How come that goal gets disallowed and Castagne's goal vs Villa gets disallowed, but e.g. Everton's goal against us for a similar "foul" doesn't get disallowed. I'm sick and tired of the PL referees.
Quote from: SerbianLad on May 10, 2026, 06:41:24 PMHow come that goal gets disallowed and Castagne's goal vs Villa gets disallowed, but e.g. Everton's goal against us for a similar "foul" doesn't get disallowed. I'm sick and tired of the PL referees.
At the end of day the decision to disallow Hammers goal was absolutely correct, end of.
Quote from: sarnian on May 10, 2026, 06:44:25 PMQuote from: SerbianLad on May 10, 2026, 06:41:24 PMHow come that goal gets disallowed and Castagne's goal vs Villa gets disallowed, but e.g. Everton's goal against us for a similar "foul" doesn't get disallowed. I'm sick and tired of the PL referees.
At the end of day the decision to disallow Hammers goal was absolutely correct, end of.
Agreed 1000% Shirt pull AND arm across Raya's arms, either of those were enough, but together. Well, cheats will keep on cheating, just a pity that their demise will allow the Russets to stay up.
It's a stonewall foul... no debate.
My biggest problem is inconsistency. How many times has Arsenal done that in recent seasons and the goals weren't disallowed?
In isolation, the decision is one million percent right, however, I don't think you can look at things in isolation.
(https://i.ibb.co/1Gmrm3Rr/HH-Zqw7a-YAALCY0.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/mFqbxmNf/HH-a-Nghbw-AAxpr-U.jpg)
Two examples I've found using a quick search online that weren't given as a foul.
https://x.com/FulHambone/status/2053529710903120257
Everton's goal against us.
Quote from: SerbianLad on May 10, 2026, 06:53:46 PMhttps://x.com/FulHambone/status/2053529710903120257
Everton's goal against us.
To be honest, I don't see a foul there. Leno was, in fact, the one wrapped around the Everton player.
It was 100 % a foul and VAR made right decision
https://x.com/ConnCFC/status/2053529842906177992
Trossard pushes Sanchez with both hands, no foul.
There are tons of other examples online. The point is there's no consistency. I think that's a foul, but if you're being consistent, this goal and Castagne's goal vs Villa should have been given.
Quote from: demeant0r on May 10, 2026, 07:02:29 PMQuote from: SerbianLad on May 10, 2026, 06:53:46 PMhttps://x.com/FulHambone/status/2053529710903120257
Everton's goal against us.
To be honest, I don't see a foul there. Leno was, in fact, the one wrapped around the Everton player.
What? Everton player is holding him? Leno is trying to get away from him hence why he touches him. Look at Everton's player left hand. Very similar to what happened today, only Leno tried to get away while Raya didn't.
Trossard is also holding Pablo, the West Ham player that fouled Raya, with both hands throughout that sequence. Why is that not a penalty?
Quote from: SerbianLad on May 10, 2026, 07:05:07 PMQuote from: demeant0r on May 10, 2026, 07:02:29 PMQuote from: SerbianLad on May 10, 2026, 06:53:46 PMhttps://x.com/FulHambone/status/2053529710903120257
Everton's goal against us.
To be honest, I don't see a foul there. Leno was, in fact, the one wrapped around the Everton player.
What? Everton player is holding him? Leno is trying to get away from him hence why he touches him. Look at Everton's player left hand. Very similar to what happened today, only Leno tried to get away while Raya didn't.
As much as I want to agree with you because I'm a Fulham fan, I can't. Leno had wrapped around him first and I do see his left hand, it looks fairly lightly wrapped around Leno's arm. Whatever we're training when it comes to defending corners, we're not training to protect our keeper.
Quote from: SerbianLad on May 10, 2026, 07:06:56 PMTrossard is also holding Pablo, the West Ham player that fouled Raya, with both hands throughout that sequence. Why is that not a penalty?
Plus Rice was holding prior to the challenge on Raya so why wasn't that a penalty?
Think the people disagreeing with SerbianLad are missing his point. The fact that there was a long delay in the decision by VAR after the ref gave the goal which virtually wins Arsenal the title showed it was in doubt. But its the inconsistancy that frustrates most fans, they seem to make it up as they go along.
And Arsenal have been the main beneficiary in the Premier League this season by far using this foul tactic virtually every match. Darren England in VAR again? Wasn't he the clown who deemed Fulham fouled Chelsea for Josh King's goal and was publicly rebuked by Howard Webb??
The inconsistent officials and var are going to drive fans away from the prem, well done to the Championship for not voting var in.
Raya let's the ball slip through his fingers then flings himself on the deck
There's always a lot of grey areas when players foul each other in the area at corners by pulling, blocking happens every game but most are never given. But I think precedence comes here when there is a physical foul on the Raya's arms preventing him from catching the ball.
Quote from: EN1 FFC on May 10, 2026, 07:48:19 PMThere's always a lot of grey areas when players foul each other in the area at corners by pulling, blocking happens every game but most are never given. But I think precedence comes here when there is a physical foul on the Raya's arms preventing him from catching the ball.
