West Ham United Football Club verdict

[Timberwolf]

Not obstructing Fabianski…

 

[WickedWolfie]

So the opposition manager and keeper say it wasn't and he wasn't and you still think you're right....!?

To be fair GON says that they said that. I haven't seen anywhere that they publicly did so.

 

[Willywolf]

I was concerned at half time that we wouldn’t be able to maintain our intensity second half. Losing RAN (best player on the pitch) compounded matters.

I think the VAR decision to rule out the goal is a real stinker.

Ultimately, our lack of squad depth and strength is costing us big time.

I’d also add to that by saying GON’s ability to react/adapt in game has also cost us several times this season. Didn’t have great options from the bench, but we all saw what was coming and he made poor changes imo. Difficult to be too critical given the job he has done this season though. Just saying it’s not just the squad depth to blame.

 

[Brizzlewolf]

To be fair GON says that they said that. I haven't seen anywhere that they publicly did so.

He did on his 5 live interview

 

[Monketron]

GON gone in 2-footed at the ref in the MOTD interview. Good tbh!

 

[Andywolf74]

Absolute class interview from GON, he’s absolutely seething but gets his point across in a calm, measured way which for me has more impact.
Disappointing result after a dominant first half but the reality is conceding goals has been a problem for us all season. Moving forward, there’s clearly going to need to be an element of sell to buy for next season. If acceptable offers come in, I think we should potentially allow Sa, Kilman, Silva, Sasa and Neto leave. I feel Sa could be replaced by a more consistent keeper, Kilman isn’t a leader and is too often ball watching, not in the right place to prevent shots, Silva and Sasa leaving probably speaks for itself and Neto I fear could be a Traore where we don’t cash in when his stock his high and he ends up running his contract down and leaving for nothing. We don’t have the luxury of using Neto sparingly when he’s fit but a top 6 club does and may be prepared to pay a decent fee in the summer, despite on / off fitness issues this season.

 

[WickedWolfie]

GON gone in 2-footed at the ref in the MOTD interview. Good tbh!

Based on past precedent with respect to our managers FA charges to follow... It will stink if so, particularly given Captain Black's outburst, but....

 

[Brizzlewolf]

To be fair GON says that they said that. I haven't seen anywhere that they publicly did so.

Sorry just reread that but not sure if O'Neil would have said that if they hadn't?

 

[colincameron]

I'm going there. Because I can't stand to hear that was the correct call and/or utilisation of VAR or implementation of the offside law.

So...

Laws of the game:

OFFSIDE if interfering with an opponent by:

• preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision.

VAR to intervene if there's a clear and obvious error. There's just no proof however you spin it that he's clearly obstructing Fabianski's line of vision. Standing in front of someone does not necessarily constitute 'clearly obstructing an opponents line of vision.'

So how can a decision be made on whether he did or not?

(There's a reason GON and the players were so incensed. Playing the game you know these things. Fabianski saw that all the way. Hence no complaint, just disappointment.)

So back to the original question, how can a decision be made by VAR on this? It's difficult but not impossible...

1. It shouldn't be a 'subjective' look.
2. It should be based on the (admittedly limited) evidence available.

This is the process they SHOULD have taken to come to the correct decision:

*Image one- Moment of header: 10 feet in the air above both players. GKs eye on it. Nothing to suggest clear obstruction due to height of ball.

*Image two-MILLISECONDS later BEFORE the ball is even in the net. GK is still eyes on- head completely turned to the right arm outstretched, body turned. You can't fake that, it's reactive. If he didn't see it how could he react? Why aren't VAR considering these things before making season ending decisions? On a subjective matter such as 'could that man see that ball' - Pathetic. I agree with GON. It's scandalous.

Sheer incompetence.

I've said it before. They make it up as they go along, I honestly don't think the officials brush up on the laws of the game or the implementation of VAR, they are complacent- proven by the fact that they are no more knowledgable on the laws of the game than the average fan.

Case in point. 'Oh yeah look mate the Wolves lad is stood in front of him. Offside.'

