adminNottingham Forest were left furious after Neco Williams’ apparent goal was ruled out during their goalless Premier League draw with Tottenham Hotspur at the City Ground, with former PGMOL chief Keith Hackett offering a fascinating verdict on the controversial VAR decision.
The incident occurred in the second half after Morgan Gibbs-White’s effort appeared to be heading into an unguarded Tottenham goal.
Sandro Tonali attempted to clear the ball but failed to make proper contact, leaving Neco Williams to race towards the goal line and bundle the ball over the line.
Forest initially celebrated what appeared to be the opening goal, but VAR intervened and referee Craig Pawson was sent to the pitchside monitor.
After reviewing the footage, Pawson ruled that the ball had touched Williams’ hand immediately before crossing the line and overturned the goal.
The Premier League Match Centre confirmed that VAR had determined Williams handled the ball before scoring, with the final decision being a direct free-kick to Tottenham.
Keith Hackett initially backed the decision
Former PGMOL chief Keith Hackett initially believed the officials had made the correct call.
Hackett explained that the handball law is straightforward when a player scores directly after the ball touches their hand or arm.
He said:
“Correct decision by the referee and good work by VAR Control.”
Hackett then added:
“The law is very clear. You cannot score a goal if the ball has struck the arm, either in a deliberate or accidental manner.”
He further argued:
“The ball in this case has gone into goal off the hand/arm. It is the correct decision to disallow it.”
Those comments appeared to settle the debate in favour of the officials, particularly because the Premier League’s Match Centre had also confirmed that Williams’ hand was involved immediately before the goal.
But Hackett changed his view after seeing another angle
However, Hackett later offered a different assessment after being shown another angle of the incident.
The former referee admitted that the additional footage had made him question whether VAR should have intervened at all.
Hackett said:
“I have to say that I am surprised that VAR intervened after seeing this replay.”
He continued:
“It is inconclusive that the ball came into contact with the arm. VAR should have only intervened on a clear and obvious error. This incident is certainly inconclusive.”
That is a significant qualification from Hackett because it shifts the debate away from whether a handball would make the goal illegal and towards whether VAR had enough evidence to overturn the referee’s original decision.
Tonali’s role in the controversy
Sandro Tonali also found himself under scrutiny because his failure to clear Gibbs-White’s effort created the chaotic situation.
The Tottenham midfielder had an opportunity to prevent the ball from reaching the goal line but failed to make a clean connection.
Williams then challenged for the loose ball and appeared to bundle it over the line.
While the handball decision ultimately saved Tottenham, the incident highlighted Tonali’s fortunate escape from what could have been a costly defensive error.
Tottenham survived the scare and secured a 0-0 draw, earning their first point of the Premier League season.
Williams insists the goal should have stood
Williams was furious with the decision after the match and rejected the suggestion that he deliberately used his hand.
Speaking after the game, the Forest defender argued that the VAR threshold had not been met.
He said:
“It’s a goal. VAR is there for clear and obvious errors – and for me, that’s not clear and obvious.”
Williams also maintained that he had headed the ball between his arms rather than deliberately handling it.
Hackett’s verdict leaves VAR debate wide open
Hackett’s comments have therefore added another layer to an already controversial incident.
His initial position was that the referee and VAR were correct because the laws prevent a goal from being scored when the ball hits the scorer’s hand or arm immediately beforehand.
But after viewing another replay, he questioned whether the evidence was conclusive enough for VAR to intervene under the “clear and obvious error” threshold.
That distinction could prove crucial.
For Tottenham, the decision provided a huge reprieve as they escaped from the City Ground with a point despite failing to register a shot on target.
For Nottingham Forest, however, the controversy will continue to dominate discussion after they came so close to securing what would have been their first Premier League victory of the season.
And with Hackett himself now admitting that the footage was inconclusive, the debate over whether VAR should have overturned Williams’ goal is unlikely to disappear anytime soon.
admin
