FA requests Wolves manager observations following comments about officials post Man City defeat

web editor

The Football Association has requested Gary O’Neil to provide insights on his post-match remarks regarding the officiating of Wolves’ 2-1 loss against Manchester City on Sunday.

O'Neil suggested the officials may have been impacted by a subconscious bias towards bigger clubs when reviewing John Stones' stoppage-time winner with VAR.

The on-field decision was that Bernardo Silva was interfering in an offside position in front of Wolves goalkeeper Jose Sa when Stones headed the ball, which was overturned by referee Chris Kavanagh after being advised by VAR to review his decision on the monitor.

O'Neil insisted it was not deliberate but likened the situation to picking between "the big and little guy" if he had to upset someone in the street.

O'Neil said: "There's no chance people are purposely against Wolves, let's be clear. But is there something in the subconscious around the decision-making - without even knowing it are you more likely to give it to Man City than Wolves?

Trending

"My senses are heightened when we are facing Man City, are the officials the same? When it's [Erling] Haaland and Man City is there something in there that, not on purpose, influences decision making?

Monterosa

This content is provided by

Monterosa

, which may be using cookies and other technologies. To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies. You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable

Monterosa

cookies or to allow those cookies just once. You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.

Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to

Monterosa

cookies. To view this content you can use the button below to allow

Monterosa

cookies for this session only.

Enable CookiesAllow Cookies Once

"They guarantee me there isn't. But they are human and Man City scoring a last-minute winner is a big thing, a bigger thing than Wolves scoring a last-minute goal against West Ham.

"If I had to upset someone in the street and there's a big and little guy in the street, I'm upsetting the little guy."

In his post-match interview with O'Neil cited the example of Max Kilman having a goal disallowed for Wolves against West Ham in April last season as he highlighted perceived inconsistency with the officiating.

"The reason we were given [for Kilman's goal] was that Tawanda Chirewa was in such close proximity to the goalkeeper that he did have an impact on him. Bernardo Silva is probably less than a yard away from Jose Sa," O'Neil told .

"The same argument could be made, but I am sure they will tell us it was the right call and everyone got it right."

The PGMOL statement read: "Stones' goal was disallowed on-field due to Bernardo Silva being in an offside position and in the goalkeeper's line of vision.

"The VAR deemed Bernardo Silva wasn't in the line of vision and had no impact on the goalkeeper and recommended an on-field review. The referee overturned his original decision and a goal was awarded."

Wolves triggered a vote to get rid of VAR in June. Of the 20 Premier League clubs, only Wolves voted to scrap the system.

Ref Watch: Stones goal right to be given

Former Premier League referee Dermot Gallagher speaking on Ref Watch on News:

"I definitely think so [it's a goal]. Silva is in an offside position, but he can't be offside from a corner. He can only be offside as soon as Stones touches it, but he peels away and moves away from Sa.

"When all that [Silva was touching Sa] was happening he was not in an offside position because it's a corner.

"He can go up and down and do what he wants until Stones heads the ball. It's only then that his position changes in terms of offside.

"And because he peels off, he's not offside. And the last picture shows he peels off."

Analysis: Two issues at play in Man City's late winner

' Pete Smith:

There are two key elements to Man City's late winner and how the officials have interpreted the passage of play.

First - Is Bernardo Silva offside as he is in the line of sight of goalkeeper Sa? The PGMOL has stated this was the reason the goal was initially ruled out. VAR deemed Bernardo Silva wasn't in Sa's line of sight and advised an on-field review [after the goal was initially disallowed] which ultimately awarded the goal.

The key question: Where was Bernardo Silva when Stones made contact with his header? The answer: Well out of Sa's line of sight.

Secondly - Did Bernardo Silva foul Sa? This is an issue which hasn't been addressed by PGMOL in its subsequent post on X but we have guidance the incident was not judged to be a foul.

"There's a slight nudge that puts the keeper off balance so he's not set [when Stones heads the ball] so I can understand why Wolves will feel aggrieved at this particular moment," said pundit Micah Richards.

"I do believe he's impacted the goalkeeper's ability to save it," added ' Daniel Sturridge.

O'Neil: We've not had many go in our favour

Wolves boss Gary O'Neil to :

"I managed to remain calm [after the goal was given]. I have been involved in a few of those at Wolves. We've not had many go in our favour. I was expecting the outcome we got.

"There is some grey area there, and some minutiae that you can go either way on that decision. I wasn't too confident that it would go our way.

"Some similarities to our one against West Ham last season. We sent some images to the referee, with clear proof that the West Ham goalkeeper could see the ball.

"The reason we were given was that Tawanda Chirewa was in such close proximity to the goalkeeper that he did have an impact on him. Bernardo Silva is probably less than a yard away from Jose Sa.

"The same argument could be made, but I am sure they will tell us it was the right call and everyone got it right."