Another day, another refereeing controversy.
This time, it was Manchester City and Wolverhampton Wanderers at the centre of a dispute around John Stones’ winner, headed in from a corner in the fifth minute of injury time at Molineux.
Let’s break down what happened — and why Wolves were so angry.
What happened?
In the fifth minute of a minimum of five minutes added time, Manchester City were awarded a corner with the score 1-1.
Phil Foden delivered an inswinging cross onto the penalty spot, which Stones headed in to put City up 2-1 and all but confirm an important away win for the defending Premier League champions.
Initially, there appeared to be no issues with the goal standing. Footage of the incident does not show the assistant referee raising his flag straight away and referee Chris Kavanagh does not immediately gesture that anything is amiss.
It is over 30 seconds after the ball hits the net that Kavanagh signals that he has disallowed the goal, with the Premier League later confirming to The Athletic that the assistant referee had eventually raised his flag.
After consulting, Kavanagh ruled that Bernardo Silva, who was positioned just in front of Wolves keeper Jose Sa, had interfered with the play from an offside position.
As the ball is played in, Bernardo is standing in front of Sa, with his arm wrapped around him.
Sa tries to get him out of the way as the ball continues towards the box…
…and it is only when Stones makes contact with the ball that Bernardo ducks away, out of the goalkeeper’s field of vision.
After VAR Stuart Attwell inspected the footage on the pitchside monitor, the referee was asked to review it. Kavanagh then reversed the on-field decision and allowed the goal to stand.
What do the laws say?
The IFAB rule book has two main points for referees to consider when judging whether a goal should stand when a player in an offside position could be deemed as interfering with play.
In situations where:
- a player moving from, or standing in, an offside position is in the way of an opponent and interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the ball, this is an offside offence if it impacts on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball; if the player moves into the way of an opponent and impedes the opponent’s progress (e.g. blocks the opponent), the offence should be penalised under Law 12
- a player in an offside position is moving towards the ball with the intention of playing the ball and is fouled before playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the foul is penalised as it has occurred before the offside offence
What was said?
The Premier League released official communication through its Match Centre X account, explaining why the goal was allowed.
#WOLMCI – 95’ VAR OVERTURN
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… pic.twitter.com/4o1AHBWyzb
— Premier League Match Centre (@PLMatchCentre) October 20, 2024
Regarding the IFAB laws, this incident primarily concerns point one, with Bernardo standing in front of Sa in an offside position.
While Bernardo makes no attempt to play the ball and does not appear to be in Sa’s range of sight when Stones connects with the ball, he does seem to interfere with the goalkeeper’s movement before and after Foden plays the corner.
However, as you cannot be offside from a corner, as long as Bernardo is not judged to have fouled Sa, his movement is not relevant until Stones makes contact with the ball. Thus, as long as the referee decides he is not in Sa’s eyesight nor fouls the goalkeeper at any point, the goal should be given according to the laws.
Has this happened before to Wolves?
In a way, yes. Last season, they had a similar goal chalked off for offside.
Defender Max Kilman thought he had scored a 98th-minute header to salvage a draw for the hosts against West Ham but VAR Tim Robinson advised referee Tony Harrington to review his original decision to allow the goal.
Kilman’s effort was subsequently ruled out after Wolves’ Tawanda Chirewa was found to be in an offside position and deemed to be in West Ham goalkeeper Lukasz Fabianski’s line of vision. The Premier League later backed the decision to deny the goal, calling the incident a “subjective” call.
Wolves boss Gary O’Neil was subsequently handed a one-match touchline ban and fined £8000 by the Football Association.
After the City game, O’Neil drew a parallel with the West Ham incident but did not complain.
“We sent an image to referees showing with proof that the West Ham keeper could see the ball, but the reason were given was the player was in close proximity,” he told Sky Sports. “The same argument could be said here but we just have to accept it.
“I would rather not discuss it because it will still sound like I am making excuses. Whatever decision they make, I respect. We don’t want to cross that line but it did feel like a harsh one.”
(Top photo: Adrian Dennis/AFP via Getty Images)
