West Ham United Football Club verdict

[SuperGran]

On a positive note, how good was Doyle today he’d barely played premier league football before this season taken his chance really well.

 

[Jefe]

No he doesn't have to be, this is the law.

Offside offence

A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:

• interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or
• 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 or
  • challenging an opponent for the ball or
  • clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
  • making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

Which bit do you think he's guilty of?

As soon as everyone agrees there's no way Fabianski is saving the header then there's no way Chirewa can be offside.

The only one I can remotely see there is: "preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision".

Chirewa does not "clearly" obstruct his vision, at all. It was sufficiently unclear that neither the referee nor the linesman on the near side saw it as that in real time. This is the insidious beauty of the more obscure sub-clauses of the offside law: the "clear and obvious error" standard can be applied subjectively, even though the offside rule is in of itself objective. I hate it.

 

[glorybox]

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.

Spot on. Succinctly put.

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

The only one I can remotely see there is: "preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision".

Chirewa does not "clearly" obstruct his vision, at all. It was sufficiently unclear that neither the referee nor the linesman on the near side saw it as that in real time. This is the insidious beauty of the more obscure sub-clauses of the offside law: the "clear and obvious error" standard can be applied subjectively, even though the offside rule is in of itself objective. I hate it.

Yes, I don't think he blocks Fabianski's view, but it's not really relevant as he definitely hasn't prevented him from playing the ball. It is wrong that what would stay with the onfield live decision only gets changed because the offside position is 'factual'.

 

[lobodelsur]

That literally makes no sense because we're talking about offsides here when the GK is usually the last defender.

Would be the same if the GK moved forward and a CB was the last defender on the line or something.

Suggest you read @ColinCamerons analysis of how the offside law should be read.

 

[Mugwump]

Even with a small, injury hit squad the level of drop off in the second half ( and its happened more than once ) is very concerning. I dont think its got anything to do with ability, its something mental with us imo.

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

Well Gary, Dion and Wrighty think it was an awful decision, maybe that'll persuade the people on here who think it was right?

 

[manchesterwolf17]

Why on earth couldn't Moyes just say yeh that's a terrible decision I'd be fuming if that was against us. They're not going take the points away David ffs.

 

[maws]

Well Gary, Dion and Wrighty think it was an awful decision, maybe that'll persuade the people on here who think it was right?

Jamie Ohara, not known for his love of wolves, thought it was a terrible call too. I bet Matt Le Tissier thought it was ok, he likes going against the grain!

 

[JR WAS KING]

Well Gary, Dion and Wrighty think it was an awful decision, maybe that'll persuade the people on here who think it was right?

I doubt it

 

[SingYourHeartsOut]

Jamie Ohara, not known for his love of wolves, thought it was a terrible call too. I bet Matt Le Tissier thought it was ok, he likes going against the grain!

I know there are people who think some posters are one eyed, and to be fair many of us have fairly gold tinted specs, but then they just go against every Wolves call as if it makes them objective. Nobody with any understanding of football can think that is (or should be) offside. Fabianski still doesn't save it if Chirewa isn't there, it's actually as simple as that. Also I know people don't like it, but being told you're wrong by people who have sat at home and watched some highlights while we've had our afternoon ruined by more incompetence is a bit hard to take at times.

 

[Longford Wolf]

NNW, I’ve been on this forum for Years and always thought you had a rough time of it, but Christ after today I’ve seen the light and realise you deserve every bit of **** you get. You are either a WUM , ot you know nothing about football,

 

[JR WAS KING]

FFS, get real. What manager and/or player after a game is going to say a VAR decision in their favour was 'scandalous'. FFS.

Why? You do realise that they wouldn't have the points retrospectively taken off them if they did.

 

[Ian]

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

I guess it's easier to say when you've walked away with the 3 points, would they have been of the same opinion if the goal had stood???

Anyway, to me he was in an offside position stood in front of the keeper.... those comparing the incident to conceding from the corner it's a totally different scenario, the West Ham players putting pressure on Sa weren't in an offside position.

As for the verdict....
Once RAN went off the game was effectively over.

 

[Big Saft Kid]

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.

Absolutely spot on and exactly what the pundits just said on MoTD, quoting the same law. The officials don't know the rules. Who would have thunk it?

 

[Big Saft Kid]

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.

He was not preventing Fabianski from playing the ball because Fabianski was not in a position to play it -- he was nowhere near it. Read the law.

 

[Lobo de Ouro]

Wrong player, but as various photos show he’s not in the keepers way, you can see the keepers looking at the ball as it’s around 8foot in the air, Chiwera is not 8foot

Oops, sorry yes you're right (on all counts of course). I still think it was a reasonable, if a little daft, decision.

