West Ham United Football Club verdict

[wwbug]

Having returned from the match I am certain there is no manager that could get more out of this small squad.
Not this season nor next season.

 

[VancouverWolf]

Losing RAN was probably the reason we were **** second half. Still felt we probably deserved a point over the 90, which ain't bad considering the forward situation.

I disagree. Losing RAN had nothing to do with our sloppiness and bad passing in the second half.
I’m fully confident that had RAN stayed on , Wolves would still have blown it like we’ve done many times.

 

[rincewind]

Clearly some think the offside position is the reason for the decision. Its not, the idea is he's interfering with Fabianskis ability to react in some way. I will say again that just about every corner ever taken is a foul if that is. Some teams surround a keeper to prevent him coming for a cross or push him. I doubt anyone ever seen a goal disallowed for a similar decision.

 

[VancouverWolf]

Some of the stick Doc has had this season has been harsh, but he's cost us two massive goals this season (Cov and today). Big mistake to sign him on a three year deal.

True.
But he’s better at his job than Silva or Sasa were at theirs and many posters wanted to keep them.
Why I’ll never know ass they were very ineffective.

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

Impeding the GK's vision from an offside position means you're interfering. The way you've worded it is incorrect.

Last week I had to agree to differ over the 'foul' by Kalvin Phillips on Gordon, so I think I'll cut out the middle man this time and just accept that we watch completely different games.

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

Clearly some think the offside position is the reason for the decision. Its not, the idea is he's interfering with Fabianskis ability to react in some way. I will say again that just about every corner ever taken is a foul if that is. Some teams surround a keeper to prevent him coming for a cross or push him. I doubt anyone ever seen a goal disallowed for a similar decision.

Well that's not quite right, the point is he's blocking his vision from an offside position. So both the offside and the impairment of the vision are required to disallow the goal. The second one is *******s though, Fabianski doesn't have his view blocked and isn't remotely saving it anyway.

 

[goldeneyed]

Re Ait-Nouri injury and flukey second off a corner, unlucky. VAR decision could have gone either way but of course we never get the nod. Fact is our second half mentality was so poor when we knew West Ham were bound to wake up. But then with Ait-Nouri off and Cunha understandably rusty we were never going to offer anything up front.

So again predictable and season beginning to sink. Shi and the board have a lot to answer for and the four or five places we are going to fall down to at end season due to a lack of any proper striker recruitment represents some £12m-£15m alone or more in Iost prize money revenue. Never mind destroying our FA Cup hopes. Brilliant Shi/Fosun.

 

[Hawkguy]

Hugo Bueno must be wandering how doc gets on in front of him!

The worst part of this is it's completely killed Hugo's confidence. He plays scared to lose his spot when he gets on.

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

The worst part of this is it's completely killed Hugo's confidence. He plays scared to lose his spot when he gets on.

Did you watch Hugo against Burnley? He didn't deserve to start today.

 

[CelebrityWolf]

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

So you think GON is just a liar?

 

[Fenrir_]

Well that's not quite right, the point is he's blocking his vision from an offside position. So both the offside and the impairment of the vision are required to disallow the goal. The second one is *******s though, Fabianski doesn't have his view blocked and isn't remotely saving it anyway.

Yep. Fabianski has seen that all the way from Gomes' corner kick onto Kilman's head and off Kilman's head into his net. Shocker of a decision

 

[Big Saft Kid]

No doubt whatever that the turning point was the loss of RAN. Suddenly we had no dynamic runner for them to worry about, in fact we had no real attacking option as Cunha was just a pale shadow of what he can be. We compound this loss with our infuriating habit of faffing about at the back instead of putting our laces through it. That led directly to the penalty and equalising goal. Add to that Sa's brain fart for the second (that's 2 goals direct from a corner in the last three PL games). And then to cap it all we get the VAR **** show for good measure. But don't let that deflect from the fact that this was another classic Wolves self-inflicted defeat. We have too many half hearted luxury players (yes, I mean you Sarabia), players who just shouldn't even be on the pitch cos they are past it (Doc), and young lads who through no fault of their own we are forced to play cos the squad is way too thin (thanks, Jeff). Without a big change in club management at the very top, I am afraid this is as good as it will get. Gary is a very good coach but he can't work miracles.

