Listening back to the audio of Chris Kavanagh discussing Callum Wilson’s disallowed goal for West Ham against Arsenal with VAR officials has raised far more questions than answers.
PGMOL officials ultimately instructed referee Kavanagh to review the incident on the pitchside monitor after discussions inside the VAR booth.
But the most disturbing part of the entire process is that those reviewing the footage upstairs appeared to have already identified the foul by Leandro Trossard on Pablo — the very challenge which forced the West Ham striker into contact with Arsenal goalkeeper David Raya.
That contact, of course, was ultimately the reason Wilson’s equaliser was ruled out.
VAR Officials Clearly Had Concerns
Listening back to the exchange, it’s obvious at least one person inside the VAR room had significant concerns about several fouls during the sequence — particularly Trossard’s actions towards Pablo.
At one point, the officials said:
“I don’t like Trossard not facing the ball, it is impactful, it’s just everything else that’s going on as well.
“So, let’s say we’re saying that’s a foul, then what we’re saying about Trossard’s actions on the same player, and what we’re saying about Declan Rice.”
Which, frankly, is absolutely correct.
Trossard wasn’t facing the ball.
In reality, he grabs Pablo and physically marches him towards Raya.
Kavanagh Never Saw The Key Angle
And yet when the responsibility shifted back to Kavanagh for the final on-field decision, the footage shown to him was never rewound far enough to properly view what can only really be described as a rugby tackle on Pablo.
That is the truly baffling part of this whole affair.
Because the VAR officials themselves had already highlighted the foul during their discussion.
Howard Webb Footage Also Incomplete
Most disturbingly of all, even when referees’ chief Howard Webb reviewed the incident publicly days later, he still wasn’t looking at the clearest or most complete angle of the sequence.
Even television coverage appeared to begin too late.
So we’re left in this bizarre situation where officials in the VAR booth openly acknowledged concerns over both the contact on David Raya and the foul on Pablo — but somehow only one side of the incident was ultimately considered in the final decision-making process.
And given that the suspected foul on Pablo had already been flagged internally by VAR themselves… you really do have to wonder why.
Ref and all other var should be punished to much getting it wrong or was arsenal not supposed to lose
I’ve posted this about 100 times in the last few days but to me the rules are very clear.
Considering that VAR intervened, the referee was obliged to review all relevant actions inside the penalty area leading up to the incident. Based on IFAB Law 12, there were at least three offences that should have been penalised before the attacker’s arm was judged to have fouled the goalkeeper.
First, the defender positioned with his back to the ball was clearly interfering with the attacker’s movement. The referee did not consider this at all, despite the fact that the Laws explicitly address such situations.
Under IFAB Law 12, the following interpretations apply:
1. Impeding the Progress of an Opponent (Without Contact)
If a defender moves into the attacker’s path to obstruct, block, or force a change of direction — and the ball is not within playing distance — this constitutes impeding the progress of an opponent without contact.
Sanction: An indirect free kick to the attacking team.
Key point: A player has a right to their position, but moving into the way while ignoring the ball is an offence.
2. Impeding With Contact (Holding, Blocking, Pushing)
If the defender makes physical contact while not attempting to play the ball, the offence becomes more serious.
Sanction: A direct free kick or penalty if it occurs inside the penalty area.
Disciplinary:
• Careless → no card
• Reckless or deliberate → yellow card for unsporting behaviour
Given these definitions, the defender’s actions meet the criteria for at least one — and arguably multiple — offences. These should have been reviewed by VAR and penalised accordingly before assessing any potential foul by the attacker.
What’s done is done but found the VAR audio concerning on many levels. VAR was very quick to assume a foul on goalkeeper despite assistant referee saying they didn’t see one and AVAR saying there were other incidents of fouls being committed. This points to the VAR himself being potentially predetermined. The VAR then proceeds to call Arsenal players by name but only calling West Ham players ‘him’ up until he speaks to the ref suggesting familiarity and therefore potential bias. Finally VAR, rather than asking the ref to review each possible infringement in full in the order they occurred actually asks “Possible foul on the goalkeeper but other incidents”. I’m no psychologist but that’s leading. The mind is a powerful thing. The ref is going to the monitor being told the VAR believes he’s made a mistake and missed a foul on the goalkeeper. The ref subconsciously will find it hard to consider anything else coupled with the fact the Trossard incident was not played back to him in full. Leaving his task near impossible. Poor ref even has to ask “who are we saying committed the foul?” 😅
I think the tactic they adopt now must be…
When defending a corner ensure you push an opposing player into the goalkeeper with enough force to flatten him and receive a free kick.
This means that if the opposition scores, it’s disallowed and if it goes out for another corner we will retain possession.
