Former FIFA referee gives his view on disallowed Ceballos’ goal | OneFootball

Former FIFA referee gives his view on disallowed Ceballos’ goal | OneFootball

Icon: Just Arsenal News

Just Arsenal News

·20 April 2021

Former FIFA referee gives his view on disallowed Ceballos’ goal

Article image:Former FIFA referee gives his view on disallowed Ceballos’ goal

Former FIFA and Premier League referee Keith Hackett has given his view on Dani Ceballos’ disallowed goal against Fulham.

The Spaniard headed in what should have been the game’s opener, but upon VAR review, they chopped the goal off for an offside call against Bukayo Saka.


OneFootball Videos


It wasn’t a decision that delighted Arsenal fans and it was one of the talking points of VAR in another weekend of Premier League games.

The technology has continued to make inconsistent decisions and this was one of them.

Hackett wasn’t happy that they ruled the goal out and he says it was sad that they chalked it off because of VAR.

He argues that drawing the lines makes little sense and it would be better if we just operate on a clear and obvious error with offside calls.

He went on to add that one thing we have to keep in mind is that the technology involved isn’t perfect.

“I think it’s sad that a goal like that is ruled out because of the nonsense application of VAR and its lines,” Hackett told Football insider.

“Teams and supporters deserve to see goals. MLS has confirmed for this season again that lines will not be used.

“It’s a tight call but why don’t we just operate clear and obvious for offside? It’s my opinion, but a good goal has been ruled out. It shouldn’t have even been reviewed.

“If I was a manager of a team I’d say to players ‘Don’t wear white boots’.

“Roy Keane can be sarcastic in his comments but he says it’s clearly offside. OK, I don’t believe that.

“I believe that if you look closely, you’ve got a heel ahead of the opponent if you look that closely.

“But what Roy Keane is forgetting is that the actual system that brings up those lines and the photograph is flawed.”

View publisher imprint