Whispers

Five Days On and Still No Evidence Against Taty | West Ham News

Image for Five Days On and Still No Evidence Against Taty | West Ham News

By Kris Gonzo | Senior West Ham Columnist (Follow on X)

Five days have passed since Millwall goalkeeper Filip Marschall accused Taty Castellanos of spitting at him during West Ham’s 2-2 draw at The Den.

It was an extremely serious allegation. Millwall raised it with the match officials and subsequently lodged a complaint, while referee Paul Tierney was expected to include the matter in his report for consideration by the Football Association.

Yet five days later there has still been no charge, no suspension and, most importantly, no publicly available footage proving Castellanos spat at anybody.

Television evidence fails to support accusation

This was not an incident hidden away at a non-league ground with one camera positioned on the halfway line. The match was televised and recorded from numerous angles, while Millwall and West Ham supporters have pored over every available frame.

Nobody has found footage showing Castellanos spitting. Former Premier League referee Dermot Gallagher confirmed on Sky Sports’ Ref Watch that its team had repeatedly examined the pictures.

“We’ve looked and looked and looked this morning and we can’t find that that has happened,” said Gallagher.

Gallagher believed Tierney handled the situation correctly. The referee could not dismiss a player based solely upon an allegation for something neither he nor his fellow officials had witnessed. Instead, the complaint could be recorded and passed to the FA to assess.

Taty Castellanos in action for West Ham as Nuno Espírito Santo

There is no evidence to support Millwall claims against Taty Castellanos

Footage does not pass the eye test

To my eyes, the available footage does not merely fail to provide direct evidence; the surrounding movement does not support the accusation either.

Castellanos was not shown standing in the immediate proximity of Marschall in a position from which an obvious spitting action could be seen. There was no visible body movement suggesting Taty had leaned backwards before propelling his head forward to create a projectile.

Nothing in the footage suggests that spitting took place. Frankly, based upon what can actually be seen, the suggestion appears preposterous.

Of course, that remains my opinion rather than an official FA conclusion. However, if there is no footage and no other evidence, Castellanos cannot reasonably be considered guilty simply because an accusation was made.

Questions will remain for Marschall

Millwall manager Alex Neil said he would be “extremely surprised” if his goalkeeper had made such an allegation without something happening. That is an understandable response from a manager supporting his player.

Nevertheless, if Castellanos did not spit, questions will inevitably be asked about how and why the accusation arose.

This was a dirty, confrontational derby in which Millwall were constantly seeking an edge.

The temperature hardly dropped as the game progressed. Mohamadou Kanté was eventually sent off during the remarkable comeback, while the original report on the Castellanos allegation warned that serious consequences could follow for two West Ham players.

And even the final whistle didn’t end it. As subsequently reported, West Ham and Millwall players and staff were involved in a heated tunnel altercation as tempers continued to boil over away from the cameras.

Emotions were running extremely high and rash decisions can be made in the heat of battle.

I am not defending Castellanos simply because he represents West Ham. When Arthur Masuaku spat towards Wigan’s Nick Powell in 2018, the evidence was apparent. He received a six-match suspension and deserved the criticism which followed including from myself.

This is entirely different. Five days after Marschall’s accusation, no evidence has emerged proving it. Until something tangible is produced, I am quite clear in my own mind that Taty did not spit at the Millwall goalkeeper.

The FA may yet provide a definitive answer. Given the seriousness of the allegation for both players, the sooner it does, the better.

Share this article

Kris Gonzo (commonly known to the West Ham community as Gonzo) is the co-founder of Hammers Chat (established 2014) and the lead video content creator and columnist for Claret and Hugh.

With over a decade of professional sports media experience, he is a frequent West Ham United analyst and contributor for Sky Sports News, BBC Football Focus, and BBC Radio 5 Live. He previously served as an official video and content creator for West Ham United FC during the club's tenure at Upton Park and featured in the official documentary commemorating the historic final game at the Boleyn Ground.

A lifelong Hammer since the legendary 10-0 victory over Bury, when he isn't providing daily match analysis on the Hammers Chat YouTube Channel or broadcasting on X (@GONZObignose), he can be found walking his dog and restoring classic pinball machines.

10 comments

  • Dave says:

    this is the FA clowns
    took them 2 years to make up charges on Pacqui and then admit they had no evidence after destroying the blokes career…

  • Rob says:

    One question needs to be asked was it the goalkeepers way of getting over the corner that was about to be given for holding on to the ball to long. If it was, it worked. We see this many times from professional footballers trying to break the game up, tackled rolling round the floor, and another that didn’t get penalised in this game kicking the ball away or standing in front of the ball so the kick can’t be taken quickly which happened on several occasions from Millwall players.

  • John Ayris says:

    I’ve seen the videos of the incident. Provided that the videos are of the time in question, which it seems impossible to think that they are not, then there was no spitting and it didn’t happen.

  • Clifford Edwards says:

    This is a very serious allegation. Previous spitting incidents have been dealt with extremely quickly and clips have gone viral. Think if there was anything in this then Táty would have been charged by the FA and had time to respond. The media would have forensically gone over footage and don’t kid yourselves this would be out in the public domain if there was anything there. Be sure when you accuse and be prepared for the consequences when your wrong

  • John Clark says:

    I think the Millwall keeper should be banned for 6 games for trying to get a fellow professional sent off

  • Vince N says:

    It is infuriating that people say the video footage is “inconclusive’. That is plain wrong. The video evidence shows clearly that he did NOT spit at him. So, the evidence is that the Millwall keeper made a false accusation. Let’s see what punishment he gets. Also, why did we not get our corner? The referee was abysmal throughout.

  • ian LencI says:

    I know it wouldn’t be plesant to see, but why didn’t Marschall, show the referee, at the time. Instead of wiping the alledged spit from his person. Umm, I wonder why.

  • Dudley Tyler says:

    What is the benefit of trying to keep this story alive? It’s a slow time with news with the three week break and the transfer window months away but why.do we want this, or West Ham ‘fighting in the tunnel’ to be news items? Is it that some action by the authorities would give you some material? Leave it alone.

  • Mike M says:

    what i have seen there is no way he did spit?
    I he did that is very wrong and he deserves to
    be punished. It just a shame their keeper cannot be punished
    for lying and trying to get a player sent off if that was the case.
    I know which way im thinking.

  • Quebec Hammer says:

    So what happens to Marschall in these circumstances? If your article is correct, he has made false or unproven allegations. If spitting is an extremely serious act then surely, by corollary, making unprovable claims of it are also extremely serious. Can any player make accusations against another and then walk away without consequence when failing to provide evidence to support their claim?

Comments are closed.