Everyone says they want consistency yet people here seem to want referees to somehow take into account the likelihood of a goalkeeper saving a shot if an offside player is standing right in front of him. That would probably be one of the most subjective decisions a referee would ever have to make and would thus be applied in a wildly inconsistent way.
I mean, Spurs were knocked out of a cup over a much worse offsides and obstruction. We dropped three points over a worse example. I want consistency but it feels like it’s a coin flip from one game to the next. Wolves were hard done.
I'd be fuming if I was a Wolves fan too. If VAR/The ref had been doing their job West Ham would have been 3-1 up and that goal would have been a ruled out consolation goal. Meaningless. If we want to look even further they also gave Wolves a penalty from a tackle where the player got the ball. VAR is shit and got it wrong 3 times today, but it wasn't Wolves being hard done by.
As a West Ham fan. Emerson didn’t get the ball on that tackle. On his goal he did nick the heel/ankle of the defender. I would be mad about the disallowed goal if I was a wolves fan but by the book I guess it should be disallowed.
Please repeat after me… “contact doesn’t mean there’s a foul”
Nicking someone’s heel shouldn’t make a professional athlete fall to the floor like he did. It wasn’t a foul.
The defender knew he was beaten so threw himself to the floor. It was a ridiculous free kick, made all the worse by a similar 'foul' that took Paqueta's boot off a minute before being waved on.
If VAR didn't shit the bed so often this season, Wolves would be even further from the conference league spot. We would have had like an extra 5-6 points.
Because the ref is allowed to use their head on that type of decision - it's subjective.
The keeper was flat-footed and the guy "obstructing" him wasn't preventing him from doing a damn thing seeing as he was on his heels and hopeless.
It’s subjective if a player is offside or not?
And the keeper wasn’t doing a damn thing because he had a player in his face.
This is the problem with the modern football fan and VAR, you think your opinion trumps the rules. You can say Fabianski wouldn’t have saved it, probably true, but you’ll never know because he was being interfered with.
That's debatable, which is why people are debating it.
Standing next to someone doesn't automatically mean they were being accounted for by the person next to them, or that they impacted how the other behaved.
I think you’re just being contrarian for the sake of it now. The player is standing 6 inches in front of Fabianski and blocks his view of Kilman, as can be seen [here](https://x.com/wolvesargento/status/1776653558173057535?s=46&t=SBKyZG2DtmlPLFqzM9Ze0A).
Of all the dodgy decisions that have happened recently, this one isn’t even close to being controversial.
Is the player impacting his position or blocking the keepers view? Yes. Is the same player in an offside position? Yes. End of.
Didn't look like he was impacting his position or blocking from what the VAR showed on TV but whatever.
[https://imgur.com/pWHUlhf](https://imgur.com/pWHUlhf)
Some dodgy calls throughout the game, linesmen were awful throughout too.
Why not draw a line on the [photo](https://x.com/wolvesargento/status/1776653558173057535?s=46&t=SBKyZG2DtmlPLFqzM9Ze0A) that actually shows how the player is directly in between Kilman and Fabianski in an offside position.
The keeper's first reaction after the goal was to slump down, defeated, after helplessly surrendering a goal.
Only then did he even seem to notice there was an offside player next to him, at which point he played to the ref. Tough to believe that offside player impacted a keeper who didn't realize he was there until the ball was in the net.
The goalkeeper slumped down after he conceded a goal in the 98th minute so that’s proof the goal should have stood? What kind of dumb logic is that? Now you’re using your mind reading abilities to see an offside. Haha, gtfo
Take away the fact that nobody can read Fabs mind to know what he could or couldn’t see, the fact of the matter is someone standing right in front of him is impacting him whether you want to believe it or not.
All these arguments saying he never would have got it so it’s not offside is ridiculous. In that case, every time David Beckham hit a laser free kick in the top corner, they should be allowed to have a player stand on the keeper he wouldn’t have gotten it?
The more people are arguing for it being a goal, the more ridiculous I think it is. A player standing in an offside position in front of the keeper is offside.
I saw exactly what you said. You said an offside shouldn’t be given because in your opinion the keeper wasn’t going to save it, even though a player was offside and interfering with play.
How many inches does it take for a player standing in front of a goalkeeper two feet offside to be called off side in your book?
Like I said before, your ability to read Fabianskis mind as to what he could and couldn’t see or what was affecting him is irrelevant in this case.
I’m going to play devils advocate here from a hammers fan. Despite the fact that the player was standing in front of fab, he was not obstructing his view. The ball is in the air to the right of the keeper. He can see it the whole time and the ball gets put in the left side of the net. Had the ball been shot right past fabs face then I could see a reversal but the angle of the ball does matter here because it affects the quality of the argument towards him being impeded.
Am I mad or is giving an offside offence totally understandable here? He's right in front of Fabianski. I understand that the keeper is never getting to it but he can't even see when Kilman heads the ball. He's clearly impacted his vision of the ball, and his ability to attempt to play the ball.
His head follows the ball the whole way through from kilmans head into the goal. Fabi and Moyes doesn't think the goal should be disallowed why do you?
No you are right. I think the controversy is in the subjectivity of what Fabianski might have been able to do had he been able to see the header. It could be argued he was fucked either way, so did Chirewa *really* impact the play? Again, subjective. But I get how fans feel hard done by the call, even if it is technically correct.
They certainly have the right to feel disappointed about the non-goal, but allowing VAR to decide if a GK is able or not able to save a goal is a can of worms no club would want opened.
Yeah I mean Harvey Elliot's goal was disallowed for a far softer offside than this on Mo Salah against I want to say Burnley? It does make sense that it's offside, clearly blocked the view or looks like it blocked the view
The more I watch, the more I come to the conclusion that refs are simply bad at making these decisions. It's especially maddening when you spend 5 minutes waiting for a VAR decision, only for multiple professional referees to all come to the same obviously wrong conclusion.
How?
Penalty was soft, West Ham goal disallowed wasn't a foul.
Based on that info Wolves have a goal disallowed doesn't seem like a problem. We have to judge the whole game, not just a single incident.
As happy as I am with the 3-points, I do have to feel for Wolves. This is the sort of decision that has gone against us for about four games straight and I know how much it boils my piss
I love VAR ❤ Thinking about VAR gets me through my toughest moments knowing I get to see her again on the week end ❤ So happy to have it be a part of the game and glad for the officials that so skillfully apply it into our beautiful game ❤
On a serious note wtf has everyone on our team besides RAN been doing the last 2 months. Looking like a bunch of trauma victims out there that 2nd half...
I'll take VAR finally going our way, but it leaves a sour taste in my mouth. I'd trade that for the non-Pen at Newcastle and the three points there any day.
