JONZY54- Ref Watch v West Ham

[Netherton Wolf]

Oh dear


15:00
West Ham

​

Referee: Tony Harrington. Assistants: Mark Scholes, Akil Howson. Fourth official: Darren England. VAR: Tim Robinson. Assistant VAR: Adrian Holmes.

 

[GoldenHorseshoe]

I've lost track on who's good, bad or mediocre.

 

[Padraig]

I've lost track on who's good, bad or mediocre.

Most of them fall in the same category. They do it that way so it’s easy to keep track

 

[Saltyjim]

Harrington sent Joao off at Brentford and ignored a similar tackle from them. Did a better job at the Fulham match at home though.

 

[Mile End Wanderer]

Put your money on whu ffs

 

[Oh When the Wolves]

Call him out and make sure he never refs us again.

Absolute cheat

 

[Perton Wolf]

Right decision by the laws of the game, as much as we may not like. He wasn't as bad as I expected him to be.

Not sure why our fans think he could have ignored the offside law because Fabianski wouldn't have got there but that's really not how it works.

 

[Oh When the Wolves]

Right decision by the laws of the game, as much as we may not like. He wasn't as bad as I expected him to be.

Not sure why our fans think he could have ignored the offside law because Fabianski wouldn't have got there but that's really not how it works.

It isn’t the right decision as he didn’t interfere with play. The ball would have gone in regardless

 

[Longford Wolf]

Ref stood in the box, gives the goal as it happens live. Goes to tv to watch and disallows it . WTF

 

[OLDGOLD]

Call him out and make sure he never refs us again.

Absolute cheat

It may be a **** rule, but if you are offside and impeding g the keeper, even if its just his view, then the decision was correct. The fact that he would not have saved it is secondary to that fact

 

[Perton Wolf]

It isn’t the right decision as he didn’t interfere with play. The ball would have gone in regardless

Blocking the Keeper's vision is interfering, regardless of whether we think he's getting to the ball or not. It's in black and white.

Some of you lot just don't know the laws let's be honest.

 

[Oh When the Wolves]

Blocking the Keeper's vision is interfering, regardless of whether we think he's getting to the ball or not. It's in black and white.

Some of you lot just don't know the laws let's be honest.

Vision of it going in the goal?

 

[sedgwolf1980]

Even if VAR is right, it’s wrong.

Completely sucked the entire reason we go to football out the game.

Mental to think football fans will never now though the feeling of a last gasp goal, such is the nagging fear a jumped up jerk 100 miles away might fancy disallowing it.

 

[Super NES]

Blocking the Keeper's vision is interfering, regardless of whether we think he's getting to the ball or not. It's in black and white.

Some of you lot just don't know the laws let's be honest.

The fact that the West Ham keeper raised no argument and it was given by the ref at the time, suggest whilst he was stood offside it had no impact on the passage of play.

But once again, VAR steps in and does a great job in its target of not re-reffing the game.

 

[JadeWolf]

Call him out and make sure he never refs us again.

Absolute cheat

it’s fixed

 

[Padraig]

Blocking the Keeper's vision is interfering, regardless of whether we think he's getting to the ball or not. It's in black and white.

Some of you lot just don't know the laws let's be honest.

Spot on. Getting the rules right is more important than enjoyment.

 

[Perton Wolf]

Spot on. Getting the rules right is more important than enjoyment.

It is what it is. We've been robbed multiple times this season but not today.

 

[Jawwfc]

Maybe by the laws exactly he is offside, the problem is another ref next week would give a different decision, should imagine if we were liverpool, city, United, arsenal it would have counted

Chirewa had no influence on the play it would have been a goal regardless.

Unfortunately criticising the inconsistencies around officiating can come from the top 6 as we saw Nuno was right about mason and got fined then Arteta mentions something and he's gone.

Remember the city fulham goal when Akanji was offside? Well Mr Harrington thought there was no obstruction and it should be a goal.



From about 30 seconds on this video.

 

[Oh When the Wolves]

Maybe by the laws exactly he is offside, the problem is another ref next week would give a different decision, should imagine if we were liverpool, city, United, arsenal it would have counted

Chirewa had no influence on the play it would have been a goal regardless.

Unfortunately criticising the inconsistencies around officiating can come from the top 6 as we saw Nuno was right about mason and got fined then Arteta mentions something and he's gone.

Remember the city fulham goal when Akanji was offside? Well Mr Harrington thought there was no obstruction and it should be a goal.

View attachment 41669

From about 30 seconds on this video.

Madness . Proves he is a cheat

Hopefully GON gets this footage and calls him out

 

[Sussex Wolf]

 

[BORN A WOLF]

Keeper was caught mid goal moving to his left. He was well out of position to save Max's header. Chirewa was only blocking keepers view as the keeper moved left, he was never going to get to it. Harsh decision by ref, but thats not why we lost.

 

[Willywolf]

It may be a **** rule, but if you are offside and impeding g the keeper, even if its just his view, then the decision was correct. The fact that he would not have saved it is secondary to that fact

My argument would actually be that Fabianski saw enough, guessed which way max was going to head it, but guessed wrong. Then Chirewa is not interfering. But that’s my subjective view on it…

 

[JadeWolf]

It is what it is. We've been robbed multiple times this season but not today.

Except it’s not is it? VAR takes so much enjoyment from football. Even if they got every single decision right it doesn’t justify it. But they still make errors. But yeah, it is what it is. Ffs.

 

[Perton Wolf]

Except it’s not is it? VAR takes so much enjoyment from football. Even if they got every single decision right it doesn’t justify it. But they still make errors. But yeah, it is what it is. Ffs.

That's what the clubs want, including Wolves I would assume. They could easily get rid of VAR but choose not to.