If you wanna make the game forensic you gotta be forensic, it's a mock-forensic examination everytime- they don't actually know what they are looking at, or for, but worryingly they think they do. That's the core of the problem and it happens week after week.

Feel free to disagree but I think it's gonna be a struggle for me to change my mind on this.

Can't stand it anymore, don't even celebrate goals when they go in anymore.

 

[Fenrir_]

Since when has Jogerty ever been any different?

About ten minutes later when he realised he'd been caught out of position again and we finally saw that he can engage the same gear going towards his own goal as he can towards the opposition's!

 

[WickedWolfie]

Sorry just reread that but not sure if O'Neil would have said that if they hadn't?

I agree with you but what they might say to him informally and what they'd say on the record....

 

[WickedWolfie]

About ten minutes later when he realised he'd been caught out of position again and we finally saw that he can engage the same gear going towards his own goal as he can towards the opposition's!

To be fair that was a bloody good challenge.

 

[lostwolf]

Apologies, I thought that was Joao but having seen the ‘highlights’, can see it was indeed Doc. I thought he was excellent first half. Linked up really well with Doyle down that side, created a good chance for Doyle and had that last-ditch intervention.

As it was him who laid it off, then yeah, a ‘7’ is too high. Can’t be ***** to change it though.

Doc was decent today, a 7 is about right.

West Ham were better second half, and deserved at least a draw based on that performance.

The goal for 2-2 was a goal though, I'm not sure why anyone is confused about it? There's no obstruction by the 'offside' player.

For me though, it's simpler than that. VAR is killing the game. If it's marginally offside, flag. Or don't. Do not let us celebrate and then reconsider.

 

[Fenrir_]

Not obstructing Fabianski…
View attachment 41680

Nor blocking his view when Kilman headed it

Bull**** decision, and you can tell it was a bull**** decision because Fabianski never even considered complaining about it

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

I want to write my thoughts on the whole game down and consider what we could have done differently and who did well and who struggled, but all I can say for now is - what is the ****ing point.

 

[maws]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1776644448765538422

Post it here too, if our goal from a corner is disallowed why wasn’t theirs,? 2 West Ham players in the line of Sa’s sight of the ball. Isn’t that interference?

 

[Perton Wolf]

Nor blocking his view when Kilman headed it

Bull**** decision, and you can tell it was a bull**** decision because Fabianski never even considered complaining about it

View attachment 41681

He's standing right in front of him? Am I missing something?

 

[maws]

He's standing right in front of him? Am I missing something?

He doesn’t prevent him from diving! He can clearly see the ball he’s looking directly at Kilman. The reason he didn’t save it was because it’s so well placed 2 keepers aren’t saving it. There is NO interference!

 

[Fenrir_]

He's standing right in front of him? Am I missing something?

Fabianski can see the ball when Kilman heads it, his view is not obstructed

 

[Wolf of Wall Heath]

I thought he was decent given the general lack of outlets he had.

Agree to disagree I guess. Here are the things that got my back up.

Never jumping for anything. Ever
Slowing down every time he was about to contest a 50/50
Jogging back
Not picking people up and loitering in no man’s land when we weren’t in possession
Exasperatedly flapping his arms about and gesticulating wildly at the bench.
Giving teammates the ‘hurry it up’ gestures then being casual himself
Diving, jumping up and chastising the ref for not awarding the foul that he had blatantly just tried to cheat

Now I appreciate that when a player is on your **** list there you just spot more, but you hit the nail on the head for me in your comment. Without Neto and cunha he looks ineffective.

 

[greco wolf]

Fabianski can see the ball when Kilman heads it, his view is not obstructed

Agreed. He’s much taller. And Kilman is jumping. It’s a farce.

 

[North West Wanderer]

To be fair GON says that they said that. I haven't seen anywhere that they publicly did so.

Why would he lie FFS? Don't like the insinuation

Moyes said I feel for Gary because the way I have felt after some of the decisions we have had this season is like sitting in a dark room for a week

 

[Jefe]

I am afraid that l would change your last sentence to "Big mistake to re-sign him."

