Romero tweeted about this incident (1:30 in the video) and complained how this was given when their goal yesterday was disallowed. Bowen is clearly in an onside position, (there is a goalkeeper on the line) so how on earth could this be comparable? Abbi Summers on DR sports also just brought this situation up and complained how this was allowed when the Van de Ven one was disallowed.

At the very least, hopefully this post will stop the misinformation that West Ham scored a dodgy goal vs Spurs as I feel by people mentioning it as a controversy is changing people’s memories of the incident. It’s almost like a Mandela effect that’s making me feel like I’m going crazy.

by NoPineapple1727

9 comments

  1. They don’t. The thread about this in /r/coys is full of people saying that Bowen is onside.

  3. We don’t. The claim is around what counts as “Intentional” playing of the ball.

    Romeros post seemed to suggest he thinks Tomiyasu played the ball intentionally, and tbf the wording is so wooly in the handbook that there is a slim argument. (And therefore he thinks VDV is onside as Tomi played it). Tbh I don’t think Spurs fans care enough about that call to argue it too hard.

    Edit: I think Romero deleted his post as he realised Bowen was onside anyway – But he was more using an example of double deflections and what counts as an “Intentional” block or movement towards the ball, as opposed to just a rebound.

  4. Because they are no different to the fans of Arsenal, Man United, Liverpool, Watford, Burnley, Hereford, Stafford Rangers, Heather St John’s, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. Fans of every football club down the country will bitch, moan, complain of bias about every decision that went against their club. It has been this way since the dawn of competitive football

  5. For the same reason why they believe they legitimately beat Liverpool earlier this season….

  7. He has his hands behind his back to show he is not interfering with play, therefore he should not be included in the assessment. VAR rule book is simple /s

  8. Not just Spurs fans. They were Robbed against Arsenal

  9. Post has been up for a little while but going to throw my opinion in here. I am a neutral in the Arsenal v Tottenham fixture, I don’t support either, but I believe the goal should have been allowed. Tomiyasu plays that ball, I don’t know how you can say he hasn’t. It’s not a traditional block where he has used his body or turned away and it’s hit him or he’s stuck a foot/knee out instinctively, he’s actively attempted to kick that clear (and albeit miss-kicked it!).

    Now the irony is everyone okay, not everyone, but I’ve seen a lot of comments referencing what OP has posted above) when really the comparison they should be making is actually in the Newcastle v West Ham (4-3) game. Now I can’t remember who it is that plays the ball so I’m going to use Anderson’s name for arguments sake. Here is the link for those that need a memory refresher; [NEW v WHU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yV_Oyp3ZCxw).

    So Anderson plays the ball “forward” towards Gordon who is, unequivocally, offside. Mavrapanos sticks a leg out to stop the ball going forward, Gordon is fouled and a penalty is given. I do not understand in what world this is different to the Tomiyasu situation. In fact I think the Tomiyasu one is a lot worse. Mavrapanos’ “block” is a reflex movement, he also isn’t to know whether Gordon is offside or not so just has to get a foot to it. Tomiyasu whilst he doesn’t know who is onside or offside behind him has a lot more time to react and actively tries to kick the ball back to where it came from (a calculated decision), Mavrapanos just sticks a leg out. Furthmore after Tomiyasu kicks it the ball then touches another Arsenal player, granted by deflection but it’s been played by two separate Arsenal players now, yet VdV is deemed offside? If Gordon’s penalty is given, the VdV one HAS to be given.

    It gets said all the time, the issue is consistency. Both goals could have huge affects. The Gordon penalty could cost West Ham a point and give Newcastle two extra (which could have UECL/UEL ramifications) and the disallowed Spurs goal could cost them UCL football and leaves Arsenal in the title race.

    Sidenote, not interested in hearing about decisions that don’t have similarities to what happened in the NLD, not interested in discussing or debating the TOT v LIV decision etc.

Leave a Reply