Late VAR drama saw Wolves come out empty handed from their Premier League clash with West Ham United at Molineux as Maximilian’s Kilman’s injury time header was ruled out.
As a wolves fan I'm used to it, and I agree with Gary O'neil: "Worst decision I've ever seen" I really don't understand where the foul is, he Chirewa didn't block him or his view, Fabianski watched it all the way and he would've never got to it, disgraceful, worst decision I've seen as a wolves fan. COYW
I mean, worst decision I’ve seen as a Wolves fan? Jesus man that’s like trying to name the worse crap I’ve ever taken. There’s thousands and they all stink.
It’s wasn’t disallowed for a foul (that truly would have been horrendous). It was disallowed for offside. The offside rule says: “if an attacker in an offside position (A) is obstructing the goalkeeper's line of vision he must be penalised” It’s very unfortunate in many ways because the chances of Fabianksi getting to the ball are beyond minimal. It’s the risk you take though when you put a player on the keeper to try to put him off. It’s why it’s annoying to hear Gary O’Neil whinge like that. Worst decision? It’s an objectively correct decision. It feels very unfair but only he or Chirewa are to blame
if the decision hadn't been given then the players would continue to do that and that can heavily disrupt the game. What was he doing In an offside position anyway? easily coulda been avoided if he hadn't been there
@@TheReeelBradPittcunha just came out of injury so hes not playing much neto is injured for the rest of the season and Hwang is also injured till April 15 I believe
@@stellen11 Ryan is a talented player who lacks finishing. He is a more offensive player and must develop his finishing. He can play in various positions, and this is what the big clubs are looking for in a large percentage. We will see him in City or Liverpool. Good luck, Ryan.
What annoys me is the inconsistency, Antonio is clearly leaning into Sa when they scored, making no attempt to play the ball, if anything his involvement in the goal is far greater than Chriewa.
Gary & our players. Absolute respect. Please keep going, our team even now, still is the best in the Premier League. Unfortunately the evidence shows that VAR has done us wrong again. Go all out to motivate our great players to not give in. 🙏🧡🖤
VAR definitely has some beef with wolves. Never seen them make one decision in wolves favour. Even the clear ones. Big respect to gary and the players for hanging in. Although we could have done better this game in both the defense as well as attack. Sray strong. COYW
I agree with the point, and if Chriewa blocked him then fair enough, but he never touches him, the keeper makes no attempt to attack the cross, plus at the point of contact Chirewa does not even look like he is in the keepers eye line, he moves slightly to the side, shocking decision and another to add to the list, we could be on 50 points, oh what might have been if we had not been VAR's
which, in fact, is explicitly listed as an offside's offense in the rulebook. Law 11... 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: ....preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision
In order for a on field review to take place, there must be a "clear and obvious error". Given the lack of protest from the West Ham players, this should never have gone to review.
Sorry, mate, but that is incorrect. All goals are 'checked' by VAR and they can recommend an on field review. Then the ref can either stick with his original decision or change it. The Wolves player was in an offside position, so now the referee has to decide if he is impacting play. In this case, the referee decided that the Wolves player was impacting the goalkeepers view of the ball. The lack of protest from the West Ham players is immaterial. Me? I think the goal should have stood!
@@paddyskull VAR only recommends an on field review if there is a clear and obvious error. The error was not clear and obvious. VAR can disallow a goal if they determine the play was offside, sure. But in this case, there was some liberal interpretation of the rules to disallow this one.
@@TheSteelweasel cant be offside from the initial kick of the corner. The ball is "placed" in an area deemed to = the endline. Even though the corner spot is 1 yard radius from the flag.
Clearly offside and blocking the GKs view. Having said that, even if the GK had a clear view, there is no way he's stopping the shot. Too fast, too close, and too far away from him. Goal should have stood. Silly reversal.
LFC supporter highly agrees w Wolves Chairman. VARs like this fck up the entire match experience for all supporters. WH knows they didn’t win and Wolves got mugged. We lose
This one angle does no favours for people complaining about it being disallowed. From this angle yes it looks like Tawanda is blocking all of his vision. Fabianski is 6.2, Tawanda is 5.9, and also from the side angle I saw Tawanda was not at full stretch height, giving fabianski several inches more of view above him of vision ahead. However. As disappointing as the decision is, what was more disappointing was the Wolves' display in the second half. They looked panicked in their own half after a dominating first. The ball was given away so many times by someone simply booting it into west ham's half, to give west ham the opportunity to go back in. It's now on Fosun to give GON additional tools in the summer, and not pull the rug that will leave us managerless and wind up with someone likely not up to the job. You can't strike lucky with a manager for a third time.
@@Wolves-5 yeah theres something called a subjective offside, its not the same offside rule you know it basically means chirewa was obstructing fabianski from moving because of his position ahead of all the west ham players however this is absolutely stupid because chirewa was so far ahead of him and fabianski saw the ball and didnt move anywhere near it to save it
As a neutral, I believe the decision to disallow the goal was correct. The offside rule applies when a player gains some advantage by being in an offside position. In this case, by blocking the movement or sight of the goalkeeper. It wouldn't matter if the goalkeeper was a foot taller than the Wolves player, so could see over him, or that the goalkeeper 'would not have saved it anyway'. The fact is that the Wolves player restricted the goalkeeper's movement, so therefore gained an advantage by being in an offside position. You could ask yourself what the Wolves player was hoping to achieve by standing in the offside position where he was, because if he had scored from any rebound, it would have been disallowed anyway.
@@ahn2908mate he directly in front of the GK if the decision hadn't been given then he would have continued being in an offside position in future games
Ryan is a talented player who lacks finishing. He is a more offensive player and must develop his finishing. He can play in various positions, and this is what the big clubs are looking for in a large percentage. We will see him in City or Liverpool. Good luck, Ryan.
The standard of refs and VAR are poor this season, but thought this was more controversial. If a player stands in front of a keeper in offside position then they are interfering with play. Not sure keeper would have managed to get but without player there they could have come out and made header more difficult. It is 100% offside.
If you view the clip from behind the goal, it looks like the goalkeepers vision is impeded. But when you view it from the opposite side, you can see the goalkeeper watching the ball from being headed by Kilman to entering the goal. Plus Fabianski makes no attempt to move towards the ball. Couldn't be offside as Chirewa wasn't interferring with play. Strange decision overall.
We need to have some sort of referendum on the continued use of VAR, say all season ticket holders, members etc. to decide whether those of us who love our game, can have our say. For me the game is being destroyed by this nonsense.
This is what your crying about😂😂😂 he is obstructing his view and if off it is technically the correct call. I wouldn't call it cause he ain't making that save, but yall act like this is the worst call ever 🤣🤣🤣
Excellent Penalty Goal From Pablo Sabaria. Again & Again Wolverhampton Wanderers Defeat Against West Ham United In The Molineux Stadium Score By 1-2. #WOLWHU. Commentator : Mickey Burrows.
Wolves corner 60 odd seconds left. Wolves losing. If the boy isnt trying to interfere with play he shouldnt be in your side. He stands in front of fabianski for a reason. To stop him coming to the ball and block his vision. He is offside. You score. Offside :westham freekick. There isnt a ' would he have saved it?' sub-clause. Christ, get a grip of yourself wolves.
I understand why Klopp is quitting. This too, yet another disgrace. Looking at the screen and yet the football intellect of an idiot. Once every season ok, but 50? 100? That's why watching Serie A is better for your health: refs n VAR high level imho.
