‚ö? Wolves v West Ham - Official Match Thread

[charleyfarley]

"Wolves V West Ham Molineux 6th Apr 15:00 GMT VAR Tim Robinson Tony Harrington (6) (22) (1) Wolves:- S?°, Semedo, Kilman ¬©, Toti, S. Bueno, A?Øt-Nouri, Doherty, M. Lemina, Jo?£o Gomes, Doyle, Sarabia Subs: Bentley (GK), Traor?©, Cunha, N Lemina, Dawson, H Bueno, Chirewa, Fraser, Chiwome West Ham Fabia?Ñski, Coufal, Zouma ¬©, Mavropanos, Emerson, ?Ålvarez, Souƒçek, Ward-Prowse, Kudus, Paquet?°, Bowen Subs: Anang (GK), Johnson, Ogbonna, Aguerd, Cresswell, Phillips, Cornet, Ings, Antonio Wolves 6/4: Draw 12/5: West Ham 17/10 ."

[Nutsin]

Wtf happened to this site. It’s embarassing. Hardly any celebrating when we score or win all we get is a shitload of how shit we are. Then you have the Mods editing posts if you stand up for West Ham and or the manager. Can’t wait to see the misery on here when we win the tie against Leverkussen.

[Ron Eff]

"No, the point I’m making is that his sole focus is to obstruct the goalkeeper, albeit legally to begin with, but if you then don’t move onside and you’re continuing to obstruct the keeper when the ball is headed in, you are have then clearly interfered with the keeper because he is occupied by the attacker. It’s offside, there actually isn’t any argument against it."

[fraser]

"Ron - I agree it was offside, but stopping him clearing the cross it wasn't because it wasn't offside then."

[paul6565]

"Obviously I am delighted we got the 3 points, but I keep wondering how. We were shocking again. I have a very bad feeling that we may get a right thumping Thursday evening."

[Ron Eff]

"I don’t really get the view that the offside goal should have stood because Fabianski wouldn’t have saved it anyway. That’s not the rule. It’s the equivalent of saying “it’s not a penalty because he was running the ball out of play” which I’ve heard before. Also not the rule. It’s so simple, did he obstruct the goalkeeper in an offside position. Given he was stood directly in front of him, of course he did. What’s to say his being there didn’t stop Fabianski coming to punch or claim the cross? The media fall out is nonsense. Gary O’Neil is the spikiest prick in the league. He’s always got something to whinge about. Shame, I didn’t mind him as a player here, but proper chip on his shoulder as a manager. How he can say it’s the worst decision he’s ever seen makes me laugh. Idiot. It’ll go against us soon too because we play the same tactics. Antonio stands in front of the keeper on every corner. There was one v Newcastle that he tried to backheel in but had that original header been in the corner, it would have been disallowed for offside for Antonio interfering with play, and there would have been no complaints."

[Hammer and Pickle]

ludo21 2:31 Sun Apr 7 Good to know. Still think risking him was foolish especially when he was asked to start out of position.

[cholo]

"The thicko ian Wright saying Fabianski should've ""just moved"". As soon as he has to move for a player that's in an offside position, that player is immediately STILL interfering with play. Is this really beyond the thought process of a ""top"" bbc pundit?"

[Massive Attack]

"""Firstly the female commentator was shit"" Was she fuck. I actually thought she was across all the detail, in particular daring to call out Moyes and the issues so many have of him with regards to tactics etc. She made valid point after valid point and did it without being a typically irritating know nothing Female commentator."

[Massive Attack]

Decent summary here of what I thought happened yesterday... https://www.hammers.news/news/lucas-paqueta-sulked-david-moyes-into-submission-and-it-saved-west-ham-in-wolves-win/?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=dlvr.it

[fraser]

"Knives should still be out, he gave them a half head start"

[cambsiron]

It is clear that Fab wouldn't have saved the header anyway if the player wasn't there. It is also clear that the player is directly in his eyeline so definitely offside according to the rules.

[Side of Ham]

"As far as I am concerned their header should have stood BUT I also think their penalty was soft so shouldn’t have been, Emerson’s goal was a goal the defender knew he was done so made the most of some accidental contact. Ours was a clear handball penalty and Ward Prowse got a fluke…..so it was 3-1 to us if you played an honest game…."

[Manuel]

"fraser- That may be so, but Fabianski wasn't anywhere near it, meaning the Wolves player wasn't interfering with diddly squat...Still, will take it, the knives would have been out big time had that ended 2-2."

[fraser]

"The law is if someone is standing directly in front of the keeper in an offside position he's deemed to be interfering with play. Mike Dean said it was 100% the correct decision, now whether you agree with it or not doesn't matter."

[happygilmore]

New Jersey 3:51 Sun Apr 7 Re: ‚ö? Wolves v West Ham - Official Match Thread I just can't see why those pricks on MOTD thought it was a poor decision! He was standing in an offside position It a header directly from a corner. No one is offside unless a second player makes contact. Interfering with play? Dubious..wouldn't have liked it against us. That said it was probably at least one all on wrong calls

[ludo21]

Only just seen the highlights... IMO the disallowed Emerson goal is the bigger travesty. Don't think that was VAR but another example of a player throwing himself to the floor at the slightest touch as he knows that VAR will probably give it. Wolves player was literally standing a foot in front of Fabianski in an offside position.

[Manuel]

"Not sure what the letter of the law states, if anything, but IMO the Wolves player was NOT interfering with play, simply because Fabianski was nowhere near the ball when the cross come in and nowhere near the ball after the header, the Wolves player standing where he was made fuck all difference to anyone or anything, Fabianski was miles away, the Wolves player wasn't ''interfering'' with anything. Fabianski didn't appeal at all and apparently said afterwards that the goal should have stood. We got away with one so stop fucking whining about it and be grateful."

[Manuel]

"Not sure what the letter of the law states, if anything, but IMO the Wolves player was NOT interfering with play, simply because Fabianski was nowhere near the ball when the cross come in and nowhere near the ball after the header, the Wolves player standing where he was made fuck all difference to anyone or anything, Fabianski was miles away, the Wolves player wasn't ''interfering'' with anything. Fabianski didn't appeal at all and apparently said afterwards that the goal should have stood. We got away with one so stop fucking whining about it and be grateful."

[New Jersey]

"I just can't see why those pricks on MOTD thought it was a poor decision! He was standing in an offside position right in front of Fabianski, its not as if he was scratching his bollocks on the touchline! O'Neil should be bollocking his player not the ref."

[Dwight Van Mann]

Kaiser Zoso 2:04 Sun Apr 7

[zico]

"lowlife 2:30 Sun Apr 7 I remember knowing that if you were only 1-0 up with the wind you would get battered in the second half! Played at Princes Park, Eastbourne, I think and out keeper didn't even get a goal kick out of the area where the wind blew it back over his head into touch. Lord knows how many balls the teams that played there lost over the cliffs!"

[ludo21]

"Pickle - Bowen is just 'sore' from a knee to the hip or back, so should be okay."

[lowlife]

"and yes, the wind was definitely a factor in both halves yesterday. Always hated playing against the wind in Sunday league."

[lowlife]

Kaiser - add Downes into that list of bombed out players too. A much better alternative to Phillips. Moyes never gave him a proper chance and played him as a 10 in a few games. Laughable.

[Headtheball]

Ward Prose giving Storm Kathleen an assist on MOTD made me chuckle.