However, the controversy didn’t end there. Wolves fans were left furious when it was revealed that the decision was overturned after VAR intervention. The goal was eventually allowed to stand, with many believing that the initial decision to disallow the goal was correct.

In light of this, Howard Webb, the Chief Referee of the PGMOL, was asked to weigh in on the situation. His comments, however, have only added fuel to the fire for Wolves supporters. Webb explained that the original disallowance was a “human error” and that VAR had correctly stepped in to rectify it, acknowledging that there were concerns about the interference from Silva.

This admission has not gone down well with Wolves fans, who feel that the outcome of the match was unfairly influenced by the VAR review. The frustration stems from the fact that the decision appeared to go in favor of Manchester City, with many questioning the consistency of VAR’s application in similar situations.

For Wolves, the loss at Molineux was particularly painful as it left them still struggling at the wrong end of the Premier League table, and the timing of such controversial decisions has only added to the growing sense of injustice among the fans.

In the aftermath of the controversial incident, Howard Webb, the PGMOL chief, provided clarity on why the goal was ultimately awarded despite initial disallowance. Webb explained that the key issue was whether Bernardo Silva’s position was considered “interfering with play.”

Silva was indeed standing in front of Wolves’ goalkeeper Jose Sa as Foden prepared to take the corner. As the ball came in, Silva moved away, allowing Stones to head it into the net. Wolves’ argument hinged on the belief that Silva remained in an offside position and still interfered with play as Stones made contact with the ball.

However, Webb clarified that Silva’s movement away from the ball was considered enough to nullify any interference. He stated that Silva was not actively blocking Sa’s view or distracting the goalkeeper when Stones made the header, thus the goal was allowed to stand.

Webb defended the VAR intervention, confirming that the decision followed proper protocol and was in line with the laws of the game. Despite the explanation, many Wolves fans are still upset, feeling that the decision was a costly error in a tightly contested match.

During the monthly Match Officials Mic’d Up show, Howard Webb discussed several controversial incidents in the Premier League, including the disallowed goal involving Wolves and Manchester City. Webb provided insight into the decision-making process behind some of the league’s most debated moments, offering a behind-the-scenes look at how referees and VAR officials interpret key events.

He explained that the goal in the Wolves vs. Manchester City match was disallowed in real-time due to concerns over Bernardo Silva’s position and whether he was actively interfering with play. However, after reviewing the situation with the use of VAR, it was determined that Silva’s movement away from the ball cleared him of being involved in the play at the critical moment Stones scored. Webb clarified that although Silva was in an offside position initially, his action of stepping away meant that he did not impede the goalkeeper or play an active role in the goal being scored.

The Match Officials Mic’d Up show provided a platform for Webb to shed light on the reasoning behind such decisions, offering viewers a better understanding of the complexities involved in officiating high-level football. Despite the clarification, Webb’s comments are unlikely to fully ease the frustration felt by Wolves supporters.

Webb went on to say: “We assessed that at no point did Bernardo Silva interfere with play in a way that would make the goal disallowed. The key factor here is that, while Silva was in an offside position, his movement away from the ball did not impact the goalkeeper’s ability to play his role in defending the goal. The laws allow for a player in an offside position to not be penalized if they are not actively involved in the play.”

While Webb’s explanation follows the rules as they are written, it is likely to leave some Wolves fans feeling frustrated. The notion that Silva’s positioning wasn’t a clear interference might be seen as a contentious interpretation, particularly with how closely his movement appeared to affect Sa’s ability to react to the ball. Despite Webb’s clarification, the decision will remain a topic of debate among supporters, especially as it occurred in the dying moments of a match that Wolves were hoping to at least salvage a point from.

Webb continued: “In the case of Silva, he didn’t have that same impact on Sa’s line of sight, and that’s why the goal was allowed. If Silva had stayed in front of the goalkeeper and obstructed his view, similar to what we saw in the Wolves-West Ham game last season with Fabianski, then it would have been a different situation, and the goal would likely have been disallowed.”

This explanation draws a distinction between the two incidents, emphasizing that while Silva was in an offside position, he did not do enough to impact Sa’s ability to defend the goal. It further underscores that the rules focus not just on the position of players but on whether their actions actively interfere with the goalkeeper’s ability to make a save. While Webb’s reasoning aligns with the laws of the game, it’s still likely to stir mixed reactions, especially among Wolves supporters who felt aggrieved by the disallowed goal in their previous encounter with West Ham.

Wolves fans’ frustration stems from what they perceive as a lack of consistency in officiating, especially given the comparison Webb made to the disallowed goal last season. While the decision to award John Stones’ goal against Wolves may have been technically correct under the current interpretation of the offside law, the reference to Max Kilman’s disallowed goal against West Ham — where Tawanda Chirewa was judged to be interfering with Fabianski’s line of sight despite being in a similar offside position — adds fuel to the fire.

Fans will argue that if Chirewa was penalized for being in an offside position and blocking the goalkeeper’s sight, then Silva should have been judged similarly when he was in front of Jose Sa, even if he moved away at the last moment. This inconsistency in application of the law creates confusion and frustration for supporters, as they feel decisions are being made with differing standards, undermining the fairness and predictability of officiating.

The inconsistency in officiating, particularly when comparing the disallowed goal for Max Kilman last season to the awarded goal for John Stones, has left many Wolves fans frustrated. In the case of Kilman’s ruled-out goal, Tawanda Chirewa was deemed offside for being in Fabianski’s eye line. However, as you pointed out, Fabianski made no attempt to save the header, and there was no real interference with his ability to react, as the ball was in the net almost immediately.

In contrast, Bernardo Silva’s position in front of Jose Sa was initially questioned, but Silva moved just before Stones made contact with the ball. Despite his positioning, there was no interference with Sa’s ability to make a save, as Silva wasn’t actively challenging the goalkeeper or blocking his line of sight when it mattered.

The crux of the issue for Wolves fans is the perceived lack of consistency in how these situations are judged. While many were able to admit that Silva’s actions were clever and technically within the rules, the fact that Kilman’s goal was ruled out for a similar scenario against West Ham, where the goalkeeper didn’t even have time to react, only amplifies the sense that these decisions are made without a clear or consistent application of the rules. This has led to widespread dissatisfaction among fans, as they feel that different standards are being applied to similar situations.