Wolves v West Ham United comms thread.

[Jeru360]

It's down to interpretation whether the ref thinks the GK has had his vision impeded, unlike when they draw the lines for an offside.

Do you think he made the right decision? I think I’m too emotional to be rational right now.

 

[Dorbelflunk]

If that had been the other way, I bet you would have wanted that disallowed?

We wouldn't have noticed because they wouldn't have VARd a non-clear and obvious error

 

[wolfslair]

That was not a clear and obvious error which VAR is supposed to be used for

But it was clear and obvious……

He was clearly and obviously offside and standing in the line of sight for the keeper to the header.

By letter of the law he was offside.

Harsh lines, but it was

 

[Monswolf]

VAR didn’t cost us anything today.

He was offside and directly infront of the keeper and his eye line.

Harsh as he wasn’t getting there, but it wasn’t the wrong decision in the eyes of the law…..

If that had been the other way, I bet you would have wanted that disallowed?

Also how soft was the “foul” that disallowed their header?

On this one, sorry, VAR while harsh wasn’t wrong

Not the issue for me the issue is the ref gave the goal on the field of play the linesman did not flag and var have come in and re reffed the situation which is not what var is for

 

[Perton Wolf]

Do you think he made the right decision? I think I’m too emotional to be rational right now.

Yes, unfortunately. It's frustrating but hard to argue our lad hasn't interfered as per the laws of the game.

 

[JR WAS KING]

Not the issue for me the issue is the ref gave the goal on the field of play the linesman did not flag and var have come in and re reffed the situation which is not what var is for

Exactly

 

[wolfslair]

Not the issue for me the issue is the ref gave the goal on the field of play the linesman did not flag and var have come in and re reffed the situation which is not what var is for

It is there for clear and obvious mistakes

And sadly he was clearly offside and in the line of the keeper.

So the ref and linesman missed a clear and obvious offside

 

[Dorbelflunk]

It is there for clear and obvious mistakes

And sadly he was clearly offside and in the line of the keeper.

So the ref and linesman missed a clear and obvious offside

What are you hoping to achieve here?

 

[wolfslair]

What are you hoping to achieve here?

I am stating the obvious fact that while we don’t like it, the laws of the game were correctly applied.

people are getting outraged and claiming we were robbed were we weren’t……

Harsh that it was applied, but let’s stop claiming conspiracy and robbery when there clearly wasn’t one and actually look for
The real reason we lost today and those reasons are a lot closer to home.

 

[JR WAS KING]

But it was clear and obvious……

He was clearly and obviously offside and standing in the line of sight for the keeper to the header.

By letter of the law he was offside.

Harsh lines, but it was

How can it be clear and obvious, when not one West Ham player complained and the West Ham fans had accepted it?

 

[Superted]

VAR didn’t cost us anything today.

He was offside and directly infront of the keeper and his eye line.

Harsh as he wasn’t getting there, but it wasn’t the wrong decision in the eyes of the law…..

If that had been the other way, I bet you would have wanted that disallowed?

Also how soft was the “foul” that disallowed their header?

On this one, sorry, VAR while harsh wasn’t wrong

The anger stems from the feeling that had it been at the other end the goal probably would have been given.

Whether or not the decision was fundamentally correct according to the laws is moot as it was a subjective call as to whether the kid was interfering. The linesman didn't flag at the time and the goal was given on the field.

If it's a subjective VAR decision we've generally been on the wrong end of it. We've either had positive decisions harshly overturned or soft decisions harshly awarded against with very few in our favour except cast iron ones.

 

[wolfslair]

The anger stems from the feeling that had it been at the other end the goal probably would have been given.

Whether or not the decision was fundamentally correct according to the laws is moot as it was a subjective call as to whether the kid was interfering. The linesman didn't flag at the time and the goal was given on the field.

If it's a subjective VAR decision we've generally been on the wrong end of it. We've either had positive decisions harshly overturned or soft decisions harshly awarded against with very few in our favour except cast iron ones.

So what are your thoughts on the soft one we got away with for their disallowed goal??

 

[Dorbelflunk]

Sounds pathetic but the head wind explains WHam's poor first half and our poor second. It was whipping around loads today, not easy to defend in

 

[Dorbelflunk]

So what are your thoughts on the soft one we got away with for their disallowed goal??