So,e.g. the Villa game I gave a picture from, where Arsenal player elbows Villa keeper and prevents him from getting to the goal isn't a foul and today's goal is?
Quote from: Super Mick on May 10, 2026, 07:38:35 PMRaya let's the ball slip through his fingers then flings himself on the deck
So you didn't notice the arm across Raya's neck then.
I would have liked to see exactly when the WH player put his arm across. It was a foul but was it before or after Rice rugby tackled a WH player in the box? In any case, is it now OK to commit fouls as long it is not the first in a sequence? I think the goal should have been disallowed but WH should have been awarded a penalty.
Quote from: SerbianLad on May 10, 2026, 07:53:22 PMQuote from: EN1 FFC on May 10, 2026, 07:48:19 PMThere's always a lot of grey areas when players foul each other in the area at corners by pulling, blocking happens every game but most are never given. But I think precedence comes here when there is a physical foul on the Raya's arms preventing him from catching the ball.
So,e.g. the Villa game I gave a picture from, where Arsenal player elbows Villa keeper and prevents him from getting to the goal isn't a foul and today's goal is?
And I guess the other green glove pressing down on the player isn't the goalkeepers trying to get leverage ?, where as on Raya the players hands are physically holding down Raya's from getting to the ball.
(https://i.ibb.co/JR76v09g/HH-g3-DWUAAn-FGr.jpg)
Also, how do you judge who made the foul first? At the same time Mavropanos and Todibo(I think) were both held down in a similar fashion.
Quote from: SerbianLad on May 10, 2026, 08:43:11 PMAlso, how do you judge who made the foul first? At the same time Mavropanos and Todibo(I think) were both held down in a similar fashion.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HH-byUHW8AAW_bW?format=jpg&name=small)
Quote from: EN1 FFC on May 10, 2026, 11:13:15 PMQuote from: SerbianLad on May 10, 2026, 08:43:11 PMAlso, how do you judge who made the foul first? At the same time Mavropanos and Todibo(I think) were both held down in a similar fashion.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HH-byUHW8AAW_bW?format=jpg&name=small)
Exactly. An Arsenal player has Todibo in a bear hug, and although not seen from this angle, Rice has Mavropanos in a bear hug too. As you can see from that picture, Gabriel is also pulling Pablo's jersey, and also not visible from this angle Trossard is pulling Pablo's jersey too. So there are like 5 fouls there and the one that was called is the only one that was on an Arsenal player. Ridiculous. Especially as Arsenal themselves have done similar things and didn't get punished.
I don't want Arsenal to win the title and I would find it funny to see Spurs relegated, but VAR worked perfectly. They viewed the incident, probably decided that it was a foul, but left the decision to the referee. The Ref then correctly disallowed the goal.
To my mind, the only way to get 100% consistency in decision making is to go to the extreme. For example, the interpretation of the law would have to be that any contact with the goalkeeper is a foul. Then you can have consistency. Then the decision becomes a matter of fact: 'Was there contact with the goalkeeper?' rather than one of opinion: 'Was the contact with the goalkeeper a foul?'
Do those calling for consistency not recall the last time the P.L. attempted, in the Covid-affected season, to interpret the handball law in a wholly consistent way? Back then, for a time, the guidance to referees was to award a penalty for any contact between hand and ball. Referees had only to see contact to point to the spot - a straightforward, consistent decision. Yet supporters, managers, and pundits alike were up in arms (if you'll pardon the pun). Penalties were being awarded in situations in which the ball was being played from close range against a player's hand in a perfectly natural position. Up went the cry: 'Let the referee use common sense'.
The argument for common sense, however, is also an argument for inconsistency. For while we may all agree to apply common sense, not everyone's opinion of 'a common sense decision' is the same. When the ball hits a hand in the penalty area, you and I may disagree as to whether the hand was too far away from the body; or the ball was kicked from too near the player; or the player's movement of his arm was natural or deliberate, etc.
And so it is with West Ham's disallowed goal. If the law allows for a degree of physical contact, it is inevitable there will have been similar situations to Raya's where no foul was awarded. How many grains of sand make a pile? If I say a thousand, one can legitimately argue that removing a single grain of sand can't make enough of a difference for it to no longer be a pile. But I must make the division at some number, otherwise we can carry on removing single grains of sand until the number in the 'pile' is just one.
Likewise, one can find an picture such as that below, where the attacker's arm, if not across the keeper's throat and holding onto his arm (as was the case with Raya), is still across the chest and making contact with the arm, and claim this, too, should be a foul.
(https://i.ibb.co/p6nXYvwQ/01.jpg)
The fact is, however, the 'line in the sand' between foul and no foul is not an unambiguous, clear and definite one - for the simple reason not all physical contact with the goalkeeper is a foul. To have such a line, in my opinion, we must forego the notion of 'common sense refereeing'. It would facilitate consistent decision making, for sure, but not better decision making.
