The home fans at Molineux were jubilant after watching Wolves beat Manchester City 3-2 on Friday night, but it all could have been so different if not for a late fightback.
A rather dubious penalty was awarded to City in the first-half and after a retake and a miss, Raheem Sterling capitalised on the rebound to put Manchester City 1-0 up.
Understandably, there were a number of angry supporters in the stands, but the decision to award a penalty was correct according to former Premier League referee Dermot Gallagher.
What’s been said then?
Gallagher was talking after the match about the controversial penalty decision.
Watch Wolverhampton Wanderers Videos With StreamFootball.tv Below
“When I first saw it, I thought he hadn’t pushed him over,” Gallagher said on Amazon Prime’s coverage of the game (27/12/19 9:30 PM)
“When I saw the replay he’d stood on his foot, and I listened to the guys in the studio who said that standing on the foot isn’t enough contact and isn’t a foul, but earlier in the season we had this issue with David Silva and Lerma with Bournemouth, and the VAR backed the referee.
“The accusation in the first eight weeks was that the VAR always sides with the referee, so they then came out and said that if someone stands on the foot like that it will be given.”
Roberto Martinez then asked how many times during his refereeing career Gallagher had seen a similar situation and not given a penalty.
“A couple of times honestly, but now the precedent was set between Silva and Lerma, and when that came out the PGMOL (Professional Game Match Officials Limited) said ‘this is going to be a penalty’, and that’s why I say that it doesn’t matter whether or not it’s Martin Atkinson or David Coote as the ref or the VAR because one would have relayed to the other one that it’s a penalty,” Gallagher replied.
Is consistency always good?
It may ultimately be a consistent decision from VAR – PGMOL chief Mike Riley confirmed in September that David Silva should have won a penalty after Jefferson Lerma stood on his foot – but is consistency a good thing when the stance is arguably wrong in the first place and no common sense is applied?
Mahrez was barely touched by Leander Dendoncker and common sense suggests there was nowhere near enough contact to award a penalty, yet the decision was still given based on precedents set.
And in many ways, this highlights the big problem with VAR. Marginal decisions that once required the expertise of experienced referees to make judgement calls are now being put under a microscope instead and treated as cases of black or white.
The Mahrez incident was very much grey – contact was made, but not enough to warrant a spot kick.
Martin Atkinson was subjected to boos and jeers after his penalty call, but in the end, he was only doing his job and following the clear instructions that he’d been given after the Silva and Lerma incident back in August.
Meanwhile, Wolves fans have been discussing one man’s potential departure.