Dean Saunders SLAMS VAR After Wolves Were Denied LATE GOAL Against West Ham 😱🔥
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 เม.ย. 2024
- Dean Saunders gives his view on Wolves v West Ham.
Subscribe: / talksport
Enjoyed this TH-cam video? 😍
🖥️ talkSPORT's Website: talksport.com/
📲 talkSPORT's Twitter: / talksport
📷 talkSPORT's Instagram: talksport?...
👤 talkSPORT's Facebook: / talksport
📱 talkSPORT's Tik Tok: / talksport
🔴 Download the talkSPORT app HERE! - talksport.com/apps/
🔎 Want to see if you feature on our TH-cam channel? Check out our Best talkSPORT callers playlist: • The BEST talkSPORT Cal...
#talkSPORT
#PremierLeague - กีฬา
West Ham has had several VAR decisions go against them in recent games against Freiberg(A), both Burnley/Villa(H), and Newcastle(A). On another day VAR could've not given Wolves a penalty and allowed the Emerson goal.
And Sheffield united away
Never a pen in the last minute and Bowen should have had one moments later
You make some good points
I agree. At least 6 recent games where it has gone against us. @@curtisalleyne3710
What's that got to do with it!..so have we
What does West Hams past decisions have to do with it ????
he was offside and standing in front of the keeper
It was the right call by the book, why are we still talking about this? There have been similar ones given. It was stupid from the wolves player. I agree it sucks especially when the keeper wasnt going to get it anyway but it was correct. Wolves player could have ducked or stepped away as the cross enters the box.
It's alright in your book until that is given against your team. There is no deliberate obstruction there as the keeper had zero chance to save it. He was wrong footed. The corner that JWP scored one could claim Antonio impeded the keeper ever so slightly but it would have been soft so they let it go.
There are several grey areas with VAR and this is one of them the system needs reviewing and improvements need to be made
@kevinpillay6103 Nope if it was our team would still say the same thing. The problem is the grey area with the rulings. I agree it's BS and is a result of applying the rules to the absolute letter without considering common sense and what's best for football.
The only argument is that he was in his view. The keeper has said he wasn’t and you can see he wasn’t. So it’s clearly a goal.
Today's rules are so open to interpretation, we need top referees to step up and officiate with a degree of common sense. I'd gladly take £200k pa for a job with no responsibility.
Not interfering with play? he is literally backing his ass into the keeper haha
Exactly what I thought…standing in an offside position bang in front of the keeper is….erm …offside! I really don’t get the outrage from these pundits!
Theres a 2 foot gap between him and the keeper have a look @@darrenknight6553
@@darrenknight6553they do it to try and stay relevant.
Villa scored against Arsenal couple seasons ago and it was disallowed for offside because Barkley was standing in front of the line of sight.
It was the same situation as this goal because Ramsdale was NEVER going to save it. It was right in the corner miles away from him.
So this isn’t the first time this type of thing has happened.
Fabs would of punched the ball away from the cross if the off-side player wasn't there, the guys clearly in keepers vision, clearly off-side and there's people who want to tear up the rule book,
Can’t be offside from a corner actually so doesn’t matter if he’s affecting the keeping from going to punch the ball. He’s only offside once that header happens (which I agree is offside).
No he wouldn´t! 🤣 Fabs would´t come out there to punch that from a corner. We got away with a poor decision yesterday!
@akwamarsunzal lol learn the offside rule
@@bluecheesey701 You mean the one that says if you aren´t involved in the play, you arent offside? That one you mean? 🤣🤣🤣
@@Hhammer OFFSIDE POSITION WAS FROM HEADER , NOT DIRECTLY FROM CORNER.. IT DOES MATTER, BECAUSE HE STANDS IN OFFSIDE POSITION
By the same logic; if a defender of an attacking team, who has never scored in his professional career, had found his way into the box with no support against 6 players of the defending team, proceeded to get fouled in the box, you could say he was never going to score anyway, so No Penalty. It does not matter if Fabianski might not get to it, Chirewa had no business maintaining his offside position and impeding the Goalkeeper. If I were a Wolves fan or player, I would only lay blame at Chirewa's feet.
Or if a defender was never getting back to make a tackle, no offside. Just like Ian Wright has done when one went in Arsenal's favour and said it was the correct decision, Saunders will change his tune if one goes In Liverpool favour.
There are so many VAR decisions this season that have been controversial an independant body should be set up in the summer to review and improve the current system.
