New video footage has been released that shows the ball coming off Neco Williams’ arm in the lead-up to his disallowed goal in the 0-0 draw against Tottenham Hotspur.

The Nottingham Forest defender bundled the ball home in the 67th minute but video assistant referee Peter Bankes stepped in to rule out the goal for accidental handball.

Williams and Forest manager Oliver Glasner were adamant after the match that there was no proof the ball touched an arm.

While the footage vindicates the VAR’s decision, it may not end the arguments about the decision to rule out the goal.

It has been a tough couple of days for Bankes, because while the VAR was 100% confident he had made the correct decision, it has attracted intense media scrutiny.

He will now feel vindicated – but there is one important distinction to make.

The new camera angle was not one of those available to Bankes during the game – so it is unlikely to end the anger from Forest fans over the validity of the intervention, even if we know the VAR was ultimately correct.

On the new footage, Williams touches the ball with his left arm then his right forearm before it goes into the net.

The VAR hub only has access to the broadcast cameras, and this camera was one of several which does not transmit as part of match coverage.

Bankes believed the proof on the angles he had available came from the ripple of Williams’ shirt as the ball touched his right forearm.

Former midfielder Danny Murphy said on Match of the Day he could understand the argument for the handball but was not convinced the goal should have been ruled out.

“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.”

BBC Sport understands that Pro Ref – the new name for the refereeing body that was previously called Professional Game Match Officials (PGMO) – is completely happy with the decision to rule out the goal.

There is irritation within Pro Ref about how the story has developed, partly because Williams was so unequivocal that the ball had not touched his arm – when there is now evidence to the contrary.

“I’ve seen the images and the replays and at not one moment did I think I handballed it,” Williams told Sky Sports.

“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 feeling is that if Williams had not been so certain with his comments that the criticism would not have been as strong.

The new evidence also shows the ball did not touch his head, although because it all happened in a split second it is conceivable he was not aware of that.

Nottingham Forest have been approached for comment.

Much of the commentary on the incident has centred around the VAR not having evidence of a clear and obvious error as a reason to disallow the goal.

Glasner mentioned it and Williams posted on X to that effect too.

But clear and obvious errors only cover subjective incidents – those that require the referee to go to the pitchside monitor to review an incident.

Factual interventions, such as handball before a goal, are evidence-based judgements made by the VAR.

If the VAR feels they have the proof of an offence, they will disallow the goal.

For all Forest’s disquiet, there are plenty of people who believe you can see the handball, and Bankes was clearly one of those.

It shows one of the issues with VAR that can never be solved – even the factual interventions like this are, in truth, subjective. It is one person’s judgement that others can disagree with.

A case in point is Benjamin Sesko’s goal for Manchester United against Liverpool last season.

The ball looked as if it might have brushed the fingertips of the Slovenia striker before going into the goal, but the VAR Stuart Attwell felt he could not be certain and allowed the goal to stand.

Referees’ chief Howard Webb later said the ball “probably does hit the hand” but “the VARs need to see that conclusively”.

Attwell did not feel he had proof, but Bankes did.

During pre-season media briefings, Webb said attacking handball was one law he would change – which would mean goals like Williams’ would not be ruled out based upon the original evidence.

“The problem is the law forces VARs on every goal to look at what body part the ball went in off,” Webb said.

“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.”

VAR is being operated with a lighter touch this season. So far there have been just two subjective interventions at 0.06 per game, compared to 0.15 last season.

However the generally negative narrative around VAR and the tribal nature of football mean its involvement in key incidents attracts widespread attention.