 

[JadeWolf]

Yep. Fabianski has seen that all the way from Gomes' corner kick onto Kilman's head and off Kilman's head into his net. Shocker of a decision

Fabianski’s reaction says it all. He’s going mad at his defenders for their marking. No offside appeal at all.

 

[North West Wanderer]

Did you watch Hugo against Burnley? He didn't deserve to start today.

Unfair imo to judge him on that due to a lack of match sharpness.

 

[thommo1984]

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?

Completely different situation though because those players aren’t offside

 

[maws]

Completely different situation though because those players aren’t offside

They’re impeding him tho

 

[thommo1984]

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.

So the wording of that suggests that it does in fact matter that Fabianski wouldn’t have got there. The obstruction has to prevent them being able to play the ball - not just that any obstruction is offside regardless.

 

[thommo1984]

They’re impeding him tho

But that’s not what our goal was disallowed for? It’s because he was also offside.

 

[Bill McCai]

Good first half, disorganised rabble in the second half.

 

[maws]

But that’s not what our goal was disallowed for? It’s because he was also offside.

Hes deemed to be interfering with the goalkeeper, offside, obstruction, sane difference why wasn’t the ref sent to look at it?

Another first, surely the first time a goal has been given offside from a corner? I don’t remember it before

 

[Mile End Wanderer]

First half we looked ok. Second half we looked dog turd especially once RAN went off we lost shape and balance. Gaz left it too late to react. It was one way traffic for the second 45

Corrupt FA and officials once more con us out of more points.

Real verdict: Without Dawson & Neto we are a lost entity at the back and attacking wise. Big summer reset needed unfortunately

Whoever wants to buy Kilman hurry up and take him.

 

[Oliwolf44]

Didnt watch the match and have just seen the highlights on youtube knowing about the furore over the goal.
Thought it would be more of a headloss decision. The keeper has just pushed him out the way so he must be affected and from the angle it looks like the striker is on his toes.
I think its harsh but i can understand the decision in fairness. I thought it would be a stinker but its a bit meh one of those.

 

[thommo1984]

Hes deemed to be interfering with the goalkeeper, offside, obstruction, sane difference why wasn’t the ref sent to look at it?

Another first, surely the first time a goal has been given offside from a corner? I don’t remember it before

It wasn’t offside from the corner, it was offside from Kilman’s header. If he was onside when Max heads it he can interfere all he wants.

I don’t think it should have been disallowed either fwiw but it’s completely different to JWP scoring directly from a corner.

 

[Fenrir_]

Fabianski’s reaction says it all. He’s going mad at his defenders for their marking. No offside appeal at all.

It's always the tell tale sign, player reactions. If he even remotely thought he'd been impeded or had his view blocked he'd have been straight after the ref

 

[colincameron]

So the wording of that suggests that it does in fact matter that Fabianski wouldn’t have got there. The obstruction has to prevent them being able to play the ball - not just that any obstruction is offside regardless.

Correct, which is exactly what I was getting at in the original post.

That's from the FA's rule book. Chirewa didn't affect Fabianski being able to play the ball because he couldn't possibly have played that ball whether he was visually impeded or not (which evidence suggests he wasn't anyway!) Of course the everyday fan would think, 'ah well that's irrelevant whether he'd have saved it or not' but the truth is no- no it's not irrelevant. Has he affected his ability to play it? Know the game? Well then the answer is no isn't it?

These are the laws of the game and the officials, I'm telling you... don't study them. Yet here they are on the world's biggest sporting stage week after week... winging it with a million screens that they just do not know what to do with.

 

[Fenrir_]

Didnt watch the match and have just seen the highlights on youtube knowing about the furore over the goal.
Thought it would be more of a headloss decision. The keeper has just pushed him out the way so he must be affected and from the angle it looks like the striker is on his toes.
I think its harsh but i can understand the decision in fairness. I thought it would be a stinker but its a bit meh one of those.

