Simon Hooper powerless as controversy engulfs late West Ham United vs Brighton & Hove Albion equaliser
The 1–1 draw between West Ham and Brighton at the Amex Stadium sparked uproar after a dramatic late equaliser from Georginio Rutter — and much of the anger has been levelled at the match official, Simon Hooper. According to ex-referee pundit Dermot Gallagher, Hooper had no realistic option but to allow the goal to stand, despite outrage from players, staff and fans alike. (West Ham Zone)
The controversial goal: what happened
In the 91st minute, a high ball entered the West Ham penalty area, where Brighton’s Charalampos Kostoulas attempted an overhead kick. The boot narrowly missed West Ham’s defender but left many — including West Ham’s manager Nuno Espirito Santo — petrified that it constituted dangerous play. (West Ham Zone)
The ball fell to Rutter, who controlled it on his thigh. It then struck his arm before he unleashed a shot, which was initially saved by goalkeeper Alphonse Areola. The ball was recycled by Brighton and returned to Rutter, who struck again — this time netting the equaliser. (West Ham Zone)
VAR reviewed for a handball, but judged that the contact with Rutter’s arm was accidental, and crucially not “immediately prior” to the final shot — a key detail under current rules. As for the earlier overhead kick, VAR deemed it not dangerous play. Thus the goal stood. (West Ham Zone)
Why Gallagher defends Hooper
On the post-match analysis show, Dermot Gallagher explained that, by the letter of the laws, there was nothing the referee — or VAR — could do. He argued that the ball first struck Rutter’s thigh, and therefore the subsequent arm contact was not deliberate. Since the shot saved by the keeper broke the “immediacy” link between the arm contact and the goal, it became a legitimate goal under the rules as they stand. (West Ham Zone)
Gallagher concluded: the referee was “hamstrung” — trapped between what felt like an injustice and what the rulebook demanded. As painful as it was for West Ham, he said, it was the correct decision from an official standpoint. (SussexWorld)
Emotions over rules: the bitter pill for West Ham
Still, the response from West Ham’s camp was bitter and immediate. Nuno Espirito Santo described the decision as “clear” injustice — a “handball and a high foot.” Many felt it was a case where common sense should have prevailed over technicalities. (The Independent)
Such sentiments were echoed by pundits like Shay Given and former player-turned-commentator Jay Bothroyd, who admitted they’d be “upset and frustrated” if they were playing in Hooper’s shoes — acknowledging that the spirit of the law felt violated, even if the letter was upheld. (West Ham Zone)
The larger picture: frustration with how rules are applied
The incident reopened a recurring debate about how rigid rule-interpretation can produce outcomes that feel deeply unfair — especially at such a crucial moment. As fans, players, and pundits digest the decision, many are left questioning whether the rulebook, in its strictness, sometimes overrides common-sense officiating.
For West Ham, the cost is steep: what felt like three precious points — points that could have lifted them out of the relegation zone — instead ends as a universally mourned draw. For Simon Hooper, the match will likely define this week’s headlines: technically correct, but emotionally powerless.