Quote from: Arthur on May 11, 2026, 03:11:22 AMTo my mind, the only way to get 100% consistency in decision making is to go to the extreme. For example, the interpretation of the law would have to be that any contact with the goalkeeper is a foul. Then you can have consistency. Then the decision becomes a matter of fact: 'Was there contact with the goalkeeper?' rather than one of opinion: 'Was the contact with the goalkeeper a foul?'
Do those calling for consistency not recall the last time the P.L. attempted, in the Covid-affected season, to interpret the handball law in a wholly consistent way? Back then, for a time, the guidance to referees was to award a penalty for any contact between hand and ball. Referees had only to see contact to point to the spot - a straightforward, consistent decision. Yet supporters, managers, and pundits alike were up in arms (if you'll pardon the pun). Penalties were being awarded in situations in which the ball was being played from close range against a player's hand in a perfectly natural position. Up went the cry: 'Let the referee use common sense'.
The argument for common sense, however, is also an argument for inconsistency. For while we may all agree to apply common sense, not everyone's opinion of 'a common sense decision' is the same. When the ball hits a hand in the penalty area, you and I may disagree as to whether the hand was too far away from the body; or the ball was kicked from too near the player; or the player's movement of his arm was natural or deliberate, etc.
And so it is with West Ham's disallowed goal. If the law allows for a degree of physical contact, it is inevitable there will have been similar situations to Raya's where no foul was awarded. How many grains of sand make a pile? If I say a thousand, one can legitimately argue that removing a single grain of sand can't make enough of a difference for it to no longer be a pile. But I must make the division at some number, otherwise we can carry on removing single grains of sand until the number in the 'pile' is just one.
Likewise, one can find an picture such as that below, where the attacker's arm, if not across the keeper's throat and holding onto his arm (as was the case with Raya), is still across the chest and making contact with the arm, and claim this, too, should be a foul.
(https://i.ibb.co/p6nXYvwQ/01.jpg)
The fact is, however, the 'line in the sand' between foul and no foul is not an unambiguous, clear and definite one - for the simple reason not all physical contact with the goalkeeper is a foul. To have such a line, in my opinion, we must forego the notion of 'common sense refereeing'. It would facilitate consistent decision making, for sure, but not better decision making.
I'm trying not to read between the lines of your post Alan, but are you making the point of 'common sense' vs VAR?
Quote from: SerbianLad on May 10, 2026, 06:49:17 PMMy biggest problem is inconsistency. How many times has Arsenal done that in recent seasons and the goals weren't disallowed?
In isolation, the decision is one million percent right, however, I don't think you can look at things in isolation.
My thoughts exactly. The times Arsenal players, usually the two centre backs, commit fouls at corners and the one time an opponent does it they get (rightly in this case) punished. The only way the PL can punish City for the 115 misdemeanor's?
Apply the laws of the game and you stop all this grappling nonsense week in week out. Arsenal have built there season around carnage in penalty areas and PGMOL have not had the balls to address this. If it means 4-5-6 penalties given in a single game it will soon get shot of all this nonsense.
There should only be 5 players from each team allowed in the penalty area for a corner
that would make any foul obvious
No sympathy for West Ham. Hope they go even rather than Spurs. But VAR was brought in to prevent howlers - ironically like a lot of recent decisions in the EFL who continue to resist it. It should not re-referee minutiae - like yesterday's incident or the penalty that was wrongly reversed after the foul on TC - against West Ham. Clear and obvious error are the key words. If Darren England - who's appalling anyway - needed 17 replays I think that tells you all you need to know. I thank you.
It was a 100% correct decision (and I wanted West Ham to win, and still hope Spurs will be relegated).
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely agree that VAR is inconsistent. VAR certainly make the wrong decision from time to time, but I honestly don't understand how this is even an argument in this case? Should VAR make the wrong decision in this game just because they've made several poor decisions in the past? What kind of logic is that? Sorry, but that's ridiculous.
By all means criticise VAR when they get it wrong. Personally I despise VAR and think it's ruining footnall. But criticising VAR about inconsistency when they actually get it right is just silly IMO.
Quote from: SerbianLad on May 10, 2026, 11:27:06 PMQuote from: EN1 FFC on May 10, 2026, 11:13:15 PMQuote from: SerbianLad on May 10, 2026, 08:43:11 PMAlso, how do you judge who made the foul first? At the same time Mavropanos and Todibo(I think) were both held down in a similar fashion.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HH-byUHW8AAW_bW?format=jpg&name=small)
Exactly. An Arsenal player has Todibo in a bear hug, and although not seen from this angle, Rice has Mavropanos in a bear hug too. As you can see from that picture, Gabriel is also pulling Pablo's jersey, and also not visible from this angle Trossard is pulling Pablo's jersey too. So there are like 5 fouls there and the one that was called is the only one that was on an Arsenal player. Ridiculous. Especially as Arsenal themselves have done similar things and didn't get punished.
