Report: Was City’s Winner Against Wolves the Right Call? | OneFootball

Man City’s Controversial Late Goal Against Wolves: Was It the Right Call?

Manchester City claimed a dramatic 2-1 victory over Wolverhampton Wanderers, but John Stones’ stoppage-time winner sparked heated debate. The reigning Premier League champions secured their sixth win in eight matches this season, yet it wasn’t the final scoreline making headlines. Stones’ 95th-minute header, which initially was ruled out for offside, was eventually awarded following a VAR review, leading to questions around the goal’s legitimacy and the consistency of the officiating.

The match at Molineux highlighted a controversial and pivotal moment, with Man City and Wolves both having cause to scrutinise the decision. Let’s delve into the incident, exploring whether it was the correct outcome, and what the rules say about such contentious situations.

What Happened in the Final Moments?

In the dying seconds of stoppage time, Phil Foden swung in a corner, and Stones rose above the Wolves defence to power home a header. The celebrations from the City players, however, were quickly dampened as the linesman raised his flag, indicating an offside decision, specifically focusing on Bernardo Silva, who was positioned in front of Wolves’ goalkeeper, Jose Sa.

Photo IMAGO

The offside ruling prompted a review by the video assistant referee (VAR), which then recommended that referee Chris Kavanagh check the pitchside monitor. Upon closer inspection, Kavanagh saw that Silva, despite being in an offside position, was not obstructing Sa’s line of sight or actively interfering with the play. Subsequently, the referee overturned the initial decision and awarded the goal, leaving Wolves to feel aggrieved by the turn of events.

The Premier League’s match centre provided clarity post-match, explaining on social media platform X (formerly Twitter): “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.”

This decision highlights a grey area in the offside law, which states that an attacking player should be penalised if they prevent an opponent from playing or attempting to play the ball by clearly obstructing the goalkeeper’s line of vision.

Photo: IMAGO

Was It the Correct Decision?

The rulebook provides a framework, but the interpretation of these laws remains subjective, especially in split-second moments like this. Manchester City defender John Stones, who scored the winning goal, admitted post-match that even he was unsure whether the goal would stand.

“I thought it had been chalked off,” Stones remarked. “I tried to speak to the referee but he had a lot of people around him. For me, it is the right call. Obviously, I am going to be biased but I think it should stand.”

Stones’ sentiment reflects the complexity of the decision. The offside law regarding interference with an opponent is open to interpretation, particularly when factoring in a player’s movement relative to the goalkeeper. In this case, Silva was deemed not to be directly obstructing Sa’s vision, which, according to VAR, meant the goal could be awarded.

However, there is more to unpack with this controversial moment, including Silva’s nudge on Sa moments before the header.

Did Silva’s Contact With Sa Warrant a Foul?

As replays were dissected, another layer of controversy emerged. Silva, positioned in front of Sa, was seen backing into the Wolves goalkeeper and making slight contact with his international teammate just as the corner was delivered. This raised the question: should Silva have been penalised for a foul?

While the initial offside ruling was reviewed and overturned, the slight nudge Silva made on Sa remained a point of contention. Some pundits and fans believed Silva should have been penalised for impeding the goalkeeper’s ability to challenge for the ball. However, by the time Stones connected with the cross, Silva had moved away from Sa, and VAR deemed the contact insufficient to warrant a foul.

Wolves manager Gary O’Neil was careful in his post-match comments, choosing to focus on the offside aspect rather than Silva’s physical interaction with Sa. “I am trying to remain calm,” O’Neil said. “There is some grey area that can go either way and once it was like that, I wasn’t confident it would go our way.”

Photo: IMAGO

O’Neil’s frustration was clear, but his recognition of the grey area in the officiating points to a broader problem. The decision could have easily gone either way, but the current interpretation of the rules allowed for the goal to stand.

Wolves’ Previous VAR Frustrations

This isn’t the first time Wolves have found themselves on the wrong end of a contentious VAR decision. Gary O’Neil alluded to a similar incident from the previous season during his post-match comments, referencing Wolves’ 2-1 defeat to West Ham United in April. During that match, Max Kilman’s late equaliser was disallowed after Tawanda Chirewa was judged to have impeded Hammers goalkeeper Lukasz Fabianski.

The parallels between the two incidents are striking, with both goals being ruled out due to interference with the goalkeeper. However, the crucial difference in the Kilman incident was that Chirewa did not duck or move away, which left Fabianski’s view genuinely obstructed. O’Neil highlighted the similarity while questioning the application of the rules.

“I knew Bernardo Silva was close to the goalkeeper. Against West Ham, we were given the reason of close proximity. Silva is less than a yard away and I think that same reasoning should be applied to this one, but it wasn’t,” O’Neil said.

Despite his obvious disappointment, O’Neil remained composed, recognising that there was little he could do to influence the outcome after the fact.

Fans Split on the Decision

Unsurprisingly, the incident ignited fierce debate among fans, with opinions divided on whether VAR and the referee made the correct call. Some felt Wolves were hard done by, pointing to Silva’s contact with Sa and questioning the consistency of VAR decisions across matches. Others, however, praised the officials for following the rulebook and ensuring the goal stood.

One fan, Ian, took to social media to vent his frustration, writing: “Absolute farce. Bernardo Silva clearly bumps Jose Sa out of the way. Wolves once again done in by poor refereeing decisions.”

Meanwhile, Lee offered a different perspective: “For the individuals claiming Silva bumped Sa, if that was the case, they would have disallowed for a foul. It was offside they were checking, and Silva was clearly not in line.”

The debate around VAR, offside decisions, and interference is unlikely to go away anytime soon. What remains clear, however, is that the interpretation of these incidents will continue to spark controversy.

Conclusion

Manchester City’s late winner against Wolves epitomised the challenges facing modern football officiating, where technology is as much a part of the game as the players themselves. The decision to award John Stones’ goal was rooted in the offside rulebook, but the nuances of player positioning, interference, and contact left plenty of room for debate. For Wolves, it was another frustrating day at the office, but for City, it was a moment of triumph, however controversial it might have been.