Arsenal get new VAR verdict after furious backlash over West Ham drama

Gary Neville called it spot on as VAR deliberated over Callum Wilson's dramatic, 95th-minute goal in Sunday's shootout between Arsenal and West Ham.

"The biggest moment in VAR history in the Premier League," he described it on Sky Sports commentary. And the fierce debate that has followed the decision to disallow what would have been an equalising goal at The London Stadium will likely rage on for some time as all parties come to terms with the major ramifications it has had in both the title race and the relegation battle.

David Raya was adjudged to have been fouled during the last-gasp West Ham corner which resulted in Wilson humping a strike beyond Arsenal's last line of defence. It took VAR over four minutes to reach a decision which has left West Ham seemingly on the cusp of lodging an official complaint with PGMOL.

Some pundits have accepted the decision, others have debated it. We asked the Mirror Football team for their verdict on the decision which could prove to settle matters at both ends of the Premier League...

READ MORE : West Ham to make official complaint over Arsenal controversy after VAR disallows late goalREAD MORE : VAR checked THREE incidents before ruling out West Ham goal in chaotic Arsenal ending

Andy Dunn

First things first, who came up with the ‘clear and obvious’ stipulation? Clear? Obvious? They are the same thing. But that the phrase is unnecessarily long is entirely fitting. The whole process is unnecessarily long.

When Chris Kavanagh initially allowed Callum Wilson’s goal to stand, he did not make a clear error. Had it been a clear error, it would have taken far less than the four minutes or so for the VAR team to send Kavanagh to the pitchside monitor. That Kavanagh did not initially penalise Pablo for a foul on David Raya might have been a borderline mistake but if it was not clear to VAR officials after 90 seconds, the on-field decision should have stood.

VAR is here to stay. If anything, its remit could get even wider, which is a horrible thought. But the one thing that can be introduced to bring some sanity to proceedings is a time limit. It could be the 90 seconds I have just suggested or it could be a minute. Whatever it is, if an error is not clear enough to be picked up fairly instantly, it should be ignored.

John Cross

It was absolutely the right call. And it must go down as the biggest VAR decision in Premier League history because of the impact on both ends of the table.

For Arsenal, it might be the moment that decides the title. For West Ham, defeat could end up sending them down. Yes, there was a lot of six of one and half a dozen of the other, the pushing beforehand and usual grappling at a corner.

But the decision was given for Pablo’s arm across David Raya. It is a clear foul. The officials came to the right decision.So, why did it take so long? 17 views and four minutes and 13 seconds of review. That to me is a mystery as the foul is so clear. And it plays into the argument… well, if it’s that clear and obvious. And that’s fair. That clouds the issue that the officials got it right.

It should not take that long. Mikel Arteta was grateful. Nuno Espirito Santo was respectful. Raya has been brilliant all season and he got boxed off. It was a good VAR decision.

James Whaling

It was undoubtedly a foul. They reached the correct decision. And that's what Howard Webb will tell Michael Owen in a couple of weeks on the telly. But it's just the latest example of football moving further away from what we all fell in love with. Spontaneity in football is dead, at the top level anyway.

Rewind a few years, that goal stands and nobody says anything about it. Three or four other tussles were happening while David Raya was being held. It happens. Instead, we now have a couple of blokes in a truck forensically examining every incident trying to take joy away from those in the stands. It's crap.

Those young West Ham fans who lost their minds when Callum Wilson lashed in should be telling their mates at school today; still buzzing at what they saw. Instead, they're discussing whether the VAR was correct to adjudge that a clear and obvious error had been made.

Nonsense. Bin it.

Felix Keith

Two things can be true at once: the right decision was reached. And officiating around set pieces is a mess.

David Raya was fouled by Pablo. That became clear after a few replays. Chris Kavanagh got there in the end. Yes, the near five-minute delay was excessive - and likely unbearable for fans of both clubs - but, for me, there was no other outcome.

The rumbling debate around Arsenal's use of the 'dark arts' at set pieces this season isn't relevant here. Yes, they have got away with some over the course of the campaign, but that doesn't suddenly justify this one. Two wrongs don't make a right. As Darren Cann explained on Match of the Day, the officials have to go on the foul which directly impacts the play. The various holding offences by Arsenal's defenders didn't. Pablo's hold on Raya did.

It is a shame that one of the most crucial moments of the Premier League season came down to VAR. But now that we have embraced the technology, there is no way of turning back, sadly. Full abolition isn't going to happen. The least we can do is give them their dues when they get one right under huge pressure.

Dan Marsh

The thing that baffles me the most for an incident like this is the timing. Why did it take Darren England and Chris Kavanagh almost five minutes to come to the decision they did? It's quite clear Pablo has a hold of David Raya's arm. Which is not really on as it prohibits Arsenal's goalkeeper from catching the ball.

General antics from set-pieces are becoming a major problem for the authorities. You could probably give a foul either way from pretty much all of the corners taken up and down the country on a matchday. It's more WWE than Premier League in penalty boxes.

Football always stirs different emotions and different points of view and there will be some who don't agree. And for the record, I would argue goalkeepers are a heavily overprotected breed these days. But what is interesting is that whenever an incident like this is debated, nearly everybody says the same thing: ditch VAR. Why do we continue to persevere with it? Give me the days of debating human error after a big refereeing call any day over this.

Click here to read article