I'll repeat what I said before
There's always a lot of grey areas when players foul each other in the area at corners by pulling (there would be a penalty given at ever corner taken it happens so often), blocking happens every game but most are never given.
But I think precedence comes here when there is a physical foul on the Raya's arms preventing him from catching the ball.
Quote from: demeant0r on May 10, 2026, 07:09:56 PMQuote from: SerbianLad on May 10, 2026, 07:05:07 PMQuote from: demeant0r on May 10, 2026, 07:02:29 PMQuote from: SerbianLad on May 10, 2026, 06:53:46 PMhttps://x.com/FulHambone/status/2053529710903120257
Everton's goal against us.
To be honest, I don't see a foul there. Leno was, in fact, the one wrapped around the Everton player.
What? Everton player is holding him? Leno is trying to get away from him hence why he touches him. Look at Everton's player left hand. Very similar to what happened today, only Leno tried to get away while Raya didn't.
As much as I want to agree with you because I'm a Fulham fan, I can't. Leno had wrapped around him first and I do see his left hand, it looks fairly lightly wrapped around Leno's arm. Whatever we're training when it comes to defending corners, we're not training to protect our keeper.
You can see his left hand (everton player) wrap around Leno's arm, if he's impeding the keeper by holding his arm down (which is the only reason his hand would grab like that) then it's a foul.
Quote from: EN1 FFC on May 11, 2026, 10:16:35 AMQuote from: SerbianLad on May 10, 2026, 11:27:06 PMQuote from: EN1 FFC on May 10, 2026, 11:13:15 PMQuote from: SerbianLad on May 10, 2026, 08:43:11 PMAlso, how do you judge who made the foul first? At the same time Mavropanos and Todibo(I think) were both held down in a similar fashion.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HH-byUHW8AAW_bW?format=jpg&name=small)
Exactly. An Arsenal player has Todibo in a bear hug, and although not seen from this angle, Rice has Mavropanos in a bear hug too. As you can see from that picture, Gabriel is also pulling Pablo's jersey, and also not visible from this angle Trossard is pulling Pablo's jersey too. So there are like 5 fouls there and the one that was called is the only one that was on an Arsenal player. Ridiculous. Especially as Arsenal themselves have done similar things and didn't get punished.
I'll repeat what I said before
There's always a lot of grey areas when players foul each other in the area at corners by pulling (there would be a penalty given at ever corner taken it happens so often), blocking happens every game but most are never given. But I think precedence comes here when there is a physical foul on the Raya's arms preventing him from catching the ball.
If you look Todibo has hold of Raya's shirt, so Raya is being fouled by 2 players.
Quote from: EN1 FFC on May 11, 2026, 10:16:35 AMI'll repeat what I said before
There's always a lot of grey areas when players foul each other in the area at corners by pulling (there would be a penalty given at ever corner taken it happens so often), blocking happens every game but most are never given. But I think precedence comes here when there is a physical foul on the Raya's arms preventing him from catching the ball.
So elbow to the chest of a goalkeeper in the Arsenal-Villa game wasn't a physical foul on the goalkeeper and this is? If anything to me it looked like Raya was impeded less. He actually could have caught the ball despite being fouled, but he let it slip through his fingers.
There are two problems here:
1) inconsistency, the main problem, by far
and
2) there are multiple fouls in the box, why is the only one that was on Arsenal player the one that was given.
https://x.com/WestHam_Central/status/2053642883299791039
From this video you can clearly see 2-3 obvious fouls on Pablo even before he fouls Raya. You can also see multiple Arsenal players fouling multiple West Ham players.
Disgraceful decision that may end up relegating West Ham.
Just one point.If this had happened to Arsenal the goal would have stood.Looked to me like Raya was never getting to the ball even if there was an arm in there.
Quote from: SerbianLad on May 11, 2026, 11:05:22 AMQuote from: EN1 FFC on May 11, 2026, 10:16:35 AMI'll repeat what I said before
There's always a lot of grey areas when players foul each other in the area at corners by pulling (there would be a penalty given at ever corner taken it happens so often), blocking happens every game but most are never given. But I think precedence comes here when there is a physical foul on the Raya's arms preventing him from catching the ball.
So elbow to the chest of a goalkeeper in the Arsenal-Villa game wasn't a physical foul on the goalkeeper and this is? If anything to me it looked like Raya was impeded less. He actually could have caught the ball despite being fouled, but he let it slip through his fingers.
There are two problems here:
1) inconsistency, the main problem, by far
and
2) there are multiple fouls in the box, why is the only one that was on Arsenal player the one that was given.
From this video you can clearly see 2-3 obvious fouls on Pablo even before he fouls Raya. You can also see multiple Arsenal players fouling multiple West Ham players.
Disgraceful decision that may end up relegating West Ham.
1) Inconsistency is what you get when there are different officials, but why do you bring up another unrelated incident in another game to try to prove a point in this game ? So they got it wrong in the Villa game, what do want them to do get it wrong in this game too!!!
2) I give up, you obviously haven't understood what I'm saying in my previous statements even though I put it in bold letters.
