner]

No, listen to Keith Hackett as to why

 

[North Shropshire Lad]

I had this blasphemous thought in my mind at the time, and now the heat of the moment has died down, I'm going to say it.

It's definitely offside isn't it. I'd be livid if a goal was given against us in similar circumstances.

Chirewa is standing right in front of Fabianski. If you need to start drawing lines to suggest Fabianski can see over him, or around him, you've already lost the argument. His presence will have had an affect. Whether Fabianski could ever save the header is irrelevant.

I'm sort of here as well with my thoughts.

Should it be disallowed by anyone that's ever played, wanted to play, watched or listened to any game of football ever? No
Given the current laws on offside and interfering, do I understand why it was disallowed? Yes

Was I annoyed at the time? Yes
Was I more annoyed at our second half performance? Yes
Would I have expected it to be disallowed if it was against us [at the time the goal went in]? No
Would I have been disappointed if it hadn't been disallowed [if scored against us] when viewing it afterwards? Yes

 

[sycophantia]

I had this blasphemous thought in my mind at the time, and now the heat of the moment has died down, I'm going to say it.

It's definitely offside isn't it. I'd be livid if a goal was given against us in similar circumstances.

Chirewa is standing right in front of Fabianski. If you need to start drawing lines to suggest Fabianski can see over him, or around him, you've already lost the argument. His presence will have had an affect. Whether Fabianski could ever save the header is irrelevant.

But that isn't the way the law is worded. There's is no physical contact, keeper can move anywhere he likes and he has perfect view of the ball from the cross comes in till it hits the net.
You or Mr may not like the way the law is worded but as it is its a goal.

 

[nimrod]

I had this blasphemous thought in my mind at the time, and now the heat of the moment has died down, I'm going to say it.

It's definitely offside isn't it. I'd be livid if a goal was given against us in similar circumstances.

Chirewa is standing right in front of Fabianski. If you need to start drawing lines to suggest Fabianski can see over him, or around him, you've already lost the argument. His presence will have had an affect. Whether Fabianski could ever save the header is irrelevant.

Like the way Salah's presence had an effect against us in the FA cup, from an offside position. Not only was Toti aware of him enough to attempt a clearance, Salah then went on and scored. Surely a far clearer advantage than Chirewa just standing there. Based on that, you can't really use a general "must be interfering with play" argument that many appear to have accepted.

The ability to save the shot issue is an interesting one. Say there's a through ball wide of goal that a keeper runs out to but a forward gets there first. the forward then pays the ball across to the centre of goal and backwards to a teammate who slots it home with the keeper in no man's land. But the first forward is both offside and happens to be blocking the keeper's view of the final finish. Should that be disallowed?

I suspect all that's happened here is the ref has seen a freeze frame of the view from the back of goal that just looks like there's a visual obstruction and disallowed on that basis. Lazy reffing based on the written law.

 

[big mean bunny]

Didn't post on here at the weekend but it's also offside for me. I know I am a big keepers union man, but any player in the 6 yard box is interfering in the sense you are aware of them and then making decisions off their position.

He doesn't need to be there other than as a distraction tactic, so he is therefore surely interfering?

The fact the onfield ref has checked it means it's different to me in terms of annoyance, the Salah one as mentioned is far worse, still annoyed about that.

 

[Tony Towner]

The Salah one is the correct interpretation of a shit law, the one on Saturday was the incorrect interpretation of one. Big difference

 

[nimrod]

The Salah one is the correct interpretation of a shit law, the one on Saturday was the incorrect interpretation of one. Big difference

Though they had plenty of get out with the Salah goal as could have easily concluded Toti was not in sufficient control of the ball. They had to presume that and apply the law literally to allow it whilst in this case it appears to be mainly presumption from proximity and maybe the behind the goal pic only. Two wholly different levels of effort.

 

[North Shropshire Lad]

Regardless of what is and what isn't right, I suggest that had Salah scored instead of Kilman on Saturday VAR wouldn't have got involved. Unfortunately we are seeing bias, unconscious or otherwise, all too often.

 

[Mild 'n' Scratchins]

Regardless of what is and what isn't right, I suggest that had Salah scored instead of Kilman on Saturday VAR wouldn't have got involved. Unfortunately we are seeing bias, unconscious or otherwise, all too often.

This is the bottom line. Checking badge is definitely an unwritten rule in football these days. Case in point being Man City given a goal in a similar scenario against Burnley, earlier this season. VAR can fuck off! It's been a cunt to us from the very start, not just this season.

 

[PuntsWolf]

This is the bottom line. Checking badge is definitely an unwritten rule in football these days. Case in point being Man City given a goal in a similar scenario against Burnley, earlier this season. VAR can fuck off! It's been a cunt to us from the very start, not just this season.

I mean that was remotely similar. It was clearly offside…

 

[Wellen Wolf]

No surprise that one week later with Tim Robinson, our VAR ref vs West Ham, taking charge at Newcastle vs Spurs. I wonder what he would like to say about this around the 86th minute (Edited: Sorry, but Youtube will not allow me to post the link but you can find that match easily). Can anyone explain to me why one goal was allowed and the other wasn’t? Guimares is only a yard further away than Chirewa was and is clearly blocking the goalie's line of sight.

 

[WVWolf]

No surprise that one week later with Tim Robinson, our VAR ref vs West Ham, taking charge at Newcastle vs Spurs. I wonder what he would like to say about this around the 86th minute (Edited: Sorry, but Youtube will not allow me to post the link but you can find that match easily). Can anyone explain to me why one goal was allowed and the other wasn’t? Guimares is only a yard further away than Chirewa was and is clearly blocking the goalie's line of sight.

They will argue proximity, but you do have a point. He's clearly in his line of vision and the ball, and clearly offside.

 

[BeaverWolf]

I also noticed some dog shit on my shoe on the beach yesterday too, boy am i an observant fucker in my old age.

What a nice person you are.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

We featured on the Howard Webb and Michael "drives to Madrid Airport every day to buy an English paper" Owen Show.

Webb defends the disallowed goal but you can tell his heart isn't in it.

Match Officials Mic'd Up: Why VAR correctly ruled out Wolves goal against West Ham

Speaking on Match Officals Micd Up, PGMOL chief Howard Webb explains why it was the correct decision to disallow Wolves late goal against West Ham for blocking the goalkeepers view.

www.skysports.com

 

[WVWolf]

They don't really address the issue.

Wasn't a big argument for us at the time that Fabianski could see the ball, as he is much taller than Chirewa and the ball is in the air.

This was a subjective offside decision, yet they're adamant he had to be offside by the rules of the game. In which case, it's not subjective is it?

It was also funny how he said they ruled out these types of goals all season, citing several examples but not the outrageous call to allow City's goal at home to Fulham. I know they admitted it was a mistake, but it adds to the frustration when a blatant one like that was allowed.