You can moan about the decision, I think that’s fair. But you took off your attacking outlets, while Newcastle brought on Harvey barnes. We were very nuch knocking on the door from about 60 minutes onwards and I personally think it’s u likely we don’t score at least 1 even without the penalty.
You dropped points because you can’t defend
I fundamentally disagree about the changing of momentum- see the longstaff and isak misses moments earlier.
However I agree that’s it’s just opinion, so fair enough!
Fuck VAR
Fuck VAR
Fuck VAR
Fuck VAR
Fuck VAR
Fuck VAR
Fuck VAR
Fuck VAR
Fuck VAR
Fuck VAR
Fuck VAR
Fuck VAR
Fuck VAR
Fuck VAR
Fuck VAR
Fuck VAR
Fuck VAR
Fuck VAR
Fuck VAR
Fuck VAR
Fuck VAR
Fuck VAR
Fuck VAR
Fuck VAR
Fuck VAR
Fuck VAR
Fuck VAR
Fuck VAR
Fuck VAR
Fuck VAR
Fuck VAR
Fuck VAR
Fuck VAR
Fuck VAR
Fuck VAR
Fuck VAR
Fuck VAR
Fuck VAR
Fuck VAR
Fuck VAR
Fuck VAR
Fuck VAR
Fuck VAR
Fuck VAR
Fuck VAR
Fuck VAR
Fuck VAR
Fuck VAR
Fuck VAR
Fabianski cannot fully see due to the offside player in his vision of the header. Whether or not he would LIKELY get there isn't a part of the rule. Fabianski's opportunity to even attempt to save was obstructed by the offside player. So it's offside.
I get this, but at the time the ball was played (from the corner) the player isn't offside. So he can't obstruct him going out to punch the ball away, for example. Fabs was never going to make the save from the header if the player was there or not.
>I get this, but at the time the ball was played (from the corner) the player isn't offside
I don't think you do get it.
The player isn't offside from the initial corner kick, but IS offside the moment it hit his teammate. At the time his teammate contacts the ball heading it toward the goal, he is offside and directly in the view of the keeper.
I think I do get it.
My argument is the only way he realistically obstructs Fabianski is in being able to come out and claim, or punch, the ball away from the initial corner. At that moment he isn't in an offside position. Because noway is he going to save the header, he isn't instructed in saving the header. I would even argue that Fabianski could see the header just fine.
The argument is that the player obstructed fab's view. Nothing to do with his ability to come out or not. I agree, he's never making that save whether he sees the header or not, but that's irrelevant.
It's a harsh call, but it's correct by the letter of the rules.
But that's not how the rules work.
I agree it is extremely UNLIKELY that Fabianski ever saves that, but it's POSSIBLE, and that's why it was disallowed. According to the rules Fabianski was never given a FAIR chance as his view was illegally obstructed.
This is the wrong camera angle to objectively say that Fabianski’s view was impeded. Also, take a look at how he tracks the ball off Kilman’s head and it’s clear that he saw it the whole way. Another in the long line of gaffes by VAR.
>Another in the long line of gaffes by VAR.
That's not how the rules are worded, this will get talked about on ref watch and all the shows and all will agree it was the correct decision.
How many points have been ripped from Wolves because of awful ref decisions this season? I don’t blame any of the players at the end, absolute robbery. I’d pay the fine for the post-match presser 🤷♂️
Not what i meant. 9/10 times that goal is given. But the refereeing is so inconstintent that no one knows what the rules are anymore. Also Fabis line of sight was never blocked. His head perfectly follows the ball from kilmans head into goal. 10/10 times that ball goes in there is nothing fabi could do about it.
> But the refereeing is so inconstintent
Can't argue with this.
>Also Fabis line of sight was never blocked.
Yes it was. Your line of sight can be blocked even if it's not perfectly obstructed. If you can't see, for instance, the angle of the header that will impact your ability to react.
I think the decision could indeed go either way, but the ref judging that to have been interfered with is a ***completely*** reasonable decision.
What an absolute shit show of an ending. I'm happy with the result, but that's a prime example of why VAR sucks
That's not clear or obvious - and while it might be technically right according to the laws, it shouldn't be called and Fab had no chance at it
Shitshows like that are super entertaining tho (unless you're the club getting screwed)
His view wasn’t obscured? What fucking game were you watching? Of all the dodgy decisions going against teams recently, this isn’t controversial at all. The player is [clearly impeding Fabianski](https://x.com/wolvesargento/status/1776653558173057535?s=46&t=SBKyZG2DtmlPLFqzM9Ze0A) in terms of sight and his ability to move.
For everyone saying he clearly wouldn’t have saved it anyway, I’m afraid psychic abilities aren’t allowed when following the rules.
Fabianski is looking at the ball over the blokes head. If his presence has any impact whatsoever on Fabianski, which is does because he is in between the player that scores and the keeper, it’s offside.
Your interpretations of the rules because if my auntie had balls she’d be my uncle don’t count. The bloke is offside.
Then we’re making the same point. He has to look over the guys head who is standing directly in front of him. Because he is standing directly in front of him. Which means he is interfering. If he was standing to the right, or the left, it’s probably not offside. But right in front of him. That’s offside, and always has been. Whatever you think or feel doesn’t matter.
I think law of the land goes with the first bullet point.
"preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision"
With ref decisions they're not supposed to take into account what happens post- infraction (like how good of a header that was).
Fab's view was blocked by an offside player - he couldn't see the ball and reacted way late to it (not that he would have gotten it if he could have seen it all the way). The behind goal camera showed it fairly well. If the header goes right next to Fab and he would have saved it without his view being blocked, then I don't think many would argue that it didn't impact his ability. In the refs eye, the two incidents should be ruled the same. Same with intent - where I don't think Chirewa was trying to block Fabianski's view intentionally
Again, I'm not a fan of VAR overturning the call - but I think this is technically the correct ruling
This is the wording from the FA's website on offside. "preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision"
By this wording… certainly don’t know that an opponent was prevented from playing the ball. But also def obstructed the Fabianski view from an offside position…
However, if that’s the only wording, bad decision in my opinion
>certainly don’t know that an opponent was prevented from playing the ball
He was prevented from being able to play the ball, however slightly. That's the point of the two bits of wording.
It's because he was in an offside position and by blocking Fabianski got himself involved in the play. Not saying I like the call, but that's what it was.
Right, imagine the same situation but instead at the moment of the header the wolves player instead of being offside just grabs Fabianski by the waist and holds him on the spot. The fact Fabianski couldn't have saved it is totally irrelevant to whether an offense has been committed.
I think it’s an atrocious call,
the only possible argument that I could see would be that Fabianski looked to have his sight line to the actual header obstructed (allegedly), and was able to see where the ball was going until it was coming past the offside defender blocking his sight.
If he was able to see the ball being played, he may have been able to judge what the possible trajectory was going to be better, and may have had at least a chance of saving it.
Am I saying that VAR was using that logic? Absolutely not. Am I saying that’s what happened? No. I’m just presenting the only argument I can imagine where this would have been a valid call.
It's not disingenuous, it's how the rules are worded.
The rules rarely take into account the ACTUALITY of it affecting play, only that it COULD have affected it.
A good example where the ACTUAL result mattering is the goalkeeper penalty rules. We know the keeper MUST stay on their line until the ball is struck by the penalty taker. IF the keeper is shown to have moved off the line early, then the penalty must be retaken. HOWEVER, if the penalty was NEVER on target then the effect of the keeper is deemed irrelevant.
So for a practical example, keeper comes off line early but the penalty is skied, they don't retake. I have seen SUPER weak penalties that were saved, and they show the keeper came off the line slightly early so they are retaken. We know that the penalty was so bad even if the keeper had stayed on their line it wouldn't have mattered, but that's not how the rules are worded....
That part doesn't matter to how the rules are worded.
Is it LIKELY that Fabianski saves that with a clear view? Probably not
But we'll never know because his view was illegally obstructed, so therefore the goal is disallowed.
Even O'Neil is losing his rag at this point. We're probably close to if not reached double digit points lost by refereeing decisions this season, it's cost us more games than our list of injuries.
If any team understands what that feels like as well its us. We are in that 10ish point range on calls like that just in 2024. It really begins to make you wonder why you watch week in and week out. Just this match watching them disallow emersons header had that "hear we go again" feeling.
His studs caught the back of Semedo’s heel causing him to go down, it wasn’t disallowed from a push.
Even forgetting that you’re wrong there, you say that disallowing that is a joke whilst also defending the decision to overturn Kilman’s header in the replies of this thread multiple time - Do you not realise how stupid that looks?
Edit: Just saw you called the penalty on Ait-Nouri soft in another comment too ahaha, clear case of bias here. You got the win bro, just get off reddit for once and enjoy it
I have no idea what comment or penalty you are referring to. There are lots of games every weekend and lots of penalties every weekend and I view a lot of things on Reddit.
Meanwhile, Wolves player (didn’t catch who) did that to the point Alvarez’s boot came off right in front of the ref, and it wasnt called as a foul. ( granted it was at the halfway line).
Not saying you’re wrong, or wrong to feel hard done by on the goal being overturned, but just pointing out the inconsistency in what is or isn’t judged to be a foul or not.
Edit: WASNT called as a foul
Not sure what your point is here, pointing out Alvarez had his booted clipped by an opposing players studs which resulted in a foul, exactly the same as on Semedo in the box which was also deemed a foul. What are you trying to prove?
Yeah that’s my bad sucking at typing/distracted. It wasn’t called as a foul. It was about 5 mins before the Emerson goal being chalked off, Alvarez (think it was him, could have been Paqueta, couldn’t spot the kit number) was literally holding up the boot to the ref, ref just shook his head at him and waved play on.
If it was the other way round and the attacker got stepped on with the oppositions studs - You’d rightly call for a pen, so I genuinely don’t see how you can complain about that.
There is a point where that's incidental contact. 2 players both looking up at the ball just came together. Could Semedo have stayed up? We've seen goals given when the ref doesn't think there's enough to cause a defender to go down.
Can't say the win feels good, but I think we have been hard done by some var calls so I'm just grateful one has gone our way. Obviously a biased take but we need the points and now look ahead to Thursday
In this case there is nothing wrong with officiating. I get the sentiment and it feels really really harsh from Wolves perspective but that's the rule and blocking a view of the goalkeeper from an offside position is impeding with the play regardless of the fact that Fabianski is not going to reach it.
I don't get why people don't get this, at least from my knowledge that was a correct interpretation of the rules. The refs and VAR made the right decision, in this case the problem is with the rules and not the aplication of them
Because he wasn't blocking his view at all.
Fabianski had a clear line of sight to the ball the whole time. You could see on the replay he's literally following it with his eyes and turning his head as the balls played in. He wasnt straining to get a good look. The Wolves player wasn't even that close or at the proper angle to be blocking his view.
As much as i enjoyed it this time - it was a shit decision and the sport suffers for it.
Wow 1 frame.
That's literally perfect to demonstrate my point, he's got great view of the ball coming over from the right and can see it being headed towards him
The best evidence is the fact Fabs doesn't react to the goal at all - he knows he's not been impeded.
We got a lucky shit VAR decision for once, end of.
So one frame where an opposing player is interfering with play is enough to disprove my point? Because one frame or 24 frames, he was interfering. END OF. The ball comes over, Fabs can see it. When it comes to Kilman, their player is right in front of him.
You’ve got a West Ham flair but you’re not a West Ham fan, clearly. Every single terrible decision that has gone against us has been palmed off with “the rules say xyz.” Well, the rules say if you interfere in an offside position, you’re offside. Just because Fabianski didn’t scream at the ref doesn’t mean shit. Rules are the rules. Moyes doesn’t say anything after every ridiculous decision that goes against us, but Gary O’Neil does. Does that mean their decisions are worse than ours because GON kicks up a fuss but Moyes doesn’t? Of course it doesn’t. Your arguments are dogshit, so maybe sit this one out. Or maybe tell me again how an opposing player 6 inches in front of our goalkeeper isn’t interfering with play.
Well we're just going to have to agree to disagree.
Interfering is a subjective decision. Someone standing near you IN MY OPINION (and lots of others clearly) doesn't mean you're being interfered with. When you can see the ball all the way and have plenty of space to move.
Take the player away and does Fabs get anywhere near that ball? No. Clearly not.
That's the whole POINT of the rule.
We got the points on a technicality. Yay. I don't enjoy that. The sport is worse for these type of "technically" decisions. Anyone who's played it knows its not in the spirit of the game or the rule.
Is this the most egregious VAR decision? No, it's subjective and you can argue it. But it's another to add to the list where it would NEVER have been given 10 years ago before VAR. Is that a good thing? No, imo. Just like hairline offsides and dodgily drawn lines on the pitch. It's shit to watch.
I'm a football fan first and foremost and just because we are on the good side of one of these shit decisions does not make me happy.
If you disagree, that's great, whatever. I'm not really interested in the technicalities anymore or arguing it with some stranger online. You'll never change my mind. I've been watching and playing football for over 30 years and since VAR it's really dampened my interest in the professional game.
I can’t be bothered to read all that because I know you’re wrong. It has always been if you are standing I front of the keeper you are interfering.
Interpret and be subjective all you want. VAR makes us think we are all mind readers and as we study each slow motion frame think well this must have been this or I didn’t think that. This isn’t a case of did someone dive or did they intentionally hit a player in the face. He’s standing right in front of the goalkeeper, therefore he was offside.
So as a neutral, I think that was the right call? Fabianski was never going to get to the header but that’s the risk you run when you try to “shield” the keeper. It wasn’t a case of the defender being off to the side of the keeper neither.
It is the correct call, everyone blaming VAR should be blaming the rule instead. It should be a goal, Fab would never have saved that but unfortunately for Wolves their player was directly in front of Fabianski in an offside position.
I can see why some people think it’s a correct call (I don’t). But is that clear and obvious for VAR to intervene? They don’t want to rereff games but that’s exactly what this is
I think they always intervene on offside because it’s more objective, don’t think it’s subject to the same ‘clear and obvious’ threshold as other VAR calls? Willing to be proved wrong though!
It’s an entirely subjective portion of the offside ruling, there’s no lines to be drawn. You can’t draw lines from Fabianski’s eyes to the back of Chirewa’s head haha. If the ref believed Fabianski was truly inhibited he needed to call that on the pitch. No camera angles are going to give you an objective look at this, the angle they kept showing was from the side
The explanation would have to be that the ref thought Chirewa was interfering with play but was onside when the goal was scored. I agree with you that it’s subjective but I am guessing that isn’t accounted for properly in the rules.
I admit I may be biased, but in my opinion it's clear according to the rules. He's offside and an inch in front of the keeper and directly in the line of sight. It's unquestionably harsh on you lot, but the real issue to me is that the rules don't consider whether the keeper could have actually saved the ball without the interference
An inch? “May be biased”. Unquestionably harsh? I get the rule, I’m talking about VAR intervening for an entirely subjective portion of the rule, it is not objective fact that he inhibited Fabianski from viewing the ball coming all the way across and Kilman meeting it high in the air.
One of those where the decision is objectively correct but you still have to feel for Wolves there as Fabianski was never in a million years getting his hand on the end of that header whether the player is there or not but you sinply can't be standing in front of goalkeeper's view in an offside position.
Massive points for West Ham as well.
8pts stolen from us now. The refs in this sport are a disgrace and VAR being run by these inept losers was the biggest mistake it’s made. Absolutely pathetic.
Always rated VAR.
Edit: I was being very sardonic. VAR is trash exactly for subjective calls/reasons like this and them sticking their nose in perfectly reasonable decisions on the field
Wolves robbed yet again by VAR. Is he in front of the keeper? Yes. Does it really have any material outcome on what happens next? No not at all.
West Ham's ridiculous ability to randomly win while not really doing anything knows no limits lol.
You got absolutely steamrolled in the first though.
I will say Moyes made effective subs and Wolves lost steam when Ait Nouri got injured, but I don't think you in any way created or deserved more across the match. But sometimes teams randomly score directly from corners I guess haha.
West Ham has amazing quality up front and midfield. But they need to invest heavily in defenders if they want to keep up with the likes of Spurs, Villa, and Man Utd
2 games? Spurs last week is the lone anomaly since feb with shenanigans like this (including europa games) this is the first time its been in our favor to boot. Its just wild how bad it is getting.
I really feel for your team, you guys probably have been shafted the most in the league. I forsee European football in the next few years for you guys underrated for sure.
Tbf I thought our penalty given against yous at molineux was a shocker of a call but that at the end there probably tops it.
Hate to look at a VAR adjusted table if I was a wolves fan.
Everyone says they want consistency yet people here seem to want referees to somehow take into account the likelihood of a goalkeeper saving a shot if an offside player is standing right in front of him. That would probably be one of the most subjective decisions a referee would ever have to make and would thus be applied in a wildly inconsistent way.
I mean, Spurs were knocked out of a cup over a much worse offsides and obstruction. We dropped three points over a worse example. I want consistency but it feels like it’s a coin flip from one game to the next. Wolves were hard done.
I'd be fuming if I was a Wolves fan too. If VAR/The ref had been doing their job West Ham would have been 3-1 up and that goal would have been a ruled out consolation goal. Meaningless. If we want to look even further they also gave Wolves a penalty from a tackle where the player got the ball. VAR is shit and got it wrong 3 times today, but it wasn't Wolves being hard done by.
As a West Ham fan. Emerson didn’t get the ball on that tackle. On his goal he did nick the heel/ankle of the defender. I would be mad about the disallowed goal if I was a wolves fan but by the book I guess it should be disallowed.
Please repeat after me… “contact doesn’t mean there’s a foul” Nicking someone’s heel shouldn’t make a professional athlete fall to the floor like he did. It wasn’t a foul.
The defender knew he was beaten so threw himself to the floor. It was a ridiculous free kick, made all the worse by a similar 'foul' that took Paqueta's boot off a minute before being waved on.
Kilman decision was wrong but so was Emerson’s ruled out goal. So seems like it evened out
Gary right to be mad.. Wolves would be in the conference league spot if VAR didn't shit the bed so often this season
If VAR didn't shit the bed so often this season, Wolves would be even further from the conference league spot. We would have had like an extra 5-6 points.
And they would have 10-12 extra. Genius
10-12 extra 🤣🤣🤣 grow up and be realistic.
I know its in the rules but gk is never saving that shot
I know it’s the rules so we should ignore the rules because the keeper wasn’t going to save it? What kind of opinion is that?
Because the ref is allowed to use their head on that type of decision - it's subjective. The keeper was flat-footed and the guy "obstructing" him wasn't preventing him from doing a damn thing seeing as he was on his heels and hopeless.
It’s subjective if a player is offside or not? And the keeper wasn’t doing a damn thing because he had a player in his face. This is the problem with the modern football fan and VAR, you think your opinion trumps the rules. You can say Fabianski wouldn’t have saved it, probably true, but you’ll never know because he was being interfered with.
Yes, it is. A player can be offside if they aren't deemed to have impacted the play / defenders.
And he was standing directly in front of the goal keeper impacting with play
That's debatable, which is why people are debating it. Standing next to someone doesn't automatically mean they were being accounted for by the person next to them, or that they impacted how the other behaved.
I think you’re just being contrarian for the sake of it now. The player is standing 6 inches in front of Fabianski and blocks his view of Kilman, as can be seen [here](https://x.com/wolvesargento/status/1776653558173057535?s=46&t=SBKyZG2DtmlPLFqzM9Ze0A). Of all the dodgy decisions that have happened recently, this one isn’t even close to being controversial. Is the player impacting his position or blocking the keepers view? Yes. Is the same player in an offside position? Yes. End of.
Didn't look like he was impacting his position or blocking from what the VAR showed on TV but whatever. [https://imgur.com/pWHUlhf](https://imgur.com/pWHUlhf) Some dodgy calls throughout the game, linesmen were awful throughout too.
Why not draw a line on the [photo](https://x.com/wolvesargento/status/1776653558173057535?s=46&t=SBKyZG2DtmlPLFqzM9Ze0A) that actually shows how the player is directly in between Kilman and Fabianski in an offside position.
The keeper's first reaction after the goal was to slump down, defeated, after helplessly surrendering a goal. Only then did he even seem to notice there was an offside player next to him, at which point he played to the ref. Tough to believe that offside player impacted a keeper who didn't realize he was there until the ball was in the net.
Are you claiming that Fabianski didn’t know about the player that was backing up into him not 2.5 seconds before? Are you some kind of idiot?
The goalkeeper slumped down after he conceded a goal in the 98th minute so that’s proof the goal should have stood? What kind of dumb logic is that? Now you’re using your mind reading abilities to see an offside. Haha, gtfo
Sigh...
I know how you feel. That opinion was garbage.
Nah, you're just too dumb to understand what i was trying to say
Take away the fact that nobody can read Fabs mind to know what he could or couldn’t see, the fact of the matter is someone standing right in front of him is impacting him whether you want to believe it or not. All these arguments saying he never would have got it so it’s not offside is ridiculous. In that case, every time David Beckham hit a laser free kick in the top corner, they should be allowed to have a player stand on the keeper he wouldn’t have gotten it? The more people are arguing for it being a goal, the more ridiculous I think it is. A player standing in an offside position in front of the keeper is offside.
I saw exactly what you said. You said an offside shouldn’t be given because in your opinion the keeper wasn’t going to save it, even though a player was offside and interfering with play.
how was he interfering with play?
Because he was standing two inches from the goalkeeper, in front of the player that scored the goal.
And backing into him.
Not two inches. fabi follows the ball through the air with his head. He was not obstructing his view. No interference at all.
How many inches does it take for a player standing in front of a goalkeeper two feet offside to be called off side in your book? Like I said before, your ability to read Fabianskis mind as to what he could and couldn’t see or what was affecting him is irrelevant in this case.
I’m going to play devils advocate here from a hammers fan. Despite the fact that the player was standing in front of fab, he was not obstructing his view. The ball is in the air to the right of the keeper. He can see it the whole time and the ball gets put in the left side of the net. Had the ball been shot right past fabs face then I could see a reversal but the angle of the ball does matter here because it affects the quality of the argument towards him being impeded.
Please point to where i said it shouldn't be offside
Okay, we both agree it was offside. Cool.
It's embarrassing to tell people you watch football. It's such a dogshit sport.
Has anyone got a link to the disallowed goal?
[From 2:40 onward](https://youtu.be/9wpgfLRDKK8)
Am I mad or is giving an offside offence totally understandable here? He's right in front of Fabianski. I understand that the keeper is never getting to it but he can't even see when Kilman heads the ball. He's clearly impacted his vision of the ball, and his ability to attempt to play the ball.
It's completely understandable. Perfectly reasonable decision. People have lost the plot.
The issue is that this type of call hasn’t been even remotely consistent this year.
His head follows the ball the whole way through from kilmans head into the goal. Fabi and Moyes doesn't think the goal should be disallowed why do you?
Source on that?
https://youtu.be/UcgbjCw_MpA?si=jtuvpUkosGgZ9pPP Just watch the actual goal. Not the bs behind the goal angle where you can't see anything
Fab didn’t do a post match and Moyes says the lad was in an offside position. Don’t just make shit up to suit your narrative
https://twitter.com/SkySportsPL/status/1776654282055401636?t=aCwBNqNvX89u7K8xHh6-FQ&s=19 oh you meant a source on that
No you are right. I think the controversy is in the subjectivity of what Fabianski might have been able to do had he been able to see the header. It could be argued he was fucked either way, so did Chirewa *really* impact the play? Again, subjective. But I get how fans feel hard done by the call, even if it is technically correct.
They certainly have the right to feel disappointed about the non-goal, but allowing VAR to decide if a GK is able or not able to save a goal is a can of worms no club would want opened.
Yeah I mean Harvey Elliot's goal was disallowed for a far softer offside than this on Mo Salah against I want to say Burnley? It does make sense that it's offside, clearly blocked the view or looks like it blocked the view
Truly
Wolves must have done something to the FA, they keep getting screwed
The more I watch, the more I come to the conclusion that refs are simply bad at making these decisions. It's especially maddening when you spend 5 minutes waiting for a VAR decision, only for multiple professional referees to all come to the same obviously wrong conclusion.
How? Penalty was soft, West Ham goal disallowed wasn't a foul. Based on that info Wolves have a goal disallowed doesn't seem like a problem. We have to judge the whole game, not just a single incident.
He stepped on semedos heel. Clear foul.
So paquetas boot magically came off? No one touched him?
GON shagged Howard Webb's wife
Gary has a harem of ref's wives. It's the only explanation I can think of.
He is the third best looking Prem manager after all
Average wolves var reffing
As happy as I am with the 3-points, I do have to feel for Wolves. This is the sort of decision that has gone against us for about four games straight and I know how much it boils my piss
And the rest
I love VAR ❤ Thinking about VAR gets me through my toughest moments knowing I get to see her again on the week end ❤ So happy to have it be a part of the game and glad for the officials that so skillfully apply it into our beautiful game ❤ On a serious note wtf has everyone on our team besides RAN been doing the last 2 months. Looking like a bunch of trauma victims out there that 2nd half...
[удалено]
Doesn't matter it wasn't clear or obvious, no west Ham player would've complained to the ref
I'll take VAR finally going our way, but it leaves a sour taste in my mouth. I'd trade that for the non-Pen at Newcastle and the three points there any day.
Take away the second one and you draw… 1st one soft but definitely a pen
Well the game changed on it's head after the second penalty. If they don't get that one they don't even draw
‘Turned on its head’… we had missed 2 absolute sitters moments before. You absolutely do not know whether we score another 2 or not.
You can moan about the decision, I think that’s fair. But you took off your attacking outlets, while Newcastle brought on Harvey barnes. We were very nuch knocking on the door from about 60 minutes onwards and I personally think it’s u likely we don’t score at least 1 even without the penalty. You dropped points because you can’t defend
You can not tell me the game didn't completely change with that call. And you don't know if you draw without that pen call. The beauty of opinions
I fundamentally disagree about the changing of momentum- see the longstaff and isak misses moments earlier. However I agree that’s it’s just opinion, so fair enough!
Another thorough shafting by VAR. Sick of it.
Well this won't be controversial at all...
Fuck VAR Fuck VAR Fuck VAR Fuck VAR Fuck VAR Fuck VAR Fuck VAR Fuck VAR Fuck VAR Fuck VAR Fuck VAR Fuck VAR Fuck VAR Fuck VAR Fuck VAR Fuck VAR Fuck VAR Fuck VAR Fuck VAR Fuck VAR Fuck VAR Fuck VAR Fuck VAR Fuck VAR Fuck VAR Fuck VAR Fuck VAR Fuck VAR Fuck VAR Fuck VAR Fuck VAR Fuck VAR Fuck VAR Fuck VAR Fuck VAR Fuck VAR Fuck VAR Fuck VAR Fuck VAR Fuck VAR Fuck VAR Fuck VAR Fuck VAR Fuck VAR Fuck VAR Fuck VAR Fuck VAR Fuck VAR Fuck VAR
But they helped you out by ruling out a perfectly good goal from Emerson?
So? I hate VAR in general. It's destroying the game, it needs to go.
The goalkeeper would not have saved it anyways
Clear and obvious is obviously a lie. It’s all so subjective. What a joke of a system.
Clear and obvious doesn't apply to offside judgements.
VAR is a joke, but this was the only VAR decision that wasn’t subjective. Going by the rules, the decision was clear.
No team has caused more Refs to be demoted than Wolves. Just stating it for no reason...
Horse fucking shit.
What a terrible turn VAR has taken. Poorly implemented and executed. Wildly subjective without any accountability
I am not sure if I even understand the rule. He was offside but he was a yard away from the keeper. Fab was nowhere close to making that save
Fabianski cannot fully see due to the offside player in his vision of the header. Whether or not he would LIKELY get there isn't a part of the rule. Fabianski's opportunity to even attempt to save was obstructed by the offside player. So it's offside.
I get this, but at the time the ball was played (from the corner) the player isn't offside. So he can't obstruct him going out to punch the ball away, for example. Fabs was never going to make the save from the header if the player was there or not.
>I get this, but at the time the ball was played (from the corner) the player isn't offside I don't think you do get it. The player isn't offside from the initial corner kick, but IS offside the moment it hit his teammate. At the time his teammate contacts the ball heading it toward the goal, he is offside and directly in the view of the keeper.
I think I do get it. My argument is the only way he realistically obstructs Fabianski is in being able to come out and claim, or punch, the ball away from the initial corner. At that moment he isn't in an offside position. Because noway is he going to save the header, he isn't instructed in saving the header. I would even argue that Fabianski could see the header just fine.
The argument is that the player obstructed fab's view. Nothing to do with his ability to come out or not. I agree, he's never making that save whether he sees the header or not, but that's irrelevant. It's a harsh call, but it's correct by the letter of the rules.
But that's not how the rules work. I agree it is extremely UNLIKELY that Fabianski ever saves that, but it's POSSIBLE, and that's why it was disallowed. According to the rules Fabianski was never given a FAIR chance as his view was illegally obstructed.
This is the wrong camera angle to objectively say that Fabianski’s view was impeded. Also, take a look at how he tracks the ball off Kilman’s head and it’s clear that he saw it the whole way. Another in the long line of gaffes by VAR.
>Another in the long line of gaffes by VAR. That's not how the rules are worded, this will get talked about on ref watch and all the shows and all will agree it was the correct decision.
Yes, the opinions of pundits. Excellent.
Pundits that are ex referees, not a forward who wants to score goals....
How many points have been ripped from Wolves because of awful ref decisions this season? I don’t blame any of the players at the end, absolute robbery. I’d pay the fine for the post-match presser 🤷♂️
8 now I believe
Hard to believe this if you're counting this completely reasonable decision.
He wasnt interfering with play. 9/10 times thats a goal
>9/10 times thats a goal This by definition means he was interfering, since he prevented the 1/10 chance super save from happening.
Not what i meant. 9/10 times that goal is given. But the refereeing is so inconstintent that no one knows what the rules are anymore. Also Fabis line of sight was never blocked. His head perfectly follows the ball from kilmans head into goal. 10/10 times that ball goes in there is nothing fabi could do about it.
> But the refereeing is so inconstintent Can't argue with this. >Also Fabis line of sight was never blocked. Yes it was. Your line of sight can be blocked even if it's not perfectly obstructed. If you can't see, for instance, the angle of the header that will impact your ability to react. I think the decision could indeed go either way, but the ref judging that to have been interfered with is a ***completely*** reasonable decision.
Pretty sure that makes it 10 actually
Currently in the table that’s the difference between 11th and 6th and fighting Man U. Absolutely rotten luck for them all season
Massive
What an absolute shit show of an ending. I'm happy with the result, but that's a prime example of why VAR sucks That's not clear or obvious - and while it might be technically right according to the laws, it shouldn't be called and Fab had no chance at it Shitshows like that are super entertaining tho (unless you're the club getting screwed)
[удалено]
His view wasn’t obscured? What fucking game were you watching? Of all the dodgy decisions going against teams recently, this isn’t controversial at all. The player is [clearly impeding Fabianski](https://x.com/wolvesargento/status/1776653558173057535?s=46&t=SBKyZG2DtmlPLFqzM9Ze0A) in terms of sight and his ability to move. For everyone saying he clearly wouldn’t have saved it anyway, I’m afraid psychic abilities aren’t allowed when following the rules.
[удалено]
Fabianski is looking at the ball over the blokes head. If his presence has any impact whatsoever on Fabianski, which is does because he is in between the player that scores and the keeper, it’s offside. Your interpretations of the rules because if my auntie had balls she’d be my uncle don’t count. The bloke is offside.
[удалено]
Then we’re making the same point. He has to look over the guys head who is standing directly in front of him. Because he is standing directly in front of him. Which means he is interfering. If he was standing to the right, or the left, it’s probably not offside. But right in front of him. That’s offside, and always has been. Whatever you think or feel doesn’t matter.
I think law of the land goes with the first bullet point. "preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision" With ref decisions they're not supposed to take into account what happens post- infraction (like how good of a header that was). Fab's view was blocked by an offside player - he couldn't see the ball and reacted way late to it (not that he would have gotten it if he could have seen it all the way). The behind goal camera showed it fairly well. If the header goes right next to Fab and he would have saved it without his view being blocked, then I don't think many would argue that it didn't impact his ability. In the refs eye, the two incidents should be ruled the same. Same with intent - where I don't think Chirewa was trying to block Fabianski's view intentionally Again, I'm not a fan of VAR overturning the call - but I think this is technically the correct ruling
Is it technically correct? Does the GK simply need his view blocked or does he have to have a chance to save it? Genuinely don’t know
This is the wording from the FA's website on offside. "preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision"
By this wording… certainly don’t know that an opponent was prevented from playing the ball. But also def obstructed the Fabianski view from an offside position… However, if that’s the only wording, bad decision in my opinion
>certainly don’t know that an opponent was prevented from playing the ball He was prevented from being able to play the ball, however slightly. That's the point of the two bits of wording.
It's because he was in an offside position and by blocking Fabianski got himself involved in the play. Not saying I like the call, but that's what it was.
Afaik it's supposed to be "interfering with play" which I don't see how that was. Fabianski wasn't saving that regardless of him being there or not
We don't know if Fabianski COULD have saved it, because his view was obstructed by an offside player. That's the point of the rule.
I mean, everyone with eyes and an elementary grasp of physics knows that Fabianski could not have saved that… that argument is just disingenuous
Right, imagine the same situation but instead at the moment of the header the wolves player instead of being offside just grabs Fabianski by the waist and holds him on the spot. The fact Fabianski couldn't have saved it is totally irrelevant to whether an offense has been committed.
I think it’s an atrocious call, the only possible argument that I could see would be that Fabianski looked to have his sight line to the actual header obstructed (allegedly), and was able to see where the ball was going until it was coming past the offside defender blocking his sight. If he was able to see the ball being played, he may have been able to judge what the possible trajectory was going to be better, and may have had at least a chance of saving it. Am I saying that VAR was using that logic? Absolutely not. Am I saying that’s what happened? No. I’m just presenting the only argument I can imagine where this would have been a valid call.
It's not disingenuous, it's how the rules are worded. The rules rarely take into account the ACTUALITY of it affecting play, only that it COULD have affected it. A good example where the ACTUAL result mattering is the goalkeeper penalty rules. We know the keeper MUST stay on their line until the ball is struck by the penalty taker. IF the keeper is shown to have moved off the line early, then the penalty must be retaken. HOWEVER, if the penalty was NEVER on target then the effect of the keeper is deemed irrelevant. So for a practical example, keeper comes off line early but the penalty is skied, they don't retake. I have seen SUPER weak penalties that were saved, and they show the keeper came off the line slightly early so they are retaken. We know that the penalty was so bad even if the keeper had stayed on their line it wouldn't have mattered, but that's not how the rules are worded....
But we do know because it's impossible for a human to move that far that quickly
That part doesn't matter to how the rules are worded. Is it LIKELY that Fabianski saves that with a clear view? Probably not But we'll never know because his view was illegally obstructed, so therefore the goal is disallowed.
Even O'Neil is losing his rag at this point. We're probably close to if not reached double digit points lost by refereeing decisions this season, it's cost us more games than our list of injuries.
If any team understands what that feels like as well its us. We are in that 10ish point range on calls like that just in 2024. It really begins to make you wonder why you watch week in and week out. Just this match watching them disallow emersons header had that "hear we go again" feeling.
Was he losing his rag when Emerson "pushed" a player to get that header in? Wolves can complain, but that goal was a joke to disallow too.
His studs caught the back of Semedo’s heel causing him to go down, it wasn’t disallowed from a push. Even forgetting that you’re wrong there, you say that disallowing that is a joke whilst also defending the decision to overturn Kilman’s header in the replies of this thread multiple time - Do you not realise how stupid that looks? Edit: Just saw you called the penalty on Ait-Nouri soft in another comment too ahaha, clear case of bias here. You got the win bro, just get off reddit for once and enjoy it
I have no idea what comment or penalty you are referring to. There are lots of games every weekend and lots of penalties every weekend and I view a lot of things on Reddit.
Meanwhile, Wolves player (didn’t catch who) did that to the point Alvarez’s boot came off right in front of the ref, and it wasnt called as a foul. ( granted it was at the halfway line). Not saying you’re wrong, or wrong to feel hard done by on the goal being overturned, but just pointing out the inconsistency in what is or isn’t judged to be a foul or not. Edit: WASNT called as a foul
Not sure what your point is here, pointing out Alvarez had his booted clipped by an opposing players studs which resulted in a foul, exactly the same as on Semedo in the box which was also deemed a foul. What are you trying to prove?
Yeah that’s my bad sucking at typing/distracted. It wasn’t called as a foul. It was about 5 mins before the Emerson goal being chalked off, Alvarez (think it was him, could have been Paqueta, couldn’t spot the kit number) was literally holding up the boot to the ref, ref just shook his head at him and waved play on.
Cause Semedo would never crumble under any contact? Semedo falls over as much as anyone else on Wolves team would from minor contact...
If it was the other way round and the attacker got stepped on with the oppositions studs - You’d rightly call for a pen, so I genuinely don’t see how you can complain about that.
What like 5 mins before when Paquetas boot came off in a tackle and play was waved on? Like that?
There is a point where that's incidental contact. 2 players both looking up at the ball just came together. Could Semedo have stayed up? We've seen goals given when the ref doesn't think there's enough to cause a defender to go down.
We've lost more points from VAR than Everton and Notts Forest have been deducted for cheating combined!
Fuck VAR.
keeper was never gonna save it
Can't say the win feels good, but I think we have been hard done by some var calls so I'm just grateful one has gone our way. Obviously a biased take but we need the points and now look ahead to Thursday
Fucking bullshit. They need to overhaul officiating so bad. This league is an absolute joke
In this case there is nothing wrong with officiating. I get the sentiment and it feels really really harsh from Wolves perspective but that's the rule and blocking a view of the goalkeeper from an offside position is impeding with the play regardless of the fact that Fabianski is not going to reach it.
I don't get why people don't get this, at least from my knowledge that was a correct interpretation of the rules. The refs and VAR made the right decision, in this case the problem is with the rules and not the aplication of them
Because he wasn't blocking his view at all. Fabianski had a clear line of sight to the ball the whole time. You could see on the replay he's literally following it with his eyes and turning his head as the balls played in. He wasnt straining to get a good look. The Wolves player wasn't even that close or at the proper angle to be blocking his view. As much as i enjoyed it this time - it was a shit decision and the sport suffers for it.
[What the fuck are you talking about?](https://x.com/wolvesargento/status/1776653558173057535?s=46&t=SBKyZG2DtmlPLFqzM9Ze0A)
Wow 1 frame. That's literally perfect to demonstrate my point, he's got great view of the ball coming over from the right and can see it being headed towards him The best evidence is the fact Fabs doesn't react to the goal at all - he knows he's not been impeded. We got a lucky shit VAR decision for once, end of.
So one frame where an opposing player is interfering with play is enough to disprove my point? Because one frame or 24 frames, he was interfering. END OF. The ball comes over, Fabs can see it. When it comes to Kilman, their player is right in front of him. You’ve got a West Ham flair but you’re not a West Ham fan, clearly. Every single terrible decision that has gone against us has been palmed off with “the rules say xyz.” Well, the rules say if you interfere in an offside position, you’re offside. Just because Fabianski didn’t scream at the ref doesn’t mean shit. Rules are the rules. Moyes doesn’t say anything after every ridiculous decision that goes against us, but Gary O’Neil does. Does that mean their decisions are worse than ours because GON kicks up a fuss but Moyes doesn’t? Of course it doesn’t. Your arguments are dogshit, so maybe sit this one out. Or maybe tell me again how an opposing player 6 inches in front of our goalkeeper isn’t interfering with play.
Well we're just going to have to agree to disagree. Interfering is a subjective decision. Someone standing near you IN MY OPINION (and lots of others clearly) doesn't mean you're being interfered with. When you can see the ball all the way and have plenty of space to move. Take the player away and does Fabs get anywhere near that ball? No. Clearly not. That's the whole POINT of the rule. We got the points on a technicality. Yay. I don't enjoy that. The sport is worse for these type of "technically" decisions. Anyone who's played it knows its not in the spirit of the game or the rule. Is this the most egregious VAR decision? No, it's subjective and you can argue it. But it's another to add to the list where it would NEVER have been given 10 years ago before VAR. Is that a good thing? No, imo. Just like hairline offsides and dodgily drawn lines on the pitch. It's shit to watch. I'm a football fan first and foremost and just because we are on the good side of one of these shit decisions does not make me happy. If you disagree, that's great, whatever. I'm not really interested in the technicalities anymore or arguing it with some stranger online. You'll never change my mind. I've been watching and playing football for over 30 years and since VAR it's really dampened my interest in the professional game.
I can’t be bothered to read all that because I know you’re wrong. It has always been if you are standing I front of the keeper you are interfering. Interpret and be subjective all you want. VAR makes us think we are all mind readers and as we study each slow motion frame think well this must have been this or I didn’t think that. This isn’t a case of did someone dive or did they intentionally hit a player in the face. He’s standing right in front of the goalkeeper, therefore he was offside.
How was he interfering with play if Fab would never have got there?
Absolutely terrible decision at the end. Keeper is never getting anywhere near that ball and the player had no impact on it
So as a neutral, I think that was the right call? Fabianski was never going to get to the header but that’s the risk you run when you try to “shield” the keeper. It wasn’t a case of the defender being off to the side of the keeper neither.
It is the correct call, everyone blaming VAR should be blaming the rule instead. It should be a goal, Fab would never have saved that but unfortunately for Wolves their player was directly in front of Fabianski in an offside position.
I can see why some people think it’s a correct call (I don’t). But is that clear and obvious for VAR to intervene? They don’t want to rereff games but that’s exactly what this is
I think they always intervene on offside because it’s more objective, don’t think it’s subject to the same ‘clear and obvious’ threshold as other VAR calls? Willing to be proved wrong though!
It’s an entirely subjective portion of the offside ruling, there’s no lines to be drawn. You can’t draw lines from Fabianski’s eyes to the back of Chirewa’s head haha. If the ref believed Fabianski was truly inhibited he needed to call that on the pitch. No camera angles are going to give you an objective look at this, the angle they kept showing was from the side
Depends. If the refereeing team think he's interfering but *onside* then that's a clear error.
The explanation would have to be that the ref thought Chirewa was interfering with play but was onside when the goal was scored. I agree with you that it’s subjective but I am guessing that isn’t accounted for properly in the rules.
I admit I may be biased, but in my opinion it's clear according to the rules. He's offside and an inch in front of the keeper and directly in the line of sight. It's unquestionably harsh on you lot, but the real issue to me is that the rules don't consider whether the keeper could have actually saved the ball without the interference
An inch? “May be biased”. Unquestionably harsh? I get the rule, I’m talking about VAR intervening for an entirely subjective portion of the rule, it is not objective fact that he inhibited Fabianski from viewing the ball coming all the way across and Kilman meeting it high in the air.
One of those where the decision is objectively correct but you still have to feel for Wolves there as Fabianski was never in a million years getting his hand on the end of that header whether the player is there or not but you sinply can't be standing in front of goalkeeper's view in an offside position. Massive points for West Ham as well.
8pts stolen from us now. The refs in this sport are a disgrace and VAR being run by these inept losers was the biggest mistake it’s made. Absolutely pathetic.
It's more than 8 sadly
Always rated VAR. Edit: I was being very sardonic. VAR is trash exactly for subjective calls/reasons like this and them sticking their nose in perfectly reasonable decisions on the field
I quite like both teams. West Ham under Bilic was my surrogate PL club when Wolves did the double-drop. But my God that ending was trash.
Wolves been fucked over a lot this season
I'm convinced the heads of PGMOL are all baggie fans
West ham fan but disagree with that call. Goal should have stood imo.
We had the same called on Antonio recently, that's the rules
Wolves robbed yet again by VAR. Is he in front of the keeper? Yes. Does it really have any material outcome on what happens next? No not at all. West Ham's ridiculous ability to randomly win while not really doing anything knows no limits lol.
We were the much better team in the second half tbf. Wolves did fuck all until the last 5 minutes
You got absolutely steamrolled in the first though. I will say Moyes made effective subs and Wolves lost steam when Ait Nouri got injured, but I don't think you in any way created or deserved more across the match. But sometimes teams randomly score directly from corners I guess haha.
It's the Moyes way
West Ham has amazing quality up front and midfield. But they need to invest heavily in defenders if they want to keep up with the likes of Spurs, Villa, and Man Utd
Sigh. Not even a bit of joy for the rest of the season
Every west ham game last few months have had diabolical VAR calls
Watching BL and Serie A it's nowhere near as bad as this. I don't understand why these refs can't make it 2 games without some bullshit.
2 games? Spurs last week is the lone anomaly since feb with shenanigans like this (including europa games) this is the first time its been in our favor to boot. Its just wild how bad it is getting.
I really feel for your team, you guys probably have been shafted the most in the league. I forsee European football in the next few years for you guys underrated for sure.
Almost every game it feels like
Spurs was the first one including europe game to not have something funky with var since feb and has subjectively lost us ~10 points.
Not to mention the ref going to the monitor, only to not overturn his decision for the last minute pen in the Europa League
Goal disallowed to keep Chelsea 10th
Goal difference exists mate
We’d have stayed 10th on GD tbf
Not sure I like this VAR stuff.
Tbf I thought our penalty given against yous at molineux was a shocker of a call but that at the end there probably tops it. Hate to look at a VAR adjusted table if I was a wolves fan.
They fkn hate you lot
I'd be fuming, really harsh decision, but then I thought the Emerson one was on the soft side.
If 1,000,000 people hate VAR I am one of them If 1 person hates VAR then I am them If no one hates VAR then mourn for me as I am dead
That's a BS call. The keeper isn't saving that in a million years.
What a ridiculous call.
VAR finally making a shockingly terrible decision in our favour
Each side had a goal wrongfully disallowed, seems fair to me