There was hugging by both teams, it was not one sided, the arm across Raya's neck continued by holding Raya's arm, also photo from behind clearly showing Todibo pulling Raya down by his shirt, but I guess because it's Arsenal the fouls can only be one way.
Quote from: EN1 FFC on May 11, 2026, 10:16:35 AMQuote from: SerbianLad on May 10, 2026, 11:27:06 PMQuote from: EN1 FFC on May 10, 2026, 11:13:15 PMQuote from: SerbianLad on May 10, 2026, 08:43:11 PMAlso, how do you judge who made the foul first? At the same time Mavropanos and Todibo(I think) were both held down in a similar fashion.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HH-byUHW8AAW_bW?format=jpg&name=small)
Exactly. An Arsenal player has Todibo in a bear hug, and although not seen from this angle, Rice has Mavropanos in a bear hug too. As you can see from that picture, Gabriel is also pulling Pablo's jersey, and also not visible from this angle Trossard is pulling Pablo's jersey too. So there are like 5 fouls there and the one that was called is the only one that was on an Arsenal player. Ridiculous. Especially as Arsenal themselves have done similar things and didn't get punished.
I'll repeat what I said before
There's always a lot of grey areas when players foul each other in the area at corners by pulling (there would be a penalty given at ever corner taken it happens so often), blocking happens every game but most are never given. But I think precedence comes here when there is a physical foul on the Raya's arms preventing him from catching the ball.
You are absolutely correct. There is a different threshold for the levels of grappling etc for a goalkeeper and outfield players. Pulling and shoving each other is considered to be equal - 6 of one half dozen of another - but as soon as a keeper is prevented from reaching the ball because an arm is across him and/or his shirt is pulled it is a foul.
We may not agree with it but that is the guidance for referees. The reality is that this behaviour has been going on for months and it has taken the Premier League referees 36 matches to wake up and apply the rules.
Quote from: EN1 FFC on May 11, 2026, 11:43:37 AM1) Inconsistency is what you get when there are different officials, but why do you bring up another unrelated incident in another game to try to prove a point in this game ? So they got it wrong in the Villa game, what do want them to do get it wrong in this game too!!!
But it's not just that Villa game. There are countless other examples this season. And Arseanal have been the main beneficiaries of the more "lenient" approach from the referees in regards to situations like that. But once that goes against them, suddenly it's a foul. West Ham approached that situation in the same way Arsenal approach their set pieces, as this and last season have showed that that is something that is allowed.
Quote from: EN1 FFC on May 11, 2026, 11:43:37 AM2) I give up, you obviously haven't understood what I'm saying in my previous statements even though I put it in bold letters.
I understand it, I just don't agree with it. In what world is bear hugging someone allowed? There are about 3 clear fouls on West Ham players even before Raya is fouled. And again, even more importantly, there is no consitency, and similar things have been let go previously.
Quote from: SG on May 11, 2026, 12:00:16 PMit has taken the Premier League referees 36 matches to wake up and apply the rules.
That's the unfair part. They should have let that one slide too. You can't suddenly change the threshold with only a few games left in the season. Especially as the on field decision was a goal. How is it a clear and obvious error, when similar goals have been allowed to stand this season? I find some comments on this thread truly baffling.
West Ham is one of my least favourite teams in the league, and they cheated in multiple games against us in recent years to get wins over us, but the fact remains, that they were robbed yesterday, if you put it into context of this season's referee decisions.
Quote from: SerbianLad on May 10, 2026, 11:27:06 PMQuote from: EN1 FFC on May 10, 2026, 11:13:15 PMQuote from: SerbianLad on May 10, 2026, 08:43:11 PMAlso, how do you judge who made the foul first? At the same time Mavropanos and Todibo(I think) were both held down in a similar fashion.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HH-byUHW8AAW_bW?format=jpg&name=small)
Exactly. An Arsenal player has Todibo in a bear hug, and although not seen from this angle, Rice has Mavropanos in a bear hug too. As you can see from that picture, Gabriel is also pulling Pablo's jersey, and also not visible from this angle Trossard is pulling Pablo's jersey too. So there are like 5 fouls there and the one that was called is the only one that was on an Arsenal player. Ridiculous. Especially as Arsenal themselves have done similar things and didn't get punished.
It also is pretty clear that Todibo has a handful of Raya's jersey. Unfortunately I have no stats on penalty area wrestling.
Quote from: alfie on May 10, 2026, 07:54:16 PMQuote from: Super Mick on May 10, 2026, 07:38:35 PMRaya let's the ball slip through his fingers then flings himself on the deck
So you didn't notice the arm across Raya's neck then.
Well yeah but It's a tussle in the box. Everyone's grabbing and blocking everyone. I guarantee if that was us it would be a goal.
Quote from: Super Mick on May 11, 2026, 12:57:48 PMQuote from: alfie on May 10, 2026, 07:54:16 PMQuote from: Super Mick on May 10, 2026, 07:38:35 PMRaya let's the ball slip through his fingers then flings himself on the deck
So you didn't notice the arm across Raya's neck then.