The ref blew up at the time. Like they did pre VAR.

 

[Wolf in Kenilworth]

Sounds pathetic but the head wind explains WHam's poor first half and our poor second. It was whipping around loads today, not easy to defend in

Head wind didn’t make us **** around with it at the back, misplace passed on the deck and have zero shape. Unless it blew our formation apart.

 

[rincewind]

But it was clear and obvious……

He was clearly and obviously offside and standing in the line of sight for the keeper to the header.

By letter of the law he was offside.

Harsh lines, but it was

But every team has a player in front of the keeper at a corner. When was a goal last disallowed without contact on the keeper? There is no way I'd expect that disallowed against us.

 

[wolfslair]

The ref blew up at the time. Like they did pre VAR.

But the point is, the contact was very minimal and we would be screaming blue murder if we had scored that header and it was disallowed for minimal contact and the defender should have done better.

 

[Dorbelflunk]

Head wind didn’t make us oiss around with it at the back, misplace passed on the deck and have zero shape. Unless it blew our formation apart.

Sorry, but yeah I reckon it could have been a factor.

 

[Contrarian]

It’s not exactly good to be disallowing goals like that for offside. It was letter of the law offside but completely against the spirit of the game.

Ultimately, putting every open goal under the microscope encourages players to dive for penalties rather than try and score in open play. Is that the game they want? Because that's what it's turning into.

 

[wolfslair]

But every team has a player in front of the keeper at a corner. When was a goal last disallowed without contact on the keeper? There is no way I'd expect that disallowed against us.

But are those players always stationed offside?

Chiwome was offside is the key difference in probably many of those cases.

 

[Oh When the Wolves]

But are those players always stationed offside?

Chiwome was offside is the key difference in probably many of those cases.

See the city example which was given as a goal, by the same referee

 

[Superted]

So what are your thoughts on the soft one we got away with for their disallowed goal??

The goal was disallowed on the field, VAR checked, it wasn't a clear and obvious error so wasn't overturned.

That's how we're told it should work on a regular basis.

Whether it was a 'soft' foul or not is irrelevant, it was still a foul in real time according to the referee and the VAR confirmed there was contact, or more accurately, couldn't confirm there was no contact.

 

[JR WAS KING]

It is there for clear and obvious mistakes

And sadly he was clearly offside and in the line of the keeper.

So the ref and linesman missed a clear and obvious offside

Have you seen the replay of it? It's absolute *******s

 

[wolfslair]

See the city example which was given as a goal, by the same referee

Ok, fine. But we all know that the refs don’t apply the same clear laws equally game to game….. hence why Howard Webb gets to have his self serving TV show…..

But the point still stands he was offside and infront of the keeper.

I am disappointed it wasn’t given like everyone else, but in the laws of the game he is offside…… so it is what it is

 

[Jeru360]

Yes, unfortunately. It's frustrating but hard to argue our lad hasn't interfered as per the laws of the game.

Thanks - appreciate the back and forth and free therapy!

 

[wolfslair]

Have you seen the replay of it? It's absolute *******s

Didn’t say I am happy with the decision have I…..

I am disappointed, but I cannot bleat or cry about it as he was in the wording of the law for that incident he is offside.

 

[Oh When the Wolves]

Ok, fine. But we all know that the refs don’t apply the same clear laws equally game to game….. hence why Howard Webb gets to have his self serving TV show…..

But the point still stands he was offside and infront of the keeper.

I am disappointed it wasn’t given like everyone else, but in the laws of the game he is offside…… so it is what it is

Not according to the same ref, a few weeks ago

 

[Monswolf]

It is there for clear and obvious mistakes

And sadly he was clearly offside and in the line of the keeper.

