Three VAR reviews went against Coventry in their defeat to Everton; James Tarkowski’s hair pull on Caleb Yirenkyi was not penalised; Vitalii Mykolenko’s clip on Taiwo Awoniyi also not given as a penalty; there were handball calls for Thierno Barry’s second goal Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player Coventry boss Frank Lampard says VAR ‘didn’t do its job’ in his side’s defeat to Everton as three reviews controversially went against his side. Two penalty appeals and a possible handball for Everton’s second goal were all t Attwell. Coventry opened the scoring after the two penalty appeals, but were ultimately beaten 3-1 on Merseyside on Friday Night Football. Lampard told Sky Sports: “I hate to sound like a moaner. It’s a football match and if you win the game, that can happen here. I’ve worked here and know the momentum swings in the game. “I’m not trying to talk about the circumstances of the actual football, but when big decisions change games, they absolutely do. It’s disappointing. VAR is there for that and it didn’t do its job.” Here, we breaks down each incident and what the pundits, managers and players had to say… Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player Towards the end of the first half, James Tarkowski rose to defend a high ball into the box. As he did, he caught Ethan Pinnock with an elbow, before also appearing to pull the hair of Caleb Yirenkyi. VAR did look at the incident, especially the elbow, but nothing was given in terms of a card or a penalty. There was no communication from the Premier League Match Centre on if the hair pull was reviewed, but there was new guidance from the Premier League this summer, which says: “A red card will be issued when there is a clear and deliberate action to pull an opponent’s hair with excessive force and/or brutality. Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player “A yellow card will be issued if the action is deemed to be without excessive force and/or brutality. “Referees will enhance recognition of clear holding actions that have a clear material impact, and/or non-footballing holding actions with no place on the football pitch. This includes penalising defenders where they are clearly only focused on opponents and making a holding action that is impactful on the attacker’s ability to play or challenge for the ball.” “The first-half decision on Tarkowski got checked. Seeing it back, he pulls on Caleb’s hair while competing with Ethan. “I thought the rules were clear. I know they’ve changed the rules so it’s no red card, I get that too. But he’s pulling on his hair and [Yirenkyi] can’t get his momentum to jump. I think it’s a foul and a penalty and they decided no.” Sky Sports’ Jamie Redknapp on Friday Night Football: “Yirenkyi goes up, Tarkowski gets hold of his hair. He yanks it down. Is it excessive force? Probably not, but he pulls his hair, stopping any elevation. It’s a definite penalty for me. “Yirenkyi knows he has his hair pulled. It’s unusual for Tarkowski to do. It’s not the best piece of defending that’s for sure… It’s a foul. It’s not a red card anymore but it’s definitely a foul.” Lee Hendrie on Sky Sports co-commentary: “There’s a clear pull… Tarkowski is in the heart of this. There’s an elbow, which isn’t a problem, but the hair pull will raise awareness. “You can clearly see he’s utilising the hair. It’s a tight one. VAR have completely not looked at it or felt the need to look at it.” Everton boss David Moyes to Sky Sports on whether he is bothered by Coventry’s calls:
“I’m bothered because we want it [the result] to be right, but we’ve had a few decisions recently where we don’t think have gone our way.
“There was one possibly at Newcastle but there was one at Man City last season in a league game which was hugely important for us regarding getting into Europe.
“Sometimes they go for you, sometimes they don’t. If they were going against me, I’d be complaining a bit more.” Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player At the start of the second half, Taiwo Awoniyi drove into the box with Vitalii Mykolenko behind him. There was some contact from behind which sent the striker down. Referee Stuart Attwell said no penalty, while the VAR review deemed the contact to be outside the box. “I thought the one on Taiwo running through – it’s a clear foul that the referee doesn’t give in-game. I can’t believe that because it’s clear. Maybe he waited for VAR because it was on the borderline. “But as I see it, Taiwo’s foot is entering the box and his knee and the back of his knee is on the line of the box, which is a penalty.” “It’s a definite penalty and it’s rubbish from the VAR. It’s a poor decision. It’s a definite foul, they rush it too quickly, and his foot’s on the line. “VAR said it was outside the box – but it’s on the line. If you’re in the line, you’re in the box. Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player “Awoniyi puts his right foot across and then Mykolenko just gets him. It’s on the line. It’s a definite foul and goes over. Mykolenko goes over as well. “Just take a breather, tell the referee to have a look at it and he will have come to a different conclusion.” Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player There was a question of handball before Barry’s second goal which gave Everton the lead. He bundled home from Tyrique George’s cross, with the ball bouncing wildly. VAR did check the goal, but there was no conclusive evidence of handball and the goal was allowed to stand. Friday Night Football later revealed what VAR had said about the incident. VAR official Wood said in his deliberations: “Okay, that’s his side, that’s definitely not hand. Confirming on-field decision of goal.” However, on Sky Sports co-commentary, Hendrie maintained he believed it was a handball and should have been ruled out. It was a sentiment that, unsurprisingly Lampard agreed with, telling Sky Sports: “Barry’s second goal comes off his hand… His last touch flicks it in the net. It was a really quick check as well. People may disagree, but it’s my opinion.” When asked about it, goalscorer Barry said: “A goal is goal! I scored two goals today… It’s the job of the striker to score. I’m in a good moment and I try to keep this feeling.” “We’ve looked at it forensically and I do think it touches his hand. But when you’re asking VAR to intervene and disallow the goal, it’s difficult. “I watched it for maybe five to 10 minutes and I’ve come to the conclusion that I think it was, but I understand why VAR didn’t give it because it’s not clear and obvious enough. “To me, it looks like it brushes his left hand, but we’ve been able to blow it up and look at it. A good game is a quick game and we don’t want VAR to intervene and take 10 minutes. “It’s not as conclusive as we’d like to see for them [VAR] to intervene… “It brushes his fingers. It’s accidental as well, does it mean to hit his hands? “It does divert it a little bit, but if we’re going to get to that point where we’re forensically looking at every single thing, it becomes hard.” Play Super 6 for a chance to win £1m! Enter for free.
