Simon Hooper had no choice but to controversially allow Brighton’s equaliser against West Ham, according to Dermot Gallagher.

West Ham drew 1-1 late on at Brighton on Sunday when Georginio Rutter equalised in stoppage time, cancelling out Jarrod Bowen‘s strike from a tight angle in the second half.

Hooper ultimately gave the goal to leave Nuno claiming it was “clear” it shouldn’t have stood after the game, but ex-Premier League referee Gallagher says the current official had no other option.

Jay Bothroyd admits he would be as upset as Nuno

With Brighton chasing a late equaliser a high ball was sent into the West Ham box in the 91st minute and Kostoulas acrobatically connected, before the ball went to Rutter who controlled it on his thigh and then his arm.

His initial shot was then saved by Alphonse Areola before Jean-Paul van Hecke recycled it back to him to score at the second attempt, and the sequence of play meant the rules made it impossible for Hooper to disallow it.

Gallagher said on Sky Sports Ref Watch: “Well, the referee’s hamstrung Hayley (McQueen), that’s the first thing. If we come back to that one [the high boot] later.

“But the handball itself, firstly it flies up off his thigh. So they’ve got to be positive that he’s deliberately handled the ball, which he hasn’t. Has he scored [immediately]? No. Has it dropped to his colleague who scores? No.

“But then his colleague passes him back and he scores. So unfortunately as [the rules are] set up, it’s a goal. The referee can do nothing about it.”

Jay Bothroyd added: “Again, we can’t really argue with that. I completely agree with Derms on that one, because the rule is the rule, right? That’s why it’s black and white, that’s why you can’t argue.

“Personally, [if] I’m playing in that game, I’m upset, I’m frustrated. Just like Nuno is. You can see it’s hit his hand and he has benefited from it afterwards.

“But the rule is the rule and the goal has been given, and by the letter of the law it’s the right decision.”

Asked about the Premier League Match Centre’s statement that Rutter hadn’t hand-balled “immediately prior” to scoring Gallagher said: “It was [immediate] but it’s meant to be, ‘Did he [the same player] score?’ As I said, no. Did it fall to his colleague who scores? No. Once that colleague has passed the ball… it’s all about, is it the first player? No. Is it the second player? No. And then the game goes on and we’re back in open play.”

Should Areola have let Rutter’s first shot in?

The way the law is set out resulted in a conclusion which felt inherently unfair for West Ham at the Amex, not least when a vital three points would have lifted them out of the bottom three.

As it is currently written up it does actually remove the subjectivity which is often unavoidable and frequently leads to even more outrage at officials’ decision-making, but when so many separate events happen within seconds of each other it can leave an unsatisfactory outcome.

The irony is that if Areola had simply stood aside and let Rutter’s original shot into the net the goal would probably have been ruled out as an “immediate” action after controlling with the hand and the Hammers would have likely left the south coast with the win.

But it would have required the West Ham keeper to show incredible split-second decision-making to realise that and go against his instincts, as well as take a huge risk, to do that.

He could have been embarrassed and hugely criticised had the decision then gone against him, but we are surely not far off a club deliberately conceding in that way because they expect to be safe.

Enjoyed this article? Stay connected with all the latest West Ham United news, updates, and behind-the-scenes content by following us on our new Instagram account – @westhamzone247