Antonio actually knocks Jose Sa over on west hams corner for the second goal. The Var didnt call that? Pure Incosinssitency jsut bin VAR
Knocks him over. Getting desperate. 😂😂
It would have been soft but we have seem those given as fouls before. He does impeded ever so subtlety. The header though was embarrassing. Fabianski was completely flat footed with zero chance.
@@kevinpillay6103never seen a foul given to a keeper for Antonio did. Seem players put hands on them or jump into them get given but not literally standing there.
Doesn't say about how much chance a player would have had, otherwise we could say with some offsides that the defender was never getting back to make a tackle anyway or a rugby style tackle on an attacker is allowed because the attacker wasn't getting to the ball anyway. If Chiwera wasn't there could Fabianski have had a clear path the make a challenge for the ball? Yes
Was he in line with ball and keeper when header is made? Yes
Did he take 2 steps back to put himself between keeper and ball? Yes
Was he in an offside position? Yes.
These aren't subjective or matters of opinion of what might have happened, they are clearly factual factual as we can see in the replays The only thing subjective is if the keeper could/would have saved it. We've seen them saved before with instinctive dives from keepers, so why not now?
Its offside.
Lol mate no he doesn't Sa gets wrong footed, and back pedals but can't get there in time. The wind definitely caught the ball. Stop scraping.
@@darreno2428 I can understand why they gave it but if you look at the header and fabianski position he stood flat footed. It was a pin point header that gives keepers no chance. I'm sure Moyes and all West Ham fans would blow a gasket had that been the other way around. But if they going to give that then they must be consistent
For me anyone in an offside position should be given full stop and end of debates. I enjoyed the old days of flag up no matter.
Dean Saunders doesn't understand the rules then. Not surprising for a talksport pundit.
It’s the consistency element that’s the issue
It worries me that people want ex-players overseeing VAR.
It's a blatant offside so how pundits are still finding a reason to talk about it.
Move on.
I'm a Wolves fan and we should have a lot more points than we currently have but VAR and bad referee choices have essentially manipulated the PL standings essentially. True other teams have also been badly hit with poor VAR decisions too. So I am speaking for the sake of all PL clubs, we need fairness and consistency in decision making to keep the spirit of the game true and honest!
So basically you can stand in front of the keeper blocking his line of sight on direct free kicks and if it goes well in the top corner where the keeper would never of saved it does the goal still stand
Feel bad for Wolves as a neutral, the epitome of what’s wrong with VAR can be summed up in their season.
I’ve lost count how many bad decisions they’ve been on the end of.
Absolute rubbish. He's obscuring Fabianski not allowing to even make a dive and is directly obscuring the header, so no goal. Wolves given a penalty that shouldn't have been and Emerson goal ruled out for no reason apart from accidentally landing on the defender's heel. Wasn't a foul, it was just where he landed after scoring the goal. We also missed to clear chances to score and easily deserved to win despite a very poor first half - all over them second half.
you know your football, and not biased at all. Can you referee rest of West Ham fixtures this season please
Sadly footballers, pundits, managers need to know the rules... What is wrong the whole thing is a mess... But that goal was offside. Don't blame the ref, blame the player for being asleep
It was offside get over it! Where’s the outrage for all the VAR decisions that have gone against West Ham lately? Even the Emerson goal shouldn’t have been disallowed.
This again isn't VAR though, this is the rule book stating that if a player obscures a keepers vision, which he did, then its offside - whether the keeper can save it or not is irrelevant. The anger should be directed at the rules, not VAR.
He was offside - and stepped back towards the goalkeeper after the ball was headed - stop sensationalizing everything and turning everyone into victims - managers and pundits need to be told to shut up
I keep hearing about a "gray area," in the rule. There's no such thing, it's just emotional nonsense. Not only was this a by-the-book offisde, but it was obvious.
No they weren't. Full stop.
He’s off side and impeding the goalie, no goal
It was the correct decision. Even if it wasn't, they were robbed only of a consolation goal because west ham were robbed of a goal when emerson's goal was chalked off.
its not a dislocated , its a impact injury to his ribs its not serious apparently
Jarrod Bowen went off with a hip injury, not a dislocated elbow…🤨
VAR official easy target for betting syndicates when they make ludicrous decisions should be immediately suspension ref gave a goal so should VAR get involved in a 50/50 according to them no unless an Indian bookie says so
It was the 99th min last kick of the game. VAR is a goal killer. Keeper was never going to get it
Howard Webb and VAR are a disgrace, someone needs to step down , there have been way to many mistakes for my liking ,absolute disgrace from Howard Webb and his cronies 😂
It’s not a mistake. It’s the offside rule.
