Man City winner at Wolves a ‘grey area’ – but what does law say?
What was the fall-out of John Stones’ late winner for Manchester City against Wolves, with the goal given following a VAR check after initially being ruled out.
Reigning Premier League champions Manchester City picked up their sixth win in eight games this season with a 2-1 victory at Wolverhampton Wanderers on Sunday.
However, there was controversy over John Stones’ dramatic 95th-minute winner, when he headed home Phil Foden’s corner.
The goal was originally ruled out for offside before referee Chris Kavanagh overturned the decision following a video assistant referee (VAR) review.
But was it the correct outcome?
‘The right call’ – but what happened on the pitch?
In the final seconds of stoppage time, Foden whipped the ball in from a corner and Stones powered home a header.
But as the City players celebrated, the linesman raised his flag to indicate offside, with Bernardo Silva stood in front of Wolves goalkeeper Jose Sa as the ball went into the net.
The VAR reviewed the offside decision, and then recommended referee Kavanagh check the pitchside monitor.
Replays showed Silva ducking and not in Sa’s line of sight, so Kavanagh awarded the goal.
“Stones’ goal was disallowed on-field due to Bernardo Silva being in an offside position and in the goalkeeper’s line of vision,” the Premier League’s match centre posted on X.
“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.”
The offside law states: “The attacking player is penalised for preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the goalkeeper’s line of vision.”
City defender Stones was unsure himself as he admitted: “I thought it had been chalked off.
“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.”
What about Silva’s nudge on Sa just before?
Replays of the incident also showed Silva backing in and nudging his Portugal international team-mate Sa as the corner came in.
The goal was initially ruled out for offside, but a player cannot be offside from a corner.
By the time Stones connected with the ball, Silva had moved away from Sa and deemed not to be impacting the keeper’s vision or ability to get to the ball.
It could, however, be argued Silva should have been penalised for a foul on the goalkeeper.
Wolves boss Gary O’Neil did not refer to that specific incident when discussing the decision, instead claiming the original call for offside against Silva should have stood.
“I am trying to remain calm,” he said on Sky Sports. “I have been involved in a few of those and not had many go in our favour so was expecting that outcome.
“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.”
Former Manchester City and Aston Villa defender Micah Richards added on Sky Sports: “I would like to see a goal be given for this because I don’t think there’s too much contact.
“But the fact of the matter is that he [Silva] is still in the keeper’s way so it has affected the play in my opinion. You want consistency as sometimes you see these given and sometimes not.
“There’s a slight nudge that puts the keeper off balance so he’s not set, so I can understand why Wolves will feel aggrieved at this particular moment.”
Former Liverpool striker Daniel Sturridge also said on Sky Sports: “Bernardo has played it perfectly because he’s timed it. As the header has gone into the back of the net, he’s off the keeper. It’s like, ‘I’ve done my job but I’ve not impacted it’.
“For me, I do believe he has affected the keeper slightly. It’s the timing of the header.”
Sorry, this vote cannot be loaded. In order to vote you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
Wolves have been here before…
After the game, O’Neil referred back to a Wolves goal ruled out in similar circumstances last season.
That was in a 2-1 loss at home to West Ham on 6 April, when the hosts had a late equaliser ruled out.
Max Kilman headed home from a corner on that occasion, but it was disallowed after Tawanda Chirewa was deemed to have impeded Hammers keeper Lukasz Fabianski.
That and Manchester City’s goal were similar, although the crucial difference there was Chirewa did not duck and so could have been seen to restrict Fabianski’s view more.
O’Neil told BBC Sport after Sunday’s game: “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.
“I was calm about it, unfortunately there is nothing we can do.”
‘Farce’ or ‘right decision’? – your views
Ian: Absolute farce. Bernardo Silva clearly bumps Jose Sa out of the way. Wolves once again done in by poor refereeing decision. We complain about VAR, get THIS run of fixtures and then decisions like this. Awful decision.
Lee: 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. Very strong refereeing to make the call.
Mike: And how many goals were disallowed for players being in front of a keeper while offside? No consistency. VAR is criminal.
Jon: City didn’t deserve that. Been slow and predictable this second half with Wolves defending well. However, clearly the right decision to award the goal.