 

[Ian]

Come on now. I know you like to take the opposite view sometimes for debate but you can’t seriously think it’s

Player standing directly in front of the goalkeeper in an offside position...... how can you seriously think it could be anything other than being classified as offside?!

I absolutely hate VAR with a passion, it's destroyed my love of the game but some times you have to take away your bias and just accept ..." yeah it sucks...but it's the right decision".

 

[JOSWolf]

We have been done like a kipper today and I am still ****ing fuming.

 

[Jawwfc]

Player standing directly in front of the goalkeeper in an offside position...... how can you seriously think it could be anything other than being classified as offside?!

I absolutely hate VAR with a passion, it's destroyed my love of the game but some times you have to take away your bias and just accept ..." yeah it sucks...but it's the right decision".

Fulham vs Man City earlier this season Harrington was on VAR, Akanji is in an offside position when Ake scores similar to today, Ake scores but on the way through Akanji goes to touch the ball and Harrington allows the goal as he wasn't interfering despite the fact he went for the ball.

This is the same referee and Webb backs him during one of those staged reviews they occasionally have on sky.

 

[Bryce]

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

If he is let’s crowd fund his fine!

 

[Bryce]

Fulham vs Man City earlier this season Harrington was on VAR, Akanji is in an offside position when Ake scores similar to today, Ake scores but on the way through Akanji goes to touch the ball and Harrington allows the goal as he wasn't interfering despite the fact he went for the ball.

This is the same referee and Webb backs him during one of those staged reviews they occasionally have on sky.

Exactly.
Harrington has previous on VAR and basically shafted us.

 

[Bryce]

If Liverpool score that against us at Anfield to level in the 99th minute there is no way in gods green earth it gets chalked off.

The standard of officiating is abysmal. May as well have a robot running around. Could not do worse

 

[Eastern Wolf]

Offside had nothing to do with it. If Chireware touched it then he would have been offside - but he didn't. As for interfering with play - how many similar goals have we seen where players are in similar positions?
VAR didn't have to get involved because it wasn't contended by anyone or look suspicious in real time during actual events of play. The ref himself could have still given it in the end.
For sure if this was any of the "top 6" the goal would have stood.
It was a scandalous decision and Howard Web needs sacking as VAR has not improved during his tenure.

 

[WeAreTheWolvesII]

We were cheated and our season is over because of it.

I would genuinely have no problem with us turning round and kicking the ball in our own net all game against Arsenal live on TV.

They've cheated us all season with incompetence, let’s give some back. Let’s ruin their title race.

However, the poor decision can’t take away from the fact we were outplayed and hammered by West Ham when it mattered.

This wasn’t Arsenal, City or Liverpool. This was West Ham and we couldn’t cope.

Yes we were brilliant first half. We deservedly lead and when the changes happened, we were done.

People will no doubt cling to the cheating from the official, and I do understand.

However, we couldn’t live with West Ham in the second half. If you wanted an example of how far we’ve fallen, that’s it.

 

[VancouverWolf]

Even with a small, injury hit squad the level of drop off in the second half ( and its happened more than once ) is very concerning. I dont think its got anything to do with ability, its something mental with us imo.

Yes to this.
We drop off too frequently and I can’t understand why. If it’s fatigue, then ok, but at least KEEP the bloody ball by short accurate passes……let the ball do the work.

 

[VancouverWolf]

We were cheated and our season is over because of it.

I would genuinely have no problem with us turning round and kicking the ball in our own net all game against Arsenal live on TV.

They've cheated us all season with incompetence, let’s give some back. Let’s ruin their protest.

However, the poor decision can’t take away from the fact we were outplayed and hammered by West Ham when it mattered.

This wasn’t Arsenal, City or Liverpool. This was West Ham and we couldn’t cope.

Yes we were brilliant first half. We deservedly lead and when the changes happened, we were done.

People will no doubt cling to the cheating from the official, and I do understand.

However, we couldn’t live with West Ham in the second half. If you wanted an example of how far we’ve fallen, that’s it.

Some very good points.
To me, it’s as if Gary puts out a side that’s built on sand and if anything upsets/changes his plan for the game, then the players lose the ability to play as a team and we end up scrambling with the ball.

 

[SA Wolf]

Jamie Ohara, not known for his love of wolves, thought it was a terrible call too. I bet Matt Le Tissier thought it was ok, he likes going against the grain!

Not that it means much, but Ben Mee and Wright-Phillips on the feed I watched also thought the decision was crap.

