Neco Williams' Disallowed Goal: New Footage Sparks Controversy

New footage has landed – and it hits Neco Williams hard.

Days after Nottingham Forest’s 0-0 draw with Tottenham Hotspur, a new camera angle has emerged that clearly shows the ball striking Williams’ arm in the build-up to his disallowed goal. The defender had forced the ball over the line in the 67th minute, only for VAR Peter Bankes to chalk it off for accidental handball.

On the night, Williams and head coach Oliver Glasner were adamant: there was no evidence of any handball. Now there is.

New angle, same controversy

The fresh footage shows the ball first brushing Williams’ left arm, then his right forearm, before crossing the line. It backs up Bankes’ call. It does not calm the argument.

There is a crucial detail. The angle doing the rounds now was not available to Bankes in the VAR hub. It came from one of several cameras that do not feed into the live broadcast, and therefore sit outside VAR’s toolkit on a matchday.

Bankes had to work with what he had. He believed he saw enough from the broadcast angles, reading the ripple of Williams’ shirt as the ball made contact with his right forearm. On that basis, he ruled the goal out.

The decision has been under intense scrutiny ever since. Bankes was said to be 100% convinced at the time that he had made the right call. The new footage will only harden that belief.

It will not soften Forest’s sense of injustice.

Pro Ref stands firm

Inside Pro Ref – the rebranded refereeing body formerly known as Professional Game Match Officials – there is no doubt. BBC Sport understands the organisation is fully satisfied the goal had to be disallowed.

There is, though, irritation at how the story has snowballed. Williams spoke with absolute certainty after the game, telling Sky Sports he had not handled the ball at any point.

"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 evidence shows two arm contacts and no touch on his head. Given the speed of the incident, it is entirely possible Williams genuinely believed he had headed it. But his unwavering public stance helped fuel the backlash.

Inside Pro Ref, the feeling is simple: if Williams had not been so emphatic, the noise around Bankes’ decision would never have reached this level.

‘Tricky one’ that cuts to the heart of VAR

Not everyone was convinced even on the night. On Match of the Day, former midfielder Danny Murphy admitted he could see the argument for handball, but questioned whether the bar had been met to overturn the goal.

"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."

That phrase – “clear and obvious” – has dominated the debate since. Glasner referenced it. Williams echoed it on X. Many Forest supporters have framed their anger around it.

The problem? In this case, it does not apply.

“Clear and obvious” is reserved for subjective calls – penalties, red cards, incidents that send the referee to the pitchside monitor. Handball in the attacking phase before a goal is treated differently. It is classed as a factual intervention.

For those, the VAR is not judging whether the on-field referee made a clear and obvious error. He is judging whether he has proof of an offence. If he believes he does, the goal goes.

Bankes did. Others watching did too. Plenty still do not. That tension sits at the core of VAR’s biggest flaw: even so-called factual decisions rely on human interpretation of imperfect images.

One angle, two outcomes

The sport has been here before. Benjamin Sesko’s goal for Manchester United against Liverpool last season offered a near-perfect comparison.

In that case, replays suggested the ball might have brushed Sesko’s fingertips before he scored. VAR Stuart Attwell checked the incident and allowed the goal to stand. He did not feel he had conclusive proof of handball.

Later, referees’ chief Howard Webb admitted the ball “probably does hit the hand” but stressed that VARs “need to see that conclusively”.

Attwell did not see enough. Bankes did.

Same law. Same technology. Different judgement.

A law under pressure

Webb has already flagged attacking handball as one law he would rewrite. Under the current wording, goals like Williams’ must be forensically checked for any contact with the arm, however accidental.

"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 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."

If that change ever comes, incidents like Williams’ would likely be allowed to stand on the original evidence. For now, VARs are bound to hunt for any attacking handball before a goal. Bankes did exactly that.

Lighter touch, same storm

This season, VAR has been deliberately dialled back. Subjective interventions are down to 0.06 per game, compared with 0.15 last season. Fewer re-refereed matches. Less on-field disruption.

Yet every big call still explodes.

The Williams incident shows why. A goal, a new angle, a law many inside the game want rewritten, and a technology that promises certainty but still leans on human judgement.

Forest fans will look at the latest footage and see a technicality killing a crucial goal. Pro Ref will look at it and see a system working as designed.

The ball hit the arm. The law is clear. The arguments are anything but.