MusaFrank Lampard has launched a furious assessment of the officiating following Coventry City’s controversial 3-1 defeat to Everton, insisting that VAR failed to do its job after three major decisions went against his team.
The Sky Blues manager was left frustrated after two separate penalty appeals and a potential handball involving Everton striker Thierno Barry were reviewed by the Video Assistant Referee without any of the decisions being overturned.
Referee Stuart Attwell initially rejected both penalty appeals during the contest, while VAR officials Timothy Wood and Gary Beswick subsequently reviewed the incidents but decided there was insufficient justification to intervene.
Coventry had taken the lead through Yann Gboho after a difficult opening period, but Barry’s quickfire brace turned the game around before Kiernan Dewsbury-Hall added Everton’s third goal.
Although Lampard acknowledged that his team had produced some encouraging football, he was particularly unhappy with the influence of the controversial decisions on the final outcome.
Speaking to Sky Sports after the match, the former Chelsea and Everton midfielder made his frustration clear.
“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.”
With the controversy attracting considerable attention, here is a breakdown of the three major incidents that left Coventry questioning the officiating.
1. James Tarkowski Escapes Punishment After Apparent Hair Pull On Caleb Yirenkyi
One of the biggest talking points emerged towards the end of the first half when Everton defender James Tarkowski challenged for a high ball inside his own penalty area.
During the aerial contest, the centre-back appeared to catch Coventry defender Ethan Pinnock with his elbow before seemingly grabbing and pulling Caleb Yirenkyi’s hair.
Coventry players immediately appealed for a penalty, believing Tarkowski had committed an offence that prevented their teammate from properly competing for the ball.
VAR examined the incident, particularly the contact involving Tarkowski’s elbow, but referee Stuart Attwell was not advised to award a penalty or issue a disciplinary sanction.
The decision quickly generated debate because of the Premier League’s updated guidance on hair-pulling incidents.
Under the guidance, a red card can be issued when a player deliberately pulls an opponent’s hair with excessive force or brutality. A yellow card may be appropriate when the action does not meet that threshold.
The guidance also places greater emphasis on penalising holding actions that significantly interfere with an opponent’s ability to compete for the ball.
Lampard: I Thought The Rules Were Clear
Lampard was particularly unhappy with the decision, arguing that Tarkowski’s actions prevented Yirenkyi from gaining the necessary momentum to challenge for the ball.
The Coventry manager acknowledged the distinction between a red-card offence and a foul worthy of a penalty but questioned why the referee did not award a spot-kick.
He explained:
“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 pundit Jamie Redknapp also disagreed with the decision, believing Tarkowski had committed a clear foul.
Redknapp explained that although the incident might not have justified a red card, the defender’s actions prevented Yirenkyi from jumping properly.
He said:
“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 also highlighted the incident during Sky Sports’ commentary, arguing that Tarkowski appeared to use Yirenkyi’s hair to influence the aerial challenge.
He questioned whether VAR had properly considered the hair-pulling aspect of the incident.
2. Vitalii Mykolenko’s Challenge On Taiwo Awoniyi Sparks Another Penalty Controversy
Coventry’s frustration increased shortly after the restart when Taiwo Awoniyi drove towards Everton’s penalty area with Vitalii Mykolenko chasing behind him.
As the striker attempted to advance into the box, the Everton defender made contact with him from behind, causing Awoniyi to lose his balance and go to ground.
The Coventry players immediately appealed for a penalty, but referee Stuart Attwell allowed play to continue.
VAR subsequently reviewed the challenge and determined that the contact had occurred outside the penalty area, meaning no spot-kick was awarded.
However, Lampard strongly disagreed with that assessment, insisting that Awoniyi’s position and the location of the contact should have resulted in a penalty.
Lampard: I Can’t Believe It’s Not Given
Speaking after the match, the Coventry manager questioned how the officials reached their conclusion.
He said:
“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.”
Redknapp was equally critical of the decision, describing the VAR assessment as a poor piece of officiating.
The former Liverpool midfielder believed Mykolenko’s challenge occurred on the penalty-area line, which would mean a penalty should have been awarded.
He said:
“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.”
Redknapp also argued that the officials should have taken more time to examine the available footage before reaching their conclusion.
He suggested that allowing Attwell to review the incident on the pitchside monitor could have produced a different outcome.
Former Coventry striker Callum Wilson also agreed that the two penalty appeals could have made a significant difference to the result.
3. Thierno Barry’s Controversial Second Goal Raises Handball Questions
The third major controversy came when Thierno Barry scored Everton’s second goal to put the hosts ahead.
The French striker reacted quickly to Tyrique George’s delivery, bundling the ball towards the goal during a crowded situation inside Coventry’s penalty area.
However, the manner in which the ball reached the net immediately attracted attention, with television replays appearing to suggest that it