Neco Williams' Disallowed Goal: VAR Controversy Explained
New footage has dropped, and it lands squarely on Neco Williams’ arm.
Days after Nottingham Forest’s 0-0 draw with Tottenham Hotspur, a new camera angle has emerged showing the ball striking Williams twice in the build-up to his disallowed goal – first his left arm, then his right forearm – before he forces it over the line in the 67th minute.
The clip backs up video assistant referee Peter Bankes, who ruled the goal out for accidental attacking handball. It does not, however, cool the temperature of the debate.
VAR right – but with a catch
Bankes was adamant at the time he had enough to chalk the goal off. The VAR hub had access only to the broadcast cameras, and from those angles he believed he saw the ball brush Williams’ right forearm, pointing to the ripple of the defender’s shirt as the key tell.
Now the new footage confirms contact with both arms. On the face of it, that vindicates Bankes and Pro Ref – the rebranded refereeing body formerly known as PGMOL – who are said to be fully satisfied with the decision.
But there is a crucial wrinkle: the decisive new angle was not available to Bankes during the game. It comes from one of several cameras that do not feed into live match coverage and therefore cannot be used by VAR.
So while the fresh images prove the offence, they also hand Forest supporters another grievance. The call was correct in law. The question is whether it was provable at the time.
Williams’ certainty meets cold evidence
The row has rumbled on in part because of Williams himself. The Forest full-back was unequivocal after the final whistle, insisting on Sky Sports that the ball never touched his arm.
"I've seen the images and the replays and at not one moment did I think I handballed it," he said. "I have seen all the images and at not one moment can you tell that has clearly hit my arms, because it never. I knew straight away I've headed it down in between my arms. It didn't hit my arm."
The new angle undermines that stance. It also shows the ball did not touch his head at all. Given how quickly the incident unfolded, it is at least plausible Williams misread what happened in real time.
Inside Pro Ref, there is irritation at how the story has snowballed, with a feeling that the strength of Williams’ comments fuelled the backlash. Had he been less absolute, the scrutiny on Bankes might not have been as fierce.
Nottingham Forest have been approached for comment.
‘Clear and obvious’? Not this time
Much of the noise around the incident has latched onto one phrase: “clear and obvious”. Oliver Glasner referenced it. Williams echoed it on X. The accusation is simple – that VAR did not have clear and obvious evidence to intervene.
But that phrase does not apply here.
“Clear and obvious” is reserved for subjective calls: penalties, red cards, incidents that send the referee to the pitchside monitor. Attacking handball in the immediate phase before a goal is treated differently. It is a factual check.
In those situations, the VAR is not weighing up opinion. They are looking for proof. If they believe they have it – from any of the broadcast angles – they must advise the referee to disallow the goal.
Bankes decided he did. Many viewers, and now the new footage, back him up. Others, like former midfielder Danny Murphy on Match of the Day, remained unconvinced.
"It's a really tricky one," Murphy said. "Maybe it could be a tiny bit on his sleeve or right forearm. But is it clear and obvious? No. That's the answer."
His point cuts to the heart of the problem. Even so-called “factual” calls often lean on interpretation. One person’s certainty is another’s doubt.
A law under strain
This is not an isolated flashpoint. The same grey area surfaced last season when Benjamin Sesko scored for Manchester United against Liverpool. The ball appeared to brush the Slovenia striker’s fingertips before hitting the net, but VAR Stuart Attwell felt he could not be sure and allowed the goal to stand.
Referees’ chief Howard Webb later admitted the ball “probably does hit the hand” yet stressed that VARs “need to see that conclusively”. Attwell did not feel he had enough. Bankes did.
That inconsistency is baked into the current law. Webb has already flagged attacking handball as one area he would change, precisely to avoid forensic slow-motion searches for the tiniest contact.
"The problem is the law forces VARs on every goal to look at what body part the ball went in off," Webb said during pre-season media briefings.
"If you were only to penalise when the attacker deliberately handles the ball or makes himself unjustifiably big – and not have that forensic examination – you could 'check complete' it more quickly.
"It is a law I would definitely look to change. So Pro Ref and the Premier League are going to try and lobby for that to be changed."
Under that kind of law, Williams’ goal – based on the original broadcast evidence – would likely have stood. Under the current one, with the current guidance, it had to go.
VAR’s lighter touch, heavy impact
This season, VAR has been dialled back. Subjective interventions are down to 0.06 per game, from 0.15 last year. Fewer stoppages. Less on-field re-refereeing.
Yet when VAR does step in, as at the City Ground, the fallout is immediate and ferocious. The technology is operating with a lighter touch, but the spotlight burns just as bright.
The Williams footage closes one argument: the ball hit his arm. It leaves another wide open. How much certainty is enough, and how much microscopic scrutiny does the modern game really want?