Well yeah but It's a tussle in the box. Everyone's grabbing and blocking everyone. I guarantee if that was us it would be a goal. VAR probably wouldn't have even bothered getting involved!
Quote from: Ludlow Richard on May 11, 2026, 12:34:04 PMIt also is pretty clear that Todibo has a handful of Raya's jersey. Unfortunately I have no stats on penalty area wrestling.
Shouldn't the first foul committed be the one that is called?
Quote from: SerbianLad on May 11, 2026, 12:58:40 PMQuote from: Ludlow Richard on May 11, 2026, 12:34:04 PMIt also is pretty clear that Todibo has a handful of Raya's jersey. Unfortunately I have no stats on penalty area wrestling.
Shouldn't the first foul committed be the one that is called?
I think the first foul is by Soucek on Havertz by the near post, followed by any of 3 on west ham players and then the one on Raya. But, the whole idea isn't to re referee i believe, although for me thats what VAR does a lot of the time
Quote from: sarnian on May 10, 2026, 06:44:25 PMQuote from: SerbianLad on May 10, 2026, 06:41:24 PMHow come that goal gets disallowed and Castagne's goal vs Villa gets disallowed, but e.g. Everton's goal against us for a similar "foul" doesn't get disallowed. I'm sick and tired of the PL referees.
At the end of day the decision to disallow Hammers goal was absolutely correct, end of.
Agree, but then a 2nd decision to award a penalty for holding should have been given.
Cannot hold and grab like that, it's a foul, it was going on before the challenge on the keeper.
Cannot look at an isolated incident, need to look at the whole picture.
Quote from: junior white on May 11, 2026, 01:06:31 PMQuote from: SerbianLad on May 11, 2026, 12:58:40 PMQuote from: Ludlow Richard on May 11, 2026, 12:34:04 PMIt also is pretty clear that Todibo has a handful of Raya's jersey. Unfortunately I have no stats on penalty area wrestling.
Shouldn't the first foul committed be the one that is called?
I think the first foul is by Soucek on Havertz by the near post, followed by any of 3 on west ham players and then the one on Raya. But, the whole idea isn't to re referee i believe, although for me thats what VAR does a lot of the time
According to the ref on mod last night the first foul is on Raya, all other incidents followed that, so the first foul was given.
That is why it took so long, it was to see what happened first. A lot of people will say it's big club bias, but Danny Murphy said last night you can't make a judgement because it's Arsenal you make the call on what happens, it was a foul on Raya.
Quote from: junior white on May 11, 2026, 01:06:31 PMQuote from: SerbianLad on May 11, 2026, 12:58:40 PMQuote from: Ludlow Richard on May 11, 2026, 12:34:04 PMIt also is pretty clear that Todibo has a handful of Raya's jersey. Unfortunately I have no stats on penalty area wrestling.
Shouldn't the first foul committed be the one that is called?
I think the first foul is by Soucek on Havertz by the near post, followed by any of 3 on west ham players and then the one on Raya. But, the whole idea isn't to re referee i believe, although for me thats what VAR does a lot of the time
Looking at the video.My initial thought is the foul was by Havertz, who puts his hands behind him
and pulls Soucek to the ground
Quote from: alfie on May 11, 2026, 01:15:08 PMQuote from: junior white on May 11, 2026, 01:06:31 PMQuote from: SerbianLad on May 11, 2026, 12:58:40 PMQuote from: Ludlow Richard on May 11, 2026, 12:34:04 PMIt also is pretty clear that Todibo has a handful of Raya's jersey. Unfortunately I have no stats on penalty area wrestling.
Shouldn't the first foul committed be the one that is called?
I think the first foul is by Soucek on Havertz by the near post, followed by any of 3 on west ham players and then the one on Raya. But, the whole idea isn't to re referee i believe, although for me thats what VAR does a lot of the time
According to the ref on mod last night the first foul is on Raya, all other incidents followed that, so the first foul was given.
That is why it took so long, it was to see what happened first. A lot of people will say it's big club bias, but Danny Murphy said last night you can't make a judgement because it's Arsenal you make the call on what happens, it was a foul on Raya.
I agree thats what they said I just think there was a fair bit before the initial contact, also there is a debate as to did the trosas hold / push mean Pablo went into Raya.
The arm is a foul I do not dispute that but it was a tough call with a lot going on.
Quote from: ffcne on May 11, 2026, 01:48:20 PMQuote from: junior white on May 11, 2026, 01:06:31 PMQuote from: SerbianLad on May 11, 2026, 12:58:40 PMQuote from: Ludlow Richard on May 11, 2026, 12:34:04 PMIt also is pretty clear that Todibo has a handful of Raya's jersey. Unfortunately I have no stats on penalty area wrestling.
Shouldn't the first foul committed be the one that is called?
