FA contacts O'Neil after comments about officials

Wolves felt Bernardo Silva was interfering with play when John Stones scored

Wolves boss Gary O'Neil has been contacted by the Football Association after he suggested referees could have a problem with unconscious bias towards bigger clubs.

The FA has asked O'Neil for his observations following his post-match comments after Wolves' last-gasp 2-1 defeat by Manchester City.

John Stones' injury-time header was eventually awarded following a pitchside review by referee Chris Kavanagh after it had initially been disallowed for offside, with Bernardo Silva standing in front of goalkeeper Jose Sa.

O'Neil remained calm in his post-match comments and reiterated he does not believe there is any knowing bias, but will now have to explain his remarks to the FA which will decide whether to take any further action.

O'Neil said on Sunday: "There's no chance people are purposely against Wolves, let's be clear. But is there something in the subconscious around the decision making - without even knowing it are you more likely to give it to Man City than Wolves?

"My senses are heightened when we are facing Man City, are the officials the same? When it's [Erling] Haaland and Man City is there something in there that, not on purpose, influences decision making?

"They guarantee me there isn't. But they are human and Man City scoring a last-minute winner is a big thing, a bigger thing than Wolves scoring a last-minute goal against West Ham.

"If I had to upset someone in the street and there's a big and little guy in the street, I'm upsetting the little guy."

Replays showed Silva ducking and not in Sa's line of sight when Stones headed the ball, 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, formerly Twitter.

"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."

O'Neil was unhappy with City's winner - which left his side bottom of the Premier League - as he felt it was similar to Max Kilman's disallowed header in Wolves' 2-1 defeat by West Ham last season.

Tawanda Chirewa was deemed to have impeded Hammers keeper Lukasz Fabianski and the late equaliser was ruled out.

"We sent clear evidence to the referees Tawanda was not in the line of vision of the West Ham goalkeeper," O'Neil added.

"The reason we were told it was still disallowed because he was in close proximity to the goalkeeper. Bernardo Silva didn't end up in Jose’s line of vision but he can't get much closer.

"I hoped in that moment when they were making the decision the same reasoning our West Ham goal was disallowed would mean this one was."

'FA contact is nonsensical'

Speaking on BBC Radio 5 Live's Monday Night Club, Rory Smith of the New York Times said there has "always been" unconscious bias in refereeing and that the FA was wrong to contact O'Neil over his comments.

"The video assistant referees probably do feel it as well [as on-field referees]," said Smith.

"It's not just the influence of the manager screaming at you or the crowd baying at you - it's an awareness of the fallout that can come from giving a decision against a bigger team.

"I think referees have always had that unconscious bias. It doesn't just apply to City - it applies to any team at any point in history.

"The people in the VAR room - just like the referee on the field - know full well that if you give a decision against one of the major teams, the fallout is greater than if you give a decision against one of the 'smaller teams'."

Smith added that this made referees "human" and that the FA's decision to contact O'Neil was therefore "nonsensical".