 

[SA Wolf]

My tupenneth on the debacle that called itself a football match, yesterday:

First half, we were very good and completely dominated with something like 90% possession at one stage. 1-0 up, flattered Wet Sham at HT, but like so many times over recent seasons, we'd failed to capitalise fully when in charge. At HT I said on here that 1. Wet Sham wouldn't be so docile in the second half and 2. we needed to maintain our energy level. They sent on Antonio and we went into our shell and couldn't cope.
They lost Bowen and I thought - great. We lost RAN and despite Cunha replacing him, I thought ****, how we going to get out. Antonio, despite being 34, was great second half and completely dominated our back 3. We were warned when Emerson 'scored', but let off (rightly) for a foul (accidental) on Semedo, but the writing was on the wall. We contrived to hand them (no pun intended) a penalty which Sa almost reached, but it was as precise as Sarabia's had been first half and then went 1-2 down with a 'freak' goal that Sa should have kept out. Game over I though and left to do something else (whinge on here). But, no. Football in the 2020s doesn't just leave us disappointed, it has to kick us in the balls as well with the most ridiculously disallowed goal. Kilman's 'equaliser' should have stood. Nearly everyone says so including most of Wet Sham. It would, however, have been more than we deserved for the ****-show that was the second half.
Not for the first time in recent seasons have we only turned-up for one half. At HT I was hoping that we'd compete in the second half and at least turn in a performance of pride, but it was ****. Mental, physical, tactical, understandable? I don't care! We have a reputation for in-match inconsistency and it sucks.
Sarabia (despite a purple-patch earlier in the season) offers little, despite his well-taken penalty. Lemina is out of form and isn't playing his all-energy game after being played as a winger for a few games. Semedo is back to his old self defensively, despite looking decent going forwards, Doc offers nothing and Kilman, Bueno and Toti always seem shaky. These are senior players that for one reason or another are letting us down. It's not the kids that had to step up, but senior players!
The season is over. It is/will 'fizzle out' and any talk of Europe was about as fanciful as GON becoming Klopp's replacement.
Start planning for next season, Gary, because this one is over!

 

[yateleywolf]

Needed to win it and should have done after our first half dominance. That second half was so poor it felt the pressure just got to them by West Ham pressure.
First goal was embarrassing I think three players gave it away in a row Cunha/ Doherty than Totti. Think the second was a fluke but Sa seem to slip possibly to be kind.
MOM was Ait Nouri by a mile please don't sell him yet wolves.
Can VAR get any worst to destroy the beautiful game.

 

[Black Country Wanderer]

Not that it means much, but Ben Mee and Wright-Phillips on the feed I watched also thought the decision was crap.

No one ,except a couple on here, thought the decision was anything but farcical
Its happened and all the moaning on earth wont change it,but for this one ill carry on moaning all season,its the worst decision ive seen yet imo

 

[Superted]

The more I think about it, the more unfair the decision becomes.

Chirewa is perfectly entitled to be stood where he is from the initial corner because as we all know, you can't be offside directly from a corner kick.

He then has about a second until the ball reaches the 6-yard box. In that second he's apparently supposed to:
- Pick up the trajectory of the ball and decide whether it's likely to come to him.
- If not, he then needs to get back into an inside position;
Or
- get out of the keeper's way.

How would he know where to go? If he moves left or right he could be deemed to be moving toward the ball. If he happens to go the same way as the keeper then he could also be deemed to be obstructing his view. He could even have got in the way of the header and prevented the goal or been offside if he deflected it.

If Fabianski needed a better view he could have moved. Chirewa was perfectly entitled to be standing where he was when the corner is taken. It's Fabianski's responsibility to be able to see, not Chirewa's responsibility to let him.

Short of disappearing up his own ******** before Kilman touches the ball, how was being offside in that passage of play supposed to be avoidable?

 

[wolfslair]

Jamie Ohara, not known for his love of wolves, thought it was a terrible call too. I bet Matt Le Tissier thought it was ok, he likes going against the grain!

Jamie o hara is balanced about wolves, he gets tarnished by doing his joint show with the simpleton from Aston Villa who is nothing if not just call baiting with his **** takes.

He has challenged the gobby one a good few times for being just ludicrous in what his take is

 

[Superted]

..... And one other thing.

Let's say Kilman had slipped his marker, made a run into an "offside" position slightly behind Chirewa, before he headed the ball?

Chirewa is then blocking the keeper from the corner but isn't the player that touches the ball. Is that now offside even though he's technically entitled to be there? Which means no team can now have attacking players marking the keeper unless the defending team have a player on the line?

Harrington and the VAR have made a complete mockery of the longstanding rule that you can't be offside from a corner.

Now it appears to be that you can't be offside from a corner as long as you're the one that touches the ball. In which case now nobody can be in an "offside" position from a corner just in case the ball doesn't come to them.

 

[wolfslair]

Absolutely spot on and exactly what the pundits just said on MoTD, quoting the same law. The officials don't know the rules. Who would have thunk it?