I think the first foul is by Soucek on Havertz by the near post, followed by any of 3 on west ham players and then the one on Raya. But, the whole idea isn't to re referee i believe, although for me thats what VAR does a lot of the time
Looking at the video.My initial thought is the foul was by Havertz, who puts his hands behind him
and pulls Soucek to the ground
I can see that view point, for me Soucek starts it but it is horses for courses so maybe not a foul then :)
Really feel for WHU, here's hoping Sir Trevor Brooking lobbies the authorities again like he did after the Tevez affair. :slap:
Quote from: junior white on May 11, 2026, 01:52:53 PMQuote from: ffcne on May 11, 2026, 01:48:20 PMQuote from: junior white on May 11, 2026, 01:06:31 PMQuote from: SerbianLad on May 11, 2026, 12:58:40 PMQuote from: Ludlow Richard on May 11, 2026, 12:34:04 PMIt also is pretty clear that Todibo has a handful of Raya's jersey. Unfortunately I have no stats on penalty area wrestling.
Shouldn't the first foul committed be the one that is called?
I think the first foul is by Soucek on Havertz by the near post, followed by any of 3 on west ham players and then the one on Raya. But, the whole idea isn't to re referee i believe, although for me thats what VAR does a lot of the time
Looking at the video.My initial thought is the foul was by Havertz, who puts his hands behind him
and pulls Soucek to the ground
I can see that view point, for me Soucek starts it but it is horses for courses so maybe not a foul then :)
I think Soucek has scored a few goals from that position with his head.
The football authorities have to take the blame. They've allowed shirt tugging, grappling, holding and wrestling to creep into the game over many years without taking positive action to stamp it out. They could easily have nipped it in the bud at the beginning, within the rules of the game.
That and the lack of consistency from referees has got us to where we are now and the football authorities have to sort it out asap. It's utterly ridiculous what goes on at corners these days. Red/yellow cards and penalties would soon put a stop. It's undoubtedly got worse this season but I can clearly remember Jamie Carragher some years ago with both arms around a Fulham attacker with his hands joined together preventing our player from escaping his grasp. Get rid of holding and shirt pulling and we'll have an improved game. Make every single shirt pull a yellow card offence.
Play stopped for 5 minute, then the ref's decision overturned -VAR should be binned, but I know it won't be.
So many players were grappling in the area, which Arsenal are now famous for for corners, with fouls committed on both sides before the pen incident, the authorities need to sort this out.
Along with VAR, it's making a farce of the game.
The icing on the cake should be a hefty fine for WHU after their players surrounded the ref following the decision.
Another thing that went unnoticed, the hammers keeper went charging in recklessly smashing into Gabriel.
Quote from: Lester Burnham on May 11, 2026, 03:32:07 AMI'm trying not to read between the lines of your post Alan, but are you making the point of 'common sense' vs VAR?
I'm of the opinion the level of consistency being called for - be it by referees or VAR - isn't possible unless the laws are 'black and white'. This is possible in some instances, such as the incident involving Raya - for which any and all contact with the goalkeeper could be deemed foul play - but not in every situation: how, for example, can contact between an attacker and a defender be covered by a 'black and white' law that unequivocally determines foul play one way or the other?; there are simply too many variables. And even if the law were unequivocal, this doesn't necessarily make it desirable or fair: do we want a law, for instance, that states a penalty be awarded whenever the ball hits a defender's hand – no matter what?
I think there needs to be more of an acceptance that some decisions carry a high degree of subjectivity - splitting opinion among supporters - and, in so doing, whichever way the referee calls it is correct (in the same way 'umpire's call' works in cricket.)
For a different reason, I'll send you a P.M. in the next couple of days.
Quote from: Arthur on May 12, 2026, 12:08:16 AMQuote from: Lester Burnham on May 11, 2026, 03:32:07 AMI'm trying not to read between the lines of your post Alan, but are you making the point of 'common sense' vs VAR?
I'm of the opinion the level of consistency being called for - be it by referees or VAR - isn't possible unless the laws are 'black and white'. This is possible in some instances, such as the incident involving Raya - for which any and all contact with the goalkeeper could be deemed foul play - but not in every situation: how, for example, can contact between an attacker and a defender be covered by a 'black and white' law that unequivocally determines foul play one way or the other?; there are simply too many variables. And even if the law were unequivocal, this doesn't necessarily make it desirable or fair: do we want a law, for instance, that states a penalty be awarded whenever the ball hits a defender's hand – no matter what?
I think there needs to be more of an acceptance that some decisions carry a high degree of subjectivity - splitting opinion among supporters - and, in so doing, whichever way the referee calls it is correct (in the same way 'umpire's call' works in cricket.)
For a different reason, I'll send you a P.M. in the next couple of days.
I'll be more than happy to receive that PM; my old friend.
Quote from: Arthur on May 11, 2026, 03:11:22 AMTo my mind, the only way to get 100% consistency in decision making is to go to the extreme. For example, the interpretation of the law would have to be that any contact with the goalkeeper is a foul. Then you can have consistency. Then the decision becomes a matter of fact: 'Was there contact with the goalkeeper?' rather than one of opinion: 'Was the contact with the goalkeeper a foul?'