Top level football isn't run for those of us who go every week, it's ran for the benefit of the armchairs around the world.

It's why non-league is increasingly becoming a better experience as a fan.

 

[Sussex Wolf]

It is what it is. We've been robbed multiple times this season but not today.

If VAR hadn’t asked the ref to look at the screen, then the goal stands, so of course it’s VAR that affected the outcome today.

As to the decision, it was given as offside, not obstruction. The question which is relevant is whether a player in an offside position interferes with play. While he was there by the keeper, the keeper wasn’t prevented from reaching the ball by him being there since there was no way he could have reached the ball. If you think otherwise then almost all the goals scored from a knock on would be ruled out every week. They’re not, so this was another occasion where the officials have an applied a technical decision against us with is rarely applied to any other similar incident. It won’t get an apology for that reason but it’s an injustice and symptomatic of bias.

 

[Perton Wolf]

Just seen it again.....our lad moves across the GK just as the ball is played forward by Kilman. He didn't need to do that, at all.

Sorry but just inexperience there.

 

[Jd132]

Are there Wolves fans seriously saying this is the right decision?

Gary is apoplectic, Moyes and Fabianski agreed the decision was wrong, lots of pundits who normally hate us are out in support, but there are actual fans of the club siding with the referee?

If there can't be consensus on this, there will never be consensus on anything!

 

[Big Saft Kid]

Just watched it on YouTube and seen GON's comments, he said 'That's a terrible, terrible decision' about three times and said that Moyes and Fabianski both said they agree with him! I think it's very surprising it was disallowed.You see that kind of set up often at corners, and no way was Fabianski impeded. He just went the wrong way. I agree with GON. Terrible mistake by the VAR officials overruling the on pitch decision.

 

[Oh When the Wolves]

Shall we talk about the Gomes yellow too. What on earth was that about. Madness

 

[Ercall Wolves]

Right decision by the laws of the game, as much as we may not like. He wasn't as bad as I expected him to be.

Not sure why our fans think he could have ignored the offside law because Fabianski wouldn't have got there but that's really not how it works.

Fabianski and Moyes have both said the goal should have stood
We was robbed

 

[stevev53]

Keeper was caught mid goal moving to his left. He was well out of position to save Max's header. Chirewa was only blocking keepers view as the keeper moved left, he was never going to get to it. Harsh decision by ref, but thats not why we lost.

No but it cost us a draw !!!!!!!!!!!

 

[maws]

The advantage he gave them is the longest I’ve ever seen in football, easily 4-5 seconds, then the non yellow card, yet let 2 West Ham players tell him to book Gomes, he was awful, really poor without the var

 

[maws]

If VAR hadn’t asked the ref to look at the screen, then the goal stands, so of course it’s VAR that affected the outcome today.

As to the decision, it was given as offside, not obstruction. The question which is relevant is whether a player in an offside position interferes with play. While he was there by the keeper, the keeper wasn’t prevented from reaching the ball by him being there since there was no way he could have reached the ball. If you think otherwise then almost all the goals scored from a knock on would be ruled out every week. They’re not, so this was another occasion where the officials have an applied a technical decision against us with is rarely applied to any other similar incident. It won’t get an apology for that reason but it’s an injustice and symptomatic of bias.

Perfectly worded

 

[OLDGOLD]

Fabianski and Moyes have both said the goal should have stood
We was robbed

It is easy for them to agree with us after it has been disallowed, but I bet they wouldn't have if the goal had stood. I think as the law stands disallowing it is the correct decision, but, it is a stupid rule, especially I this instance where the only interference with play is view obstruction.

 

[Ercall Wolves]

It is easy for them to agree with us after it has been disallowed, but I bet they wouldn't have if the goal had stood. I think as the law stands disallowing it is the correct decision, but, it is a stupid rule, especially I this instance where the only interference with play is view obstruction.

Sorry but you can’t say they wouldn’t have agreed if the goal stood,

 

[OLDGOLD]

Sorry but you can’t say they wouldn’t have agreed if the goal stood,

I think human nature means that I it cost them the win, they would have wanted that goal disallowed

 

[Ercall Wolves]

I think human nature means that I it cost them the win, they would have wanted that goal disallowed

?

 

[Rhoswolf]

Truly awful referee bordering on being corrupt, but sadly par for the course these days

 

[Sussex Wolf]

It is easy for them to agree with us after it has been disallowed, but I bet they wouldn't have if the goal had stood. I think as the law stands disallowing it is the correct decision, but, it is a stupid rule, especially I this instance where the only interference with play is view obstruction.

I doubt it. West Ham have been on the receiving end of some poor decisions so I suspect there is genuine sympathy.

As for the decision, well as I said earlier, if that’s the case, there should be goals struck off for the same “interference” every single week. Every time a corner or cross comes in, and an attacking player is in an offside position but doesn’t touch the ball or foul a defending player, but is just in and around the box. As was clear from the replays and comments, Fabianski could see the ball, and he wasn’t prevented from moving for it. To be offside he had to be “interfering” with play, and if that’s the call today, then it undermines different decisions made by officials every week. That’s not been the way this rule has been applied until now, in the vast majority of games.

Unfortunately VAR put the referee in an impossible position today. Having pointed out the situation and rule, and asked him to look at the monitor, he made it very hard for the referee to do anything but overturn his own initial decision. So VAR re refereed the game, and established a precedent which if applied in every other game going forward, will cause an outcry by everyone involved in the sport, and a change in the rule. It won’t be the first time that’s happened to Wolves since we were promoted.

 

[SuperGran]

It is easy for them to agree with us after it has been disallowed, but I bet they wouldn't have if the goal had stood. I think as the law stands disallowing it is the correct decision, but, it is a stupid rule, especially I this instance where the only interference with play is view obstruction.

No
It wouldn’t have been discussed