Published 20th Oct 2024, 18:31 BST

Watch more of our videos on ShotsTV.com and on Freeview 262 or Freely 565

Wolves boss Gary O'Neil used an interesting analogy to rationalise his side's poor luck with VAR after the officials took centre stage in the late 2-1 defeat to Manchester City.

John Stones' 95th-minute winner completed a dramatic comeback for Pep Guardiola's side at Molineux on Sunday afternoon, but the goal wouldn't have stood if it wasn't for VAR intervention.

Referee Chris Kavanagh originally disallowed Stones' header as he believed Bernardo Silva was positioned offside in Wolves goalkeeper Jose Sa's line of vision. But Kavanagh was then advised by VAR to take a second look, and, upon further inspection at the pitchside monitor, he decided to overturn his on-field decision.

Molineux erupted in fury in the aftermath as the hosts believed they had been robbed of an important point - and one that would've doubled their small tally at the foot of the Premier League standings.

O'Neil, who has spoken very honestly about his VAR frustrations in the past, remained calm in the post-match press conference. He did point out, though, that Max Kilman saw a very similar goal disallowed for Wolves against West Ham United last season.

"I think there will be some small details in there. You can make an argument either way if you really want to," O'Neil said in the post-match press conference.

"What sprung to me really quickly was the West Ham game last year where we sent clear evidence to the referees that Tawanda [Chirewa] wasn't in line of vision of the West Ham goalkeeper, who himself confirmed he could see the ball.

"The reason we were told it was still disallowed was be because he was in close proximity to the goalkeeper. So, Bernardo Silva of course doesn't end up in Jose Sa's line of vision but he can't get much closer than he was, their feet were probably a yard apart.

"I hoped in that moment when they were on the way to the screen that the same reasoning would mean that this goal was disallowed. But the referee decided there was enough difference and we have to respect that. I tried to keep ourselves calm and away from the officials because it felt like a tough blow.

"I didn't have too much confidence that it would fall our way because of what we've suffered with VAR and refereeing decisions. I didn't have too much faith that we'd get the rub of the green with that one. We just have to stay calm."

Late capitulations have been a theme early on this season for Wolves but this game felt different as O'Neil's men defended with confidence and kept focused throughout. Wanderers were quite simply 30 seconds away from a valuable point. Robbed or not, that Stones goal rubs salt in Wolves' already vulnerable wounds.

"I think it's hard to be involved with Wolves at the minute - whether it's as a supporter, as a player or as a head coach - and not feel hard done by by the amount that's gone against us.

"There's no chance that people are purposely against Wolves. If we ever get to a place there, then the whole game's in a bad place, so it's not on purpose, let's make that clear. But is there something in the subconscious around decision-making?

"Without even knowing it, are you more likely to give it to Manchester City than Wolves? My focus and senses are heightened when we're facing Man City. Are the officials the same? When it's Man City, is there something in there that influences decision-making?

"I've spoken to them about this and they obviously guarantee it isn't. But they are human and Man City scoring a last-minute winner is a big thing. It's a bigger thing than Wolves scoring a late goal against West Ham. So maybe, maybe, there's something subconsciously that makes you less likely to get them."

"I can categorically tell you that they don't mean to," O'Neil clarified when asked to expand on his point. "They're doing the job the best they can, but I just know from a human point of view that it's tough. I feel different playing Man City than I do someone else, it's a different feeling. I'm sure they feel the same, they're human.

"I don't know, I might be miles off, but it feels there could be. If I had to upset someone in the street and there was a big guy and a little guy, I'm upsetting the little guy! You know what I mean? There's something in there, maybe that edges it in that direction when it's that tight," O'Neil added.