Do those calling for consistency not recall the last time the P.L. attempted, in the Covid-affected season, to interpret the handball law in a wholly consistent way? Back then, for a time, the guidance to referees was to award a penalty for any contact between hand and ball. Referees had only to see contact to point to the spot - a straightforward, consistent decision. Yet supporters, managers, and pundits alike were up in arms (if you'll pardon the pun). Penalties were being awarded in situations in which the ball was being played from close range against a player's hand in a perfectly natural position. Up went the cry: 'Let the referee use common sense'.
The argument for common sense, however, is also an argument for inconsistency. For while we may all agree to apply common sense, not everyone's opinion of 'a common sense decision' is the same. When the ball hits a hand in the penalty area, you and I may disagree as to whether the hand was too far away from the body; or the ball was kicked from too near the player; or the player's movement of his arm was natural or deliberate, etc.
And so it is with West Ham's disallowed goal. If the law allows for a degree of physical contact, it is inevitable there will have been similar situations to Raya's where no foul was awarded. How many grains of sand make a pile? If I say a thousand, one can legitimately argue that removing a single grain of sand can't make enough of a difference for it to no longer be a pile. But I must make the division at some number, otherwise we can carry on removing single grains of sand until the number in the 'pile' is just one.
Likewise, one can find an picture such as that below, where the attacker's arm, if not across the keeper's throat and holding onto his arm (as was the case with Raya), is still across the chest and making contact with the arm, and claim this, too, should be a foul.
(https://i.ibb.co/p6nXYvwQ/01.jpg)
The fact is, however, the 'line in the sand' between foul and no foul is not an unambiguous, clear and definite one - for the simple reason not all physical contact with the goalkeeper is a foul. To have such a line, in my opinion, we must forego the notion of 'common sense refereeing'. It would facilitate consistent decision making, for sure, but not better decision making.
Excellent post Arthur, thank you.
You make a very salient point when questioning the difference between common sense and the rules of the game.
Likewise, to the subject of this particular thread, are two additional (and just to name 2 of the multitude) issues that occur every match, where referees, commentators and fans all appear to disagree.
Firstly, the offside rule. Law 11 is quite explicit as to what it means, and it's all quite simple really, "any part of the head, body or feet ....hands and arms of all players, including the goalkeepers, are not considered. For the purposes of determining offside, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit."
The problems occur in that officials are not capable of determining when a player is 1 or 2 inches offside, due to the speed of movement whilst determining the exact point at which the ball was played, thus VAR was brought in. Unfortunately, by their own admission (incl other European leagues) even VAR is not capable of being an exact science, and so the '5cm rule' was brought in for season 2021, though even then it has proven to be somewhat subjective. As such, there are calls from many sides that they should use apply the term "Clear Daylight". Sounds great eh? Unfortunately this is moving the goalposts (excuse the pun) and the manner in which it is accounted, as the current and proposed changes both rely on measurements.
Secondly is pushing. Law 12 deals with this ... "A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force: .... pushes .... ". It has become the norm for defenders to deliberately push at an opponent who has gotten clear of them and is taking a shot. More so pushing opponents off the pitch which, especially relevant to the Cottage, can cause injury to the player due to the proximity of the hoardings, etc. and a lack of run off area. This offence is routinely ignored by referees.
As to your point, when rules either explicitly or otherwise provide guidance to officials , it is still up to the officials to interpret the same as they see fit, and until there is a consistency with that level of duty, then VAR will never be able to achieve it's intended use as fully as the FA might wish.
Quote from: sarnian on May 10, 2026, 06:44:25 PMQuote from: SerbianLad on May 10, 2026, 06:41:24 PMHow come that goal gets disallowed and Castagne's goal vs Villa gets disallowed, but e.g. Everton's goal against us for a similar "foul" doesn't get disallowed. I'm sick and tired of the PL referees.
At the end of day the decision to disallow Hammers goal was absolutely correct, end of.I would've gone for a penalty to WH Arsenal 19 committed a foul before the Reya incident.
Holding people or using your arms or pushing / holding was always a foul in my day playing the game. I think making all this cheating illegal would simplify things and be a lot fairer. There are no degrees of holding pushing or pulling .That should always be a foul .Its the referees themselves that have changed the rules and how they should be interpreted and sadly many of them seem to have little feeling or experience of playing football.
Quote from: Colinwhite on May 13, 2026, 08:59:54 AMHolding people or using your arms or pushing / holding was always a foul in my day playing the game. I think making all this cheating illegal would simplify things and be a lot fairer. There are no degrees of holding pushing or pulling .That should always be a foul .Its the referees themselves that have changed the rules and how they should be interpreted and sadly may of them seem to have little feeling or experience of playing football.
I remember an incident not too long ago, a shirt pulling, The guest co-commentator not sure who it was said, "yes the shirt was being pulled but not enough to warrant a foul", what constitutes "enough" to make it a foul.