New Delhi: Manchester City clinched a final-minute 2-1 victory against Wolverhampton Wanderers, registering their 6th win from eight games this season on Sunday. They are currently unbeaten in the Premier League for 31 consecutive games. Still, many would deem the win slightly controversial in the manner it came.
In the 95th minute, Phil Foden’s cross from the corner was met by John Stones’ header ensuring a win for City. Initially, the goal was ruled out for offside, with the linesman raising the flag before referee Chris Kavanagh overturned the decision after a Video Assistant Referee (VAR) referral.
It was deemed that Bernardo Silva was standing in front of Wolves goalkeeper Jose Sa while the ball went into the net. After the original ruling, Kavanagh reviewed the pitchside monitor, where replays showed that Silva had crouched down and hence wasn’t in any way impeding Sa’s vision. This, in turn meant that City were awarded the goal.
What does the offside rule say?
Premier League’s social media account called Premier League Match Centre, which is dedicated to explaining live match referee decisions, soon posted on X for the reason behind the overturned decision.
#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
The laws for offside clearly state that the attacking player will be susceptible to penalty if they are found to be hindering an opponent from playing or blocking the line of vision for a goalkeeper. City’s defender noted that while he was biased, he felt the decision was correct, though he initially thought that the goal had been ruled out.
Replays also had shown Silva backing and nudging his Portugal teammate while the corner was coming in. Silva had moved by the time Stones headed the ball and was adjudged not to be obstructing the keeper’s vision or ability to play the ball. Had it been taken into consideration, Silva would have been penalised for a foul on Sa.
Gary O’Neil’s take on the decision
Wolves manager Gary O’Neil avoided commenting on the incident but noted that the original decision should have been the final call. O’Neil noted that there had been many instances where the decisions hadn’t gone in their favour. He further felt that any decision in the “grey area” doesn’t usually go their way.
There is a division in opinion among experts about the goal. Some felt that Silva’s contact had put Sa off balance for the goal, while others felt that he may have affected the balance a little. However, in reference to the timing of the header, Sa had enough time since the 30-year-old had nudged him.
The boss’ thoughts after losing out in the final minute.
🗣️🗞️
— Wolves (@Wolves) October 20, 2024
Wolves would feel disgruntled when they look back at the decision as O’Neil’s statement talking about past instances clearly reflected. Last season during their 2-1 loss to West Ham, a late equaliser was ruled against them. On that occasion, Max Kilman’s header from corner was ruled out after it was judged that Hammers keeper, Lukasz Fabianski’s vision was blocked by Twanda Chirewa.
The difference was that Chirewa hadn’t ducked, and hence, there was a reason for ruling it in favour of West Ham. O’Neil noted that while there was a just reason for the VAR decision during their loss against West Ham, Silva was quite close to Sa, so the decisions hadn’t run parallel to each other during a similar instance.
Manchester City’s final minute goal may have given them the complete three points, but was the decision in lieu with the law? Football Sports News: Latest Cricket News, Cricket Live Score, Sports Breaking News from Sports Today