Yeah someone needs to stop them making correct decisions and just go by what clueless fans and pundits say.
Good decision. Player was offside and clearly jostling/interfering with the keeper. If he wasn't offside it wouldn't be a problem.
Dean Saunders hates West Ham it’s so funny. Go cry mate 🤣🤣
PGMOL is a shambles this season and they will have a big part where title will go
Var Corruption
If you watch carefully the Wolves player moves backwards to keep close to Fabianski, He is now interfering with play and offside. Hard on Wolves as I think they deserved a Draw. WHU Fan 62 Years
In front of Fabianski.....yes. Obstructing his vision...No. Watch it from the side, Fabianski is a lot taller and both are looking up.
IT DOESNT MATTER, ITS OFFSIDE WHETHER HE MOVES OR NOT..ITS OFFSIDE FFS
Antonio was standing in front of their keeper when JWPs corner went in. Should that be ruled out because Antonio was impeding the goalie?
Nope, because he's not offside. If the Wolves player was onside then it would have been a goal no matter where he was standing. Hope this helps. Take note of the difference, one is onside the other is offside. If you need the offside rule explaining then I'll gladly help.
You can't be offside for a corner
@@dicaniowhu Not true! If you are offside and you put the ball straight into the goal then, yes, you cannot be offside. But thats not what happened here. However, as the player was not involved in the play, he is not offside.
It's not the corner it's the header from the corner where the Wolves player is standing in an offside position. Actually thought although harsh, it was pretty clear cut.
@@phoeberowland7372 As he was not involved in the play, its not offside. Yes, its harsh and, if the same were given against us, we would be pretty pissed off!
West ham also been robbed many times this season get rid of var ⚒️
What does West Hams past decisions have to do with it ????
Dean, "preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision" That's the rule and it doesn't say anything about whether the opponent will actually get to the ball, so by the letter of the law I guess the decision was correct If it happens at the other end I'm sure O'neill would be saying the keeper was unsighted and it was offside.
Hammers have had loads go against them this season and its about time they had one.
West Ham have had bad decisions by VAR, VAR has to go!
To be fair Emerson goal should of stood so it should of finished 3-2 anyway plus West Ham have had so many var decisions against us especially over the last few weeks however nobody talks about our poor decisions 😡⚒️⚒️⚒️ premiership officials are so inconsistent and poor this season and it’s getting worse
Maybe we should be talking about Wolves dodgy penalty and Emerson’s perfectly good goal which was disallowed, stop howling Wolves 😂
What about onana bulldozing the wolves player at OT early on in the season. Clear pen buy enter VAR.
It never ceases to amaze me how many players, coaches, and pundits do not understand basic laws of the game. Did the header ball end up in the corner of the net? Absolutely but that is completely irrelevant and something a lot of people do not appear to understand. What is relevant is the Wolves player standing directly in front of Fabianski in a clear offsides position obstructing him and preventing him from not only seeing the flight of the headed ball but preventing him from being able to react in time to even attempt to make a save. It is a clear offsides and is not a difficult decision at all.
It's so dumb. Pundits, managers and fans here moaning about the decision when if you read the law of the game it's the correct decision
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
Agreed, except Fabianski himself has said that his sight was not impeded and the goal should have stood. Anyone who has played football knows that given the position of the play, that an obstruction of view is unlikely to have taken place in that instance. In my view VAR has taken a situation where there is a minimal chance of obstruction having occurred and given the benefit of the doubt in favour of disallowing the goal when it ought to have been the other way round.
If the player wasn't there fabianski probably would have punched the cross... So then you get into phases etc but ultimately offside should be offside forget interference if you change it then it's just lazy players getting punished... Atm the rule is too ambiguous
Maybe it wasnt in keeping with the spirit of the game but then neither was Newcastles pen against West Ham, sonwhat do you fi. There should be a public review if these decisions and amendments if rules where necessary when these, i would say unfair judgments occur.
It is a soft decision but if that was west ham who scored,o,neil would be calling for it to be disallowed.
You can't have it both ways.
It does look offside and he is in the eye line of the gk.