There have been highlights for Doc this season. The way he intercepted the corner and set Neto on his way for the opener against Boggies, and his performance against Brentford when we battled to a replay with 10 men. But he rather undid that when he switched off for Coventry's equaliser, and now his hospital pass to Toti. The rest, he's struggled for game time. Meh overall then. A one year deal would have been better, given that he's probably on a decent wedge relative to much of the squad.

 

[The Clock]

I think there is a muddying of opinions being shared…….

NO ONE is saying it was the right thing to do in the spirit of the game……

But it was given as offside as in the wording of the law it could be done and sadly for us it was!!!

Not true

 

[The Clock]

I'm going there. Because I can't stand to hear that was the correct call and/or utilisation of VAR or implementation of the offside law.

So...

Laws of the game:

OFFSIDE if interfering with an opponent by:

• preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision.

VAR to intervene if there's a clear and obvious error. There's just no proof however you spin it that he's clearly obstructing Fabianski's line of vision. Standing in front of someone does not necessarily constitute 'clearly obstructing an opponents line of vision.'

So how can a decision be made on whether he did or not?

(There's a reason GON and the players were so incensed. Playing the game you know these things. Fabianski saw that all the way. Hence no complaint, just disappointment.)

So back to the original question, how can a decision be made by VAR on this? It's difficult but not impossible...

1. It shouldn't be a 'subjective' look.
2. It should be based on the (admittedly limited) evidence available.

This is the process they SHOULD have taken to come to the correct decision:

*Image one- Moment of header: 10 feet in the air above both players. GKs eye on it. Nothing to suggest clear obstruction due to height of ball.

*Image two-MILLISECONDS later BEFORE the ball is even in the net. GK is still eyes on- head completely turned to the right arm outstretched, body turned. You can't fake that, it's reactive. If he didn't see it how could he react? Why aren't VAR considering these things before making season ending decisions? On a subjective matter such as 'could that man see that ball' - Pathetic. I agree with GON. It's scandalous.

Sheer incompetence.

I've said it before. They make it up as they go along, I honestly don't think the officials brush up on the laws of the game or the implementation of VAR, they are complacent- proven by the fact that they are no more knowledgable on the laws of the game than the average fan.

Case in point. 'Oh yeah look mate the Wolves lad is stood in front of him. Offside.'

If you wanna make the game forensic you gotta be forensic, it's a mock-forensic examination everytime- they don't actually know what they are looking at, or for, but worryingly they think they do. That's the core of the problem and it happens week after week.

Feel free to disagree but I think it's gonna be a struggle for me to change my mind on this.

Can't stand it anymore, don't even celebrate goals when they go in anymore.

Great post

 

[Dorbelflunk]

Wind was a big factor in the game - must have been horrid to defend in.

Antonio is still a menace against us after all these years.

Gutted about the end but I'd resigned myself to the season petering out after the Coventry game.

 

[John Wolves Fan]

Bad defeat to a talented Wet Spam team. Robbed by VAR at the end as we pushed for the equaliser.

Europe is looking tough now but GON will give it his best

 

[JOSWolf]

Neil Cutler on Twitter

the arrogance after it is shocking

Confirms my view of the arrogance and lack of accountability of these useless officials. Why such a lack of accountability? Other sports have far more transparency, yet football seems to know better for some reason. Harrington should be made to explain his decision in front of cameras.

 

[SuperGran]

Every time I see someone write Wet Spam, or Blouse, or Veela, or Manure, a piece of me dies inside.

Same it’s fair enough when toddlers have cute names for things but actual grown ups is it meant to be funny?

 

[wolfslair]

I'm going there. Because I can't stand to hear that was the correct call and/or utilisation of VAR or implementation of the offside law.

So...

Laws of the game:

OFFSIDE if interfering with an opponent by:

• preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision.

VAR to intervene if there's a clear and obvious error. There's just no proof however you spin it that he's clearly obstructing Fabianski's line of vision. Standing in front of someone does not necessarily constitute 'clearly obstructing an opponents line of vision.'

So how can a decision be made on whether he did or not?

(There's a reason GON and the players were so incensed. Playing the game you know these things. Fabianski saw that all the way. Hence no complaint, just disappointment.)

