Nottingham Forest manager Oliver Glasner criticizes VAR intervention in disallowed Neco Williams goal

Nottingham Forest manager Oliver Glasner claimed the video assistant referee (VAR) was "guessing" and should not have intervened in ruling out Neco Williams' goal in their 0-0 draw with Tottenham.

Williams' second-half effort was chalked off with the full-back adjudged to have bundled the ball in with his arm after some calamitous Tottenham defending at the City Ground.

The Forest defender denied it came off his arm and insisted it should have stood.

Initially, referee Craig Pawson awarded the goal but VAR Peter Bankes intervened.

"I watched five or six different angles and, to be fair, from one angle you can guess that the ball touched the arm because the shirt moves a little bit, but it's not clear is it the ball or [Sandro] Tonali on the goalline," said Glasner.

"I think the VAR can't intervene when he is guessing. It was not clear and obvious.

We had a briefing before the season that the threshold for VAR intervention this year should be very high, which is why this is a wrong intervention.

If it's not 100% clear, stick to the on-field decisions. This is the inconsistency today.

I told the referee after the game that I felt the goal should have stood."

The Premier League's official match centre posted on their X page, external the explanation as to why it was ruled out following the incident in the 67th minute.

It stated: "VAR checked the referee's call of goal to Nottingham Forest - and determined that Williams handled the ball immediately before scoring and recommended that the goal was disallowed."

The rule states that if the ball has hit the arm of the goalscorer immediately before they score then it must be ruled out, even if accidental.

However, Williams denied that it struck his arm amid the chaos in the Spurs box.

"It's a goal," the Forest full-back told Sky Sports.

"VAR is there when there is a clear and obvious error and for me that is not clear and obvious. I've seen the images and the replays and at not one moment did I think I handballed it. I headed it in between my arms.

I knew straight away I've headed it down in between my arms. At a loss at that one. Disappointing."

The biggest issue with judging handball is often determining if the ball did actually hit the arm, and that is the crux of Forest's argument.

Williams is adamant the ball came off his head and did not touch his hand, evidence which of course would not be available to the VAR.

Even having a chip in the ball, like at the World Cup, would not help here as the head and hands were so close together.

This is not about a clear and obvious error, as that covers subjective incidents like potential penalties.

It is a factual overturn so the VAR, Bankes, is looking for definitive proof. This is similar but without taking into account what the referee, Pawson, says he has seen.

Definitive proof can be seen as a higher bar than clear and obvious, because it is a factual decision - that the ball definitely touched the goalscorer's arm.

Glasner, Williams and most of the Forest fanbase refuse to accept that evidence does exist, and that there were no grounds to disallow the goal.

These decisions come down to one factor - the judgement of who is in the VAR room on a given match.

It is unavoidable that another VAR on a different day might feel the threshold of proof had not been crossed, and allow the goal to stand.

And this will always be one of the major frustrations with VAR.

Harry Maguire's goal against Ipswich last weekend was allowed despite a handball because his shot was going wide before it was deflected, meaning it was an own goal.

In the Williams' case, he actually was the goalscorer so any touch on the arm means the goal must be ruled out.

The only thing that would have saved the goal was if the ball had fully crossed the line before it was kicked against Williams.