The issue is so many of them would have been the last one picked on the playground so don’t understand the feeling and nuance of the game when played.

They are “classroom” footballers, who learned the game by reading it. So they only understand the game by what they have read on the page of the law book that they take tests on.

So they learn it to pass all their tests, but don’t know how to properly apply them based on what is/has happened infront of them!

Rugby is starting to have the same issue now referees average age is getting younger……

These younger refs in football couldn’t play the game even at an amateur level, so how on earth can they ref it at the top level where players do thinks tk a level their brains don’t understand?

 

[VancouverWolf]

My tupenneth on the debacle that called itself a football match, yesterday:

First half, we were very good and completely dominated with something like 90% possession at one stage. 1-0 up, flattered Wet Sham at HT, but like so many times over recent seasons, we'd failed to capitalise fully when in charge. At HT I said on here that 1. Wet Sham wouldn't be so docile in the second half and 2. we needed to maintain our energy level. They sent on Antonio and we went into our shell and couldn't cope.
They lost Bowen and I thought - great. We lost RAN and despite Cunha replacing him, I thought ****, how we going to get out. Antonio, despite being 34, was great second half and completely dominated our back 3. We were warned when Emerson 'scored', but let off (rightly) for a foul (accidental) on Semedo, but the writing was on the wall. We contrived to hand them (no pun intended) a penalty which Sa almost reached, but it was as precise as Sarabia's had been first half and then went 1-2 down with a 'freak' goal that Sa should have kept out. Game over I though and left to do something else (whinge on here). But, no. Football in the 2020s doesn't just leave us disappointed, it has to kick us in the balls as well with the most ridiculously disallowed goal. Kilman's 'equaliser' should have stood. Nearly everyone says so including most of Wet Sham. It would, however, have been more than we deserved for the ****-show that was the second half.
Not for the first time in recent seasons have we only turned-up for one half. At HT I was hoping that we'd compete in the second half and at least turn in a performance of pride, but it was ****. Mental, physical, tactical, understandable? I don't care! We have a reputation for in-match inconsistency and it sucks.
Sarabia (despite a purple-patch earlier in the season) offers little, despite his well-taken penalty. Lemina is out of form and isn't playing his all-energy game after being played as a winger for a few games. Semedo is back to his old self defensively, despite looking decent going forwards, Doc offers nothing and Kilman, Bueno and Toti always seem shaky. These are senior players that for one reason or another are letting us down. It's not the kids that had to step up, but senior players!
The season is over. It is/will 'fizzle out' and any talk of Europe was about as fanciful as GON becoming Klopp's replacement.
Start planning for next season, Gary, because this one is over!

A lot of this I agree with.

 

[groundhogwolf]

We were cheated and our season is over because of it.

I would genuinely have no problem with us turning round and kicking the ball in our own net all game against Arsenal live on TV.

They've cheated us all season with incompetence, let’s give some back. Let’s ruin their protest.

However, the poor decision can’t take away from the fact we were outplayed and hammered by West Ham when it mattered.

This wasn’t Arsenal, City or Liverpool. This was West Ham and we couldn’t cope.

Yes we were brilliant first half. We deservedly lead and when the changes happened, we were done.

People will no doubt cling to the cheating from the official, and I do understand.

However, we couldn’t live with West Ham in the second half. If you wanted an example of how far we’ve fallen, that’s it.

Outplayed, yes they had lots of possession but 4 shots on target the whole game, how many saves did Sa make or need to.

 

[JadeWolf]

Player standing directly in front of the goalkeeper in an offside position...... how can you seriously think it could be anything other than being classified as offside?!

I absolutely hate VAR with a passion, it's destroyed my love of the game but some times you have to take away your bias and just accept ..." yeah it sucks...but it's the right decision".

It’s not the right decision.

Standing in front of the goalkeeper is not an offside offence. Chirewa would have become offside if he clearly and obviously prevented Fabianski from playing the ball, or blocked his view of the ball. He did neither. Fabianski sees the ball all the way from the moment it leaves Gomes’ boot, to it hitting the back of the net. His initial reaction was to ask his defenders who was marking Kilman. Chirewa had no impact at all on Fabianski.

 

[Mugwump]

Player standing directly in front of the goalkeeper in an offside position...... how can you seriously think it could be anything other than being classified as offside?!

I absolutely hate VAR with a passion, it's destroyed my love of the game but some times you have to take away your bias and just accept ..." yeah it sucks...but it's the right decision".

I think you can get around him not being offside tbh with some of the interpretations of the law so i can see the point of some people, but i'd be very annoyed if West Ham scored a goal in that way and it was allowed. I dont see how standing that close to the keeper isnt interfering.

 

[Olivergoldblack]

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.

Nunes at Anfield has gotta give this one a run for its money.