Exactly, O'Neal is just a professional moaner
The Wolves forward was NOT impeding the West Ham Keeper or involved in the play, the keeper could easily move from right to left and forward. Goal should stand. Keeper had no chance whatsoever of saving the header. Ridiculous. Ref needs to go lower leagues, definitely not a premier league referee.
It's the law more than the Ref here, the law needs changing as by the letter of the law the ref was correct.
@@phoeberowland7372 Every BBC pundit disagrees and as those are ex professional footballers, you have to take their opinions into consideration.
@keithevans4535 But it's the law that gave grounds for the review, isn't it? Otherwise there would of been no grounds to even suggest a VAR review.
Dean Saunders should know the rules, what is he talking about. The rule is so clear.
Dean Saunders is trying to keep himself relevant. Leave him alone.
Refs should be interviewed at the end of every game to explain themselves.wolves would be way higher in the table if we weren't robbed so much.
As a West Ham fan, I would NOT be happy if that were to be given against us! It was clearly another Ref/VAR error, again! Fabs could move left and right but he was rooted to the ground, if anything, he was starting to lean to the left! Hewas never going to save that with or without a player in front of him!
Answer these questions.
Was he in an offside position?
Was he standing (1 foot) in front of the keeper?
Was he directly in line between ball and keeper when header was made?if all those answers are yes then why isn't it offside?
There's been plenty of bad VAR decisions against your club, our club (Wolves) and lots of other clubs. It needs to get sorted out for the sake of the game! It's an absolute disgrace some of the decisions made by VAR this year! No consistency and the rules/laws need to have ambiguity removed. Way too many grey areas or impracticalities contained in the current laws!
What about PALMIERIs goal?!?!?! 😮😮😮
Not a foul at all and noone mentions it
They go on about this law but what about when you don’t book players for kicking the ball away thought that was the law
Who did that?
So how do they find out who is betting we all know if you get a winner bookies want more info and this is how they find out about illegal betting I would like to know how much the bookies took from tonalis buds without question
I believe it is offside as the law is defined. The trouble is, in every game someone stands on the keeper. It's clearly off side, how can you not be interfering with the keeper? Wolves were unlucky because it was them that got picked on. I didn't see much wrong with Emmerson's goal. A bit of contact then foul given. What comes round as they say.
They do it because you can't be offside directly from a corner but most players either step back onside once the corner comes in or steps away from the keeper so not to impede him. Antonio is brilliant at doing it. Look a Ward Prowse goal, the ball is coming directly towards to Antonio (can't be offside) so he has the right to stay where he is. If the corner had gone near the penalty spot then Antonio 99% of the time moves back onside or away from the keeper in case a shot goes towards goal.
The wolves player actually moves himself into an offside position, right in front of the keeper, after the corner has been taken. It's 100% offside.
@@darreno2428 I couldn't sum it up better darren. Its when the ball comes back in and the player is still on the keeper. I genuinely think the decision was right yesterday.
He's offside and standing in front of the keeper obstructing him. If it were down the other end and had been given against Wolves Gary O'Neil would be fuming.
Another game VAR like CBA it’s a Goal!
VAR swings&roundabouts us WESTHAM have got some VAR decisions against us!
Another day wolves will get VAR work for them and so on .
Christ knows where you got dislocated elbow from...its was either hip or ribs
I was at the game , that referee saw no issue with the goal until Anti Wolves VAR decided to get involved. But Boy did the referee enjoy not giving it. They are destroying the game with this crappy system. When a referee is called to look at the screen. What's the point , we know the ref is going to over turn it. Why waste the time. For me they have now created a new cheating system. Goal keepers will now be screaming they are being impeded.
I think var was a good idea. But the consequences are ruining the game. We're unable to enjoy the spontaneity of a goal. The decisions being made are most times ludicrous. It either must be improved or scrapped. If scrapped, yes, we'll have to accept the referees decision is final, and there will be mistskes. If not it must be improved. Football was fine for over 100 plus years without it. Money & consequences has changed our game completely for the worse.
That goal should've stood! Wolves got robbed!
Saunders you mug just like Ohara maybe you can get a discount for 2 at specsavers …let’s talk about the West Ham goal that should have been allowed
This is the worst season the worst when it comes to referee and if nothing is done next season we be worst
Whats a foul handball offside maybe if players stopped cheating it might make the refs job a bit easier but he got it wrong yesterday
The player is in front of the goalie. He's offisides. End of story. He's got no excuse or business to be in the way...
