This is the story of one agitated manager, six match officials, one angry meeting and an alleged-but-disproved threat of violence.

It stars Wolves head coach Gary O’Neil and referee Tony Harrington and also features a cameo appearance from the Oxford English Dictionary.

And it ends with an £8,000 fine and a one-match touchline ban, but a partial vindication for the Molineux boss.

This is The FA vs Gary O’Neil.

The background

In the 98th minute of Wolves’ 2-1 home defeat to West Ham United on April 6, captain Max Kilman headed home what appeared to be a dramatic late equaliser from a corner.

But the goal was chalked off after Harrington was sent to the pitchside monitor by video assistant referee (VAR) Tim Robinson and concluded that Wolves youngster Tawanda Chirewa should be penalised for offside.

Chirewa was standing in an offside position close to West Ham goalkeeper Lukasz Fabianski, but O’Neil was furious with the decision, branding it “probably the worst I’ve ever seen”, although a referees’ panel later backed the officials’ decision.

O’Neil insisted Chirewa had not impeded Fabianski in any way and therefore should not be deemed active.

O’Neil was charged a few days later with improper conduct. The charge alleged that O’Neil’s “language and/or behaviour was improper and/or threatening”.

The FA has now published the “written reasons” — essentially a detailed summary of O’Neil’s appearance before an independent regulatory commission on April 30 and the written evidence that was submitted in advance.

It reveals that O’Neil attempted to speak to the officials in their dressing room straight after the final whistle but was told to return after 30 minutes. O’Neil did, flanked by sporting director Matt Hobbs, and what ensued was an angry disagreement between the Wolves boss and the officiating team.

O’Neil threatened that there would be an “altercation”, with at least one official claiming that amounted to a threat of violence, and O’Neil was asked to leave — which he did, but not before telling the officials he hoped they would all be sacked.

The response

The report reveals O’Neil admitted the charge — but with a caveat.

“I confirm from the outset that I admit the charge in respect of my language and/or behaviour in/or around the match officials’ changing room being ‘improper’,” wrote O’Neil in a written statement.

“But I do not believe that I acted in a ‘threatening’ manner at any stage…”

That led to the commission treating O’Neil’s response as a ‘partial denial’.

The case for the FA

The case against O’Neil relied on written evidence from Harrington, assistant referees Mark Scholes and Akil Howson, fourth official Darren England, referee coach Keren Barratt and Premier League match delegate Clive Whitehead, who were all present in the officials’ room after the game.

“Upon entering, an irate Gary O’Neil demanded to see the video footage from the 90+8 minute incident of the game; where I disallowed a Wolves goal after an on-field review,” wrote Harrington in his statement.

“I calmly informed Gary O’Neil that this was not possible and after asking ‘why?’, he was reminded that this was against protocol.

“Gary O’Neil proceeded to demand an answer as to why the goal was disallowed: ‘Tell me why in law’.

Max Kilman’s goal against West Ham was ruled out, with Chirewa (left) adjudged to be in an offside position (Nathan Stirk/Getty Images)

“He proceeded to state that David Moyes and (Lukasz) Fabianski (West Ham goalkeeper) had told him the goal should not have been allowed and that he had also been in touch with Howard Webb (head of referees’ body PGMOL) before entering our changing room.

“He further demanded that I give him an answer as to why the goal was offside before stating: ‘I’m already on two yellow cards, so it doesn’t matter to me. My season is over. But if you’re not honest with me now, then there will be an altercation in here’.”

The case for O’Neil

O’Neil admitted using the words but denied the FA’s suggestion that they amounted to a physical threat against the officials.

The Wolves head coach insisted that he used ‘altercation’ to threaten an argument if the officials did not provide the clarification he wanted.

In his statement to the commission, O’Neil wrote: “I fully accept that, in hindsight, my choice of words was inappropriate, but I would like to stress that my use of the word ‘altercation’ was obviously not so as to imply a physical threat or any kind of threat at all — other than that if I did not receive (what I regarded to be) a more detailed answer from the match referee, there might be an argument.

Gary O’Neil says the decision to rule out Wolves’ late equaliser against West Ham was “crazy”.

Tawanda Chirewa was deemed to have impeded West Ham goalkeeper Lukasz Fabianski, even though he was getting nowhere near Maximilian Kilman’s header.#BBCFinalScore #WWFC pic.twitter.com/Mg6tltVtwN

— Match of the Day (@BBCMOTD) April 6, 2024

“That is what I meant by altercation — similar to, for example, one person saying to another that if the other person doesn’t do as the other wishes, then they would have a ‘falling out’.

“I have been involved in the game at a professional level since the age of 16 when I was given my debut with Portsmouth in 2000. I have never engaged in physical violence during my career (whether as a player or a coach) and certainly wasn’t looking to on this occasion.

“I maintained a respectful distance from the match referee throughout the conversation, never making any movements toward him (or anyone else in the room, for that matter) that could be classed as threatening, nor did I encroach upon his (or anyone else’s) personal space.

“I do not feel that my actions or behaviour could amount to any sort of physical threat towards the match referee or any of the other attendees in the match officials’ changing room. I also did not use any foul language.”

O’Neil also admitted his parting shot having been asked to leave the room.

“I admit I did make the remark ‘I hope you all get sacked’ in the heat of the moment,” he wrote in his statement.

“I was expressing my clear and extreme disappointment with what I considered to be the match referee having first made a decision that I (and others) felt was incorrect, followed by his attitude towards me and the failure to provide any real explanation for his decision.

“I only made this remark once, however, and I deny that I was asked to leave the changing room twice.

“I left at the first point of being asked.”

GO DEEPER

Why would Gary O’Neil want to walk away from Wolves?

The outcome

O’Neil was handed a one-match touchline ban, which he served during Wolves’ 5-1 loss to Manchester City last weekend, and was fined £8,000.

But the FA’s ‘written reasons’ have now revealed an independent regulatory commission cleared O’Neil of threatening violence towards the officials, as the FA case had alleged.

The commission accepted O’Neil’s explanation, citing an online search of the Oxford English Dictionary definition of ‘altercation’ — “a heated argument or dispute; a quarrel”.

The written reasons read: “The commission were quite satisfied that objectively, there was no threat of physical violence.”

But the commission concluded “that Mr O’Neil’s demeanour was aggressive and that was threatening” and “Mr O’Neil’s behaviour and comments rightly stand to be condemned”.

The written reasons reveal the commission considered a heavier fine and a two-match touchline ban, but decided against tougher punishments as O’Neil had admitted the charge and apologised and had never before been charged with improper conduct as a player or a manager.

(Top photo: Gary O’Neil remonstrates with referee Tony Harrington after Wolves’ loss to West Ham in April; by Matthew Lewis/Getty Images)