West Ham disallowed goal today

[LittleErn]

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.

[EN1 FFC]

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.

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.

[SerbianLad]

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.

[EN1 FFC]

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.

[SerbianLad]

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.

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.

[F(f)CUK]

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.

[Arthur]

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.



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.

[Lester Burnham]

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.



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?

[iansthailand]

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.

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?

[JimmyConway]

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.

[sunburywhite]

There should only be 5 players from each team allowed in the penalty area for a corner

that would make any foul obvious

[Marcus]

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.

[S.F.Sorrow]

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.

[EN1 FFC]

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.

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.

[Jim©]

https://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.

[alfie]

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.

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.

[SerbianLad]

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.

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.

[ffcne]

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.

[EN1 FFC]

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.

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.

[alfie]

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.