By the letter of the law it’s offside yet anyone who has played or knows the game will say goal. When did IFAB take over our game, they bring new and bonkers rules in each season and then the referee gets the blame but he is following the laws of the game and has no choice. Until football people start helping with the rules and laws the game will continue to get worse and worse
how did emersens goal get dissalowed and why is noone mentioning it? awful decision and im not a west ham fan so i dont care but you cant be dissalowing them goals
It looked soft when I first saw it but as Emerson ran in he accidently trod on Semedo's ankle as he did so, made it a free header. It was an accident but a foul
@@poncedeleon759 nah man, it’s a contact sport, semedo went down so easy, if people are going down that easy they should be punished, give the goal, soft game
10000% a foul if it wasn’t why didn’t David moyes or anyone else mention it you divvy
@fullclipzzz1278
@poncedeleon759
You asked for an explanation and were provided with one. At first, it appeared a really soft goal to disallow. But if you watch the replay and focus on Emerson’s right fight, he accidentally stands on the defenders ankle/achilles as he’s jumping to head the ball. By doing that, Emerson prevented the defender from fully jumping to head the ball. It was a foul and the correct decision.
@@Photosoflife spot on mate thank you
If this happens in Liverpool favour in the last game of the season and wins them the title Saunders would be saying it's 100% correct and what a great decision it is.
what a stupid thing to say
@@dawaring169 no a stupid thing to say is "I don't know why it's not been allowed" and Saunders would 100% be saying it's correct to give it if it was Liverpool who it happened in favour of. Just like Ian Wright said it was correct when it happened in favour of Arsenal last season, even though there was 10 yards between keeper and offside player, not 1 foot in front. 🤷♂️.
@@darreno2428 Mate VAR is corrupt what do you expert from Utd legend Howard Webb
I don’t get it The guy was in an offside position and directly in front of the keeper blocking his view
Plain & simply offside
He wasn't blocking his view you can see the keeper watching the ball he would never get to the ball CLEAR GOAL
More Dean Saunders idiocy. There is no grey area. Yes he wouldn't have saved it but he's in an offside position blocking the goalkeeper's sight of the ball. There's no wiggle room for could of , would he have saved it. The law is stupid but then a hundred other football laws are equally stupid. As soon as the ref was called to the monitor his ONLY thought was what is the decision that would give him the least grief and that is strictly applying the rule and a big tick from PGMOL
Why is it always Wolves that these stupid and wrong VAR discissions are made? How many more before the end of the season?
Always Wolves 🤦♂️😂 quickly becoming the new Liverpool with your victim mentality. Every team has had poor VAR decisions (this one is 100% correct by the rules) go against them.
Howard Webb has to go along with the rest of the corrupt refs ( Certain teams should take this lot to court ) PL title decided by refs not teams cannot be right
About time we had a decision go for us, but no one talks about them decisions
Lazy narrative
Wolves wasn’t robbed. All 4 VAR checks were correct.
Sure until it happens to your team right. Then bin VAR.
@@kevinpillay6103 I guess you don’t follow West Ham and the calls that go against them. Quick reminder, WH conceded a pk and had a goal disallowed just like wolves did. No, VAR shouldn’t be binned. The human eye isn’t capable of picking up everything. Other sports are more transparent on replay. Perhaps have something like they had in the Women’s World Cup. The referee explained the decision.
O'Neil doesn't understand the offside law. Law 11 states that a player standing in or moving from an offside position who interferes with the movement of an opposition player towards the ball commits an offside offence. Whether or not the opposition player would have been successful but for the offside offence is irrelevant . There's no doubt Chirewa was offside and interfered with Fabianski's movement towards the ball so the goal was properly ruled out.
Oopsie
It's about time one went in favour of The Hammers. They had a perfectly good goal chalked off earlier in this game and last week Newcastle were somehow given a penalty for fouling Calvin Philips. It's a shame for Wolves though. They probably deserved a point in that game for their first half performance.
Yes like West Ham were robbed in the past 5 games karma is a bxxxx.
He was completely blocking the goalkeeper by standing directly in front of him and whilst being blatantly offside. The ref was absolutely correct to disallow it.
Correct decision. What's all the fuss.
It was clearly offside according to the rules.
FGS West Ham have been robbed by VAR so many times this year , move on...
Pehaps if Wolves didnt give away a dumb penalty and a goal from the corner, they wouldnt have got a point where a subjective decision decided the game. STOP CRYING and do better.
As soon as you said "the letter of the law" i stopped watching. You are part of the problem. Absolute disgrace talk sport