So back to the original question, how can a decision be made by VAR on this? It's difficult but not impossible...

1. It shouldn't be a 'subjective' look.
2. It should be based on the (admittedly limited) evidence available.

This is the process they SHOULD have taken to come to the correct decision:

*Image one- Moment of header: 10 feet in the air above both players. GKs eye on it. Nothing to suggest clear obstruction due to height of ball.

*Image two-MILLISECONDS later BEFORE the ball is even in the net. GK is still eyes on- head completely turned to the right arm outstretched, body turned. You can't fake that, it's reactive. If he didn't see it how could he react? Why aren't VAR considering these things before making season ending decisions? On a subjective matter such as 'could that man see that ball' - Pathetic. I agree with GON. It's scandalous.

Sheer incompetence.

I've said it before. They make it up as they go along, I honestly don't think the officials brush up on the laws of the game or the implementation of VAR, they are complacent- proven by the fact that they are no more knowledgable on the laws of the game than the average fan.

Case in point. 'Oh yeah look mate the Wolves lad is stood in front of him. Offside.'

If you wanna make the game forensic you gotta be forensic, it's a mock-forensic examination everytime- they don't actually know what they are looking at, or for, but worryingly they think they do. That's the core of the problem and it happens week after week.

Feel free to disagree but I think it's gonna be a struggle for me to change my mind on this.

Can't stand it anymore, don't even celebrate goals when they go in anymore.

Great post btw mate!

But the picture could and I say could……. Suggest that fabianski when he dips his legs to set is at the same/similar height as chiwome.

I agree, it has been forensically done!

They know they have the sky show, where they will make mistakes get highlighted by puff ball questions to challenge by the wet blanket Michael Owen…… they will frame it in that way and the politician Howard Webb will hide behind that.

You can see the reasoning and defence they will use a mile off!!!

 

[wolfslair]

Neil Cutler on Twitter

the arrogance after it is shocking

What’s he said mate? I cannot see anything

 

[Wednesbury Wolf]

How long will it take before GON is charged for his after match comments I reckon Monday.

 

[JOSWolf]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1776644448765538422

So these West Ham players were interfering with Sa then???? Omg the inconsistency is off the scale

The lack of accountability means this keeps happening time and time again. Webb should answer why these officials have virtually no accountability yet so many other sports do.

 

[wolfslair]

The lack of accountability means this keeps happening time and time again. Webb should answer why these officials have virtually no accountability yet so many other sports do.

Well he sets the performance metrics and runs shop on the consistency of them.

Then in turn manages disciplinary actions if they **** up.

The buck stops and starts with him!!!

He should be resigning really……

 

[JOSWolf]

How long will it take before GON is charged for his after match comments I reckon Monday.

Wont be long with the idiots in charge of our game.

 

[JOSWolf]

Well he sets the performance metrics and runs shop on the consistency of them.

Then in turn manages disciplinary actions if they **** up.

The buck stops and starts with him!!!

He should be resigning really……

Yep. He should resign or be removed from office.

 

[wolfslair]

Why would he lie FFS? Don't like the insinuation

Moyes said I feel for Gary because the way I have felt after some of the decisions we have had this season is like sitting in a dark room for a week

Moyes is an honest football bloke I have found from watching him over the years.

If he said it privately, he will say it in public.

He also is never afraid to admit when he has benefited from a squiffy call when he has seen it.

 

[The Wolf In The North]

Same it’s fair enough when toddlers have cute names for things but actual grown ups is it meant to be funny?

*playfully pinches SoupyGrin's cheeks, then runs away*

 

[WickedWolfie]

Why would he lie FFS? Don't like the insinuation

Moyes said I feel for Gary because the way I have felt after some of the decisions we have had this season is like sitting in a dark room for a week

No insinuation, mate, read my subsequent post.

 

[Kebab Warrior]

Where is the robbery today????

By the letter of the law he is offside…….

We have had the law harshly applied, but it was sadly the correct decision.

And we were ****ing **** and that would have papered over the cracks of a **** poor second half performance

Lair brings the correct on this one