So the ref and linesman missed a clear and obvious offside

The bar for clear and obvious is supposed to be set high. The VAR have decided that standing still and not attempting to play at the ball was an offside

If it was so clear and obvious why did they not just rule it offside instead of sending the ref to look at the screen

As an after thought if they had looked at it in real time speed instead of the still the ref got to look at then maybe he would have stood by his original decision as the goalkeeper was nowhere near getting to that ball even if there was only him and max in the penalty area. The goal keeper was not impaired in trying to come for the cross and he was not impaired in trying to save it wither

 

[JR WAS KING]

Convince me that this is offside, because if it is, football's finished, look at the West Ham's player reactions. Not one of them, including the goalkeeper complain.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1776647777952342091

 

[wolfslair]

The bar for clear and obvious is supposed to be set high. The VAR have decided that standing still and not attempting to play at the ball was an offside

If it was so clear and obvious why did they not just rule it offside instead of sending the ref to look at the screen

As an after thought if they had looked at it in real time speed instead of the still the ref got to look at then maybe he would have stood by his original decision as the goalkeeper was nowhere near getting to that ball even if there was only him and max in the penalty area. The goal keeper was not impaired in trying to come for the cross and he was not impaired in trying to save it wither

They sent him to the monitor to give him the view of what he missed.

He saw the incident, then he decided he made a mistake.

Isn’t that how we want VAR to work? Rather than the muppet in stockley park over ruling it without the ref having a say and the incident effectively being re-refereed by a person not at the game?

I am not happy about it….. but I am sorry, I can see why it was disallowed and this isn’t a VAR robbery

 

[S G Wolves]

Seen the offside goal.

Shocking decision. Never be disallowed. Goalie has no chance. They accepted it was a goal. You forensically check any goal you could probably find a fault.

Utter rubbish.

 

[Eastern Wolf]

We did nothing in the second half apart from the goal that was disallowed. Traore gave us more energy when he came on and should have come on earlier. Did Chiwome or Chirewa even touch the ball? Chiwome seemed to be marking their defenders instead of trying to find space.
As for the disallowed goal, no way it would have happened to one of the "top 6". But what was Chirewa doing standing where he did? If he'd scored he'd have been off-side.

 

[Dorbelflunk]

Isn’t that how we want VAR to work?

We don't want VAR to exist at all.

 

[North West Wanderer]

I see for the JWP goal that a player was even closer to Sa than ours way for our disallowed goal.

Can anyone explain why that stood?

 

[Willywolf]

Convince me that this is offside, because if it is, football's finished, look at the West Ham's player reactions. Not one of them, including the goalkeeper complain.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1776647777952342091

Is still think the keeper saw Max was about to have a totally free header and wrongly guessed which way the header was going. In real time it seems to show Chirewa had zero impact, but slowed down and paused for VAR purposes, I can see why the ref changed his mind. Disappointed but shouldn’t be giving VAR opportunity to rule against us - we needed to have played better second half. Hey ho, onto the next game.

 

[Willywolf]

I see for the JWP goal that a player was even closer to Sa than ours way for our disallowed goal.

Can anyone explain why that stood?

He could see the ball and wrongly guessed where it was heading…

 

[Bawtry Wolf]

We did nothing in the second half apart from the goal that was disallowed. Traore gave us more energy when he came on and should have come on earlier. Did Chiwome or Chiware even touch the ball? Chiwome seemed to be marking their defenders instead of trying to find space.
As for the disallowed goal, no way it would have happened to one of the "top 6". But what was Chiwome doing standing where he did? If he'd scored he'd have been off-side.

Chiwome wasn’t offside for the corner but was as soon as Kilman heads it. However, the only thing that Chiwome stops is Fabianski possibly getting to the ball at the same time as Kilman from the corner, if the latter was so minded but he wasn’t. Players stand in the keepers way all the time at free kicks in offside positions.

Not sure what Chiwome could do to get onside but if he had been moving away from Fabianski the goal may have been. To be honest Fabianski wasn’t getting there and VAR has re-reffed it. In slow motion it’s always going to look worse.

 

[thommo1984]

I see for the JWP goal that a player was even closer to Sa than ours way for our disallowed goal.

Can anyone explain why that stood?

Because that player wasn’t in an offside position.

 

[North West Wanderer]

Because that player wasn’t in an offside position.

Wasnt he? Ok.

 

[wolfslair]

We don't want VAR to exist at all.

VAR isn’t the issue…… I bet we all loved it the World Cup VAR got more assists than any England player and Kane got a golden boot from the penalty spot.

The issue is the people using it.