Oliver Glasner and Neco Williams have both hit out at the video assistant referee (VAR) after Williams' second-half goal was disallowed in Nottingham Forest's 0-0 draw with Tottenham Hotspur at the City Ground.

Referee Craig Pawson initially awarded the goal, but VAR Peter Bankes intervened, ruling that Williams had handled the ball before bundling it in — the result of some desperate defending by Tottenham. The Premier League's official match centre confirmed on X that Bankes had determined Williams handled the ball immediately before scoring and recommended disallowance.

Glasner: 'VAR can't intervene when guessing'

Forest manager Glasner was unsparing in his criticism, arguing that the evidence was far from conclusive. "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," he said.

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

Glasner added that he informed referee Pawson after the final whistle that he believed the goal should have stood.

Williams insists he headed it in

Williams himself was equally adamant, telling Sky Sports that the ball made contact with his head — not his arm. "It's a goal," he said. "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 full-back added.

The fine line between proof and guesswork

Under Premier League handball rules, if the ball makes contact with the arm of the goalscorer immediately before the goal is scored, it must be ruled out — even if the touch is entirely unintentional. The key question, however, is whether the ball did in fact strike Williams' arm at all.

For a factual overturn such as this, the VAR is expected to find definitive proof — a bar that some argue sits even higher than the "clear and obvious error" standard applied to more subjective calls like penalty decisions. The proximity of Williams' head and arms during the incident made that determination particularly difficult.

It is worth noting that Harry Maguire's goal against Ipswich the previous weekend was allowed to stand despite a handball, because the original shot was heading wide before it deflected in, making it an own goal. In Williams' case, he was the direct goalscorer, so any arm contact — however slight — is enough to void the effort under the laws of the game.

As Glasner, Williams, and Forest supporters refuse to accept, another VAR on another day might well have reached a different conclusion — and that, ultimately, remains one of football's most persistent frustrations with the technology.