The keeper pushing him out the way would be before Kilman headed the ball, he was given offside from Kilman's header for obstructing the keeper's view, which is *******s

 

[wolfslair]

They’re impeding him tho

No one impeded Sa, he ****ed up a simple ball at a corner…….

 

[maws]

It wasn’t offside from the corner, it was offside from Kilman’s header. If he was onside when Max heads it he can interfere all he wants.

I don’t think it should have been disallowed either fwiw but it’s completely different to JWP scoring directly from a corner.

I get your point, mine is both are by the keeper, if Chiwera is affecting the keeper by just standing then the West Ham playing actually touching Sa must be looked at. Pedantic yes, but **** me if we are adhering to letters of law, then the contact on Sa is interfering as he isn’t attempting to head the ball , therefore foul

 

[maws]

No one impeded Sa, he ****ed up a simple ball at a corner…….

Read above, pedantic but letter of the law!!

 

[northnorfolkwolf]

Gary says Moyes and Fabianski both thought it a poor decision.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1776662973055934560

GON says Moyes and Fabianski both said it was a 'scandalous decision'. I don't believe either would have criticised the decision and certainly not using the word scandalous.

 

[wolfslair]

Read above, pedantic but letter of the law!!

Fair point!

But sadly Sa makes such a pigs ear of it that there is no chance he gets that decision

 

[thommo1984]

Read above, pedantic but letter of the law!!

There’s enough to be legitimately upset about without making stuff up though!

Of course the everyday fan would think, 'ah well that's irrelevant whether he'd have saved it or not' but the truth is no- no it's not irrelevant.

Everyday fans and the WUMs in the comms thread

 

[maws]

There’s enough to be legitimately upset about without making stuff up though!


Everyday fans and the WUMs in the comms thread

Making stuff up?????

 

[colincameron]

GON says Moyes and Fabianski both said it was a 'scandalous decision'. I don't believe either would have criticised the decision and certainly not using the word scandalous.

Out of interest, what makes you think he'd make that up though?

 

[Oliwolf44]

The keeper pushing him out the way would be before Kilman headed the ball, he was given offside from Kilman's header for obstructing the keeper's view, which is *******s

would i have got involved if i was the var, probably not. Just pop it in the dubious decision draw where its in that grey area. do i think its 'the worst decision ive ever seen' no i dont. sometimes they go for you sometimes they dont. We have been on the beneficial side of a few decisions recently such as Man Utd and Brentford cup that were all contentious.
I absolutely hate that its offside but thems the breaks in modern football

 

[northnorfolkwolf]

What utter tripe. If your argument were correct, there would be goals ruled out for the same offence every single week. Every week. The fact there isn’t and that Moyes and Fabianski both felt it a poor decision says it all.

Every goal is different. Our lad was standing in an offside position right in front of the keeper and obviously interfering with play. If he'd been in an offside position, say standing by one of the posts the goal would have stood. I can't see how you or anyone else can't see this. You're letting your emotion affect your judgement.

 

[thommo1984]

Making stuff up?????

Sa wasn’t impeded, so I don’t really understand what point you’re trying to make when it’s got nothing to do with why our goal was disallowed.

Anyway, don’t want to clog the thread up with back and forth so will leave it there.

 

[sedgwolf1980]

Sone people on here seem to be blatantly disregarding what VAR is supposedly allowed and not allowed to get involved with.

Our goal today was disallowed for offside. Not because lines were drawn. But because some gimp ****ing into a sock 299 miles away deemed one of our players, at random, to be interfering with play.

I would go as far to say it’s the worst decision we have received since this monstrosity was introduced, and that’s saying something.

Absolutely laughable the game has come to this. I ****in despise it.

 

[Mancwolf56]

What utter tripe. If your argument were correct, there would be goals ruled out for the same offence every single week. Every week. The fact there isn’t and that Moyes and Fabianski both felt it a poor decision says it all.

GON says Moyes and Fabianski both said it was a 'scandalous decision'. I don't believe either would have criticised the decision and certainly not using the word scandalous.

So GON is a liar?

 

[northnorfolkwolf]

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

What's that got to do with anything? He WAS interfering with play. He had to be, he was standing right in front of Fabianski.