Alious
Simon Hooper Left Helpless in Brighton–West Ham Drama as Pundit Admits: “I’d Be Fuming Too”
Referee Simon Hooper found himself unable to overturn Brighton’s late equaliser against West Ham, with former Premier League official Dermot Gallagher insisting the controversial goal had to stand under the current laws.
Brighton snatched a dramatic 1–1 draw deep into stoppage time when Georginio Rutter bundled the ball home, cancelling out Jarrod Bowen’s earlier strike. The decision infuriated Nuno Espírito Santo and his West Ham squad, who felt the equaliser should never have been allowed following a chaotic sequence in the box.
The incident unfolded when Charalampos Kostoulas launched into an overhead kick, narrowly missing **Konstantinos Mavropanos’ head. The ball then fell to Rutter, who appeared to control it with both his thigh and arm before taking his first shot—saved by Alphonse Areola—only for Jean-Paul van Hecke to recycle the rebound back to the Frenchman for a second attempt that found the net.
Despite the high boot and potential handball, Hooper awarded the goal after VAR review. Nuno raged post-match that the offence was “obvious,” but Gallagher explained on Sky Sports’ Ref Watch that the referee was effectively trapped by the written law.
Gallagher noted that because the ball first bounced off Rutter’s thigh, officials would need iron-clad evidence he deliberately handled it—something VAR couldn’t establish. Even more crucially, he highlighted that Rutter did not score directly after the supposed handball, nor did a teammate score immediately after receiving the ball from him. Instead, the ball moved through an additional phase of play when van Hecke returned it to Rutter.
“The rulebook ties the referee’s hands,” Gallagher said. “Once the ball is passed back to him, it’s considered open play again. As the law stands, Hooper has no power to disallow it.”
Pundit Jay Bothroyd reluctantly agreed: “You can’t argue with the law, even if it feels wrong. If I were playing, I’d be angry as well. It clearly hits his hand, and he gains an advantage—but the letter of the law makes it a valid goal.”
Gallagher also reacted to the Premier League Match Centre’s explanation that the handball was not “immediately prior” to the goal. He clarified that the term “immediate” applies only if the same player scores directly or the ball goes straight to a teammate who scores. Because there was an extra pass before the final strike, the goal falls outside the automatic-handball clause.
Could Areola Have Actually Prevented the Goal From Counting?
Ironically, Gallagher suggested the only scenario in which the goal might have been disallowed would have been if **Areola** had *not* saved Rutter’s initial shot. Allowing the ball to roll in would have created a situation where the “handball-led-to-goal” rule might have kicked in.
But that would require a goalkeeper to make a split-second judgment to intentionally concede—a decision that would carry enormous personal risk and public scrutiny. As Gallagher noted, football might be edging towards teams deliberately letting a ball roll in if they believe VAR will then rule it out.
Alious
