Wolves 1-2 West Ham: Verdict Thread

[Hereford Wolf]

The match thread was like reading something from Molineux Mix a few years ago. When did it become acceptable on this forum to throw such vile abuse at each other? Do we not ban people for that anymore?

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

Apparently Sarabia and Cunha got booked after the whistle yesterday.

 

[Lycan]

Apparently Sarabia and Cunha got booked after the whistle yesterday.

I saw Cunha and Derry get booked. O'Neil had to drag Cunha away from him.

 

[Loki]

Apparently Sarabia and Cunha got booked after the whistle yesterday.

Yes, too silly, needless cards to give away. Another consequence of a lousy referreeing decision.

 

[nimrod]

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

Yep, agreed. They’ll claim he was visually obstructed but the side view shows the keeper unsurprisingly looking up at the ball and not down at the forward’s head. Plus he had no chance of saving it which imo should be a factor even if the stupid law makes no reference to it.

 

[The Bear]

Apparently Sarabia and Cunha got booked after the whistle yesterday.

Cunha I saw get booked on the actual broadcast. Sarabia looked very calm with his coat on at that point but I don't know what went on before it cut to them.

It's on the MOTD clip:

'It doesn’t make sense' – MOTD pundits on Wolves 'goal'

Match of the Day pundits analyse the decision to disallow a late Wolves equaliser against West Ham, with Gary Lineker suggesting that VAR is taking over - and that football needs an appeal system.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

 

[Tony Towner]

The match thread was like reading something from Molineux Mix a few years ago. When did it become acceptable on this forum to throw such vile abuse at each other? Do we not ban people for that anymore?

Didn't read it beyond kick off, but someone was banned, it's on the appropriate thread

 

[Tredman]

Sarabia was booked before the final whistle.

 

[Lycan]

Jeff with a completely necessary statement here

Jeff Shi reacts to Hammers defeat and controversial decision

Chairman Jeff Shi has commended head coach Gary O’Neil and his players for their achievements this season, despite a narrow defeat to West Ham United.

www.wolves.co.uk

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

Jeff with a completely necessary statement here

Jeff Shi reacts to Hammers defeat and controversial decision

Chairman Jeff Shi has commended head coach Gary O’Neil and his players for their achievements this season, despite a narrow defeat to West Ham United.

www.wolves.co.uk

A vote of confidence

 

[The Dude]

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.

I didn't watch the game live as I was working. I listened to the match audio on Livescore (which is dreadful btw, avoid it if at all possible).

The "commentator" couldn't believe WH's first goal was chalked off, so I watched the highlights expecting to agree with him...

The contact is minimal but Semedo appears to take a stud to his achilles, rendering him unable to defend. I don't think the action was deliberate but is a clear foul. Anyone who's had their heel raked knows how painful it is.

The RAN penalty is a clear penalty. A stonewaller, as much as the Arsenal penalty v Brighton was - I can't believe there's been discussion in the media as to the validity of that decision. The defender nibbled the ball while taking a huge bite out of the attacker.

 

[Langers]

The match thread was like reading something from Molineux Mix a few years ago. When did it become acceptable on this forum to throw such vile abuse at each other? Do we not ban people for that anymore?

Yes it was, yes we do and have.

 

[The Dude]

Yep, agreed. They’ll claim he was visually obstructed but the side view shows the keeper unsurprisingly looking up at the ball and not down at the forward’s head. Plus he had no chance of saving it which imo should be a factor even if the stupid law makes no reference to it.

You can't factor in whether the shot was unstoppable or not. It'll lead to another grey area and open to interpretation (or favouritism depending on the colour of shirt).

The current offside rule should be objective but as we see on a weekly basis, the officials rule subjectively and there is no consistency.

By allowing the officials to determine whether a shot is unstoppable or not only muddies the water.

 

[BillyDee]

"...preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball."
Fabianski was never getting to the ball, he wasn't prevented from playing it or being able to play it.

 

[Templeton Peck]

"...preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball."
Fabianski was never getting to the ball, he wasn't prevented from playing it or being able to play it.

It's subjective. The law is nonsense. VAR will never help because so many decisions are subjective.

 

[The Saturday Boy]

It wasn’t VAR that ruled out the goal, it was the referee.

 

[Tony Towner]

A touch pedantic, without VAR the ref doesn't

 

[Tyrannosaurus Dan]

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.

I was in the North Bank too and didn’t think there was a lot wrong with their disallowed goal in real time. Seeing it on TV, I still think we were fortunate although I can see why it was disallowed. I’d have been pretty annoyed if it was the other way around.

The RAN penalty was one of those were VAR would have gone with the ref’s decision regardless. I don’t think they’d have overturned it if it hadn’t been given.

 

[nimrod]

You can't factor in whether the shot was unstoppable or not. It'll lead to another grey area and open to interpretation (or favouritism depending on the colour of shirt).

The current offside rule should be objective but as we see on a weekly basis, the officials rule subjectively and there is no consistency.

By allowing the officials to determine whether a shot is unstoppable or not only muddies the water.

well of course you can factor it in, you're just saying it'll add subjectivity but then you're saying the officials already rule subjectively and there is no consistency in any case.

I think what we are seeing in recent seasons is that in their attempts to achieve some degree of consistency, which I'd agree with you that they're inevitably failing in, IFAB and/or Refs' guidances are trying to straightjacket referees into giving the same decision to certain positional or handball scenarios regardless of any other differing factors. Those other factors are usually quite important in a game of football particularly in assessing if a decision is fair. So we end up with decisions that appear or actually are unfair, made to supposedly achieve consistency that they then fail to achieve.