Win win all round and VAR have set a precident.
They don’t want spurs relegated simple as that
I think this part of the transcript sums it up nicely
“REF: I don’t know what you’re trying to show me, give me a clue.”
gpawley39@gmail.comaudio clearly shows there was debate about various actions taking place.
It’s agreed there is a foul on the goalkeeper and Rice/Mavro incident was after initial foul.
What wasn’t shown in VAR to referee was Trossard push on Pablo.
Howard Webb (video) has vindicated ref/linesman by saying it’s impossible for theGpawm to see everything.
Which is obviously why it was referred to VAR.
Offside should not be a toe nail or shirt sleeve but a complete body.
This would be definite and eliminate excessive discussions.
There’s no way of reversing this decision but rules need to be changed.
What’s done is done.
VAR need to put their hands up and apologise for getting it wrong.
NO CHANCE.
If two fouls are committed, one some seconds after the other, it is clear, according to the rules, which should be penalised. Instead we enter a kind of VAR suspension of time. West Ham should have been awarded a penalty. Yet the media have concentrated only on whether Pablo fouled the goalkeeper, which is not the key issue. The ref played the advantage but due to VAR no advantage was gained. A penalty should therefore, as I understand it, have been given.
Great article Gonzo, I agree with everything you wrote. I still feel (although we know it won’t happen) VAR should release the footage of the Trossard foul from start to finish and explain why it was ignored, even though identified in their audio.
Keep up the good work. COYI!
To avoid having penalties given for these fouls and deciding the outcome of games (distorting the result: best team does not necessarily win), how about handing out yellow cards? Technically a foul in the penalty area is a penalty, but referees don’t want to give penalties for each foul, plus you would end up giving too many penalties for the game to stay valid.
Both Rice and Trossard would receive a yellow card & then corner is retaken. That would quickly stop players grappling and make it much easier for a referee to take decisions on the basis of a foul, that do not at the same time, determine the outcome of a game. It also avoids further rules being introduced, because cannot legislate for every little trick in the book.
Give yellow cards at corners, a warning that a penalty can always be given especially for repeat offences. I think that would work really well, because players would avoid committing too many professional fouls as is happening.
Saw the Trossard foul immediately on Sunday.
VAR got this wrong and we were hard done by.
But it’s done and that’s it. Clear and obvious error by VAR and the ref to state their catchphrase.
I 100% agree. The long and short is that if we hadn’t put the ball in the back of the net we would most likely have been awarded a penalty on multiple fronts. As there were so many other earlier infringements by Arsenal players.
Ian, “would most likely have been awarded a penalty”………. really? We suffered two blatant penalty box fouls at Brentford but no penalty was awarded.
Sadly, I think Arsenal would have received the benefit which ever way you cut it.
VAR seems to be blotting out time sequence. The FIRST foul committed is the one that should be penalised as it impacts on all that follows. I think you’re absolutely right to raise this Gonzo as it highlights what is for me the biggest flaw in the way VAR is being used. VAR is only as good as the way it is being applied, and this incident is rightly being re-examined as it has far wider implications for the whole of football.
Why did u people,not discuss about newcastles controversial goal against arsenal?..brentfords offside goal against arsenal..?,everton player diving…continue crying ok.
Because this sis a West Ham fan website. We don’t cover Newcastle vs Arsenal, Everton, Brentford or anyone else unless we’re playing them.
Because its not a Newcastle Brentford or arsenal website.. pretty basic really
Because its not a Newcastle Brentford or arsenal website.. pretty basic really
Arsenal are in talks with Populous, the architects behind the original Emirates Stadium design, as they weigh up how best to expand their 60,000-seater home. Whereas WHU are looking for a draftsman on UPWORK to weigh up how they can reduce their capacity to a couple of thousand for next season in the Championship
😂 You clearly haven’t done your homework on West Ham’s lack of influence on the London Stadium. Nice try.
Astonishing indeed.
Such a massive decision in a pivotal game.
I think it’s time to give it a rest Gonzo. No end of post mortems won’t change anything. We are where we are. Move on and concentrate on the next game.
There will be plenty about the next game John . . .when have we not done previews and covered the game.
You’re welcome to write in an submit a blog mate, but as I’m sure you’ll understand, I can’t have people telling me what not to write.
Never intended Gonzo.
You carry on, we love you!
Bless ya John mate.
Thanks for reading
Listening to that audio left me feeling they were worried more about having a massive effect on Arsenal’s title aspirations than relegating us. If we were Man City then sure as fate it would have ended in a draw. But we were always scheduled to lose this game, and if we do go down then it will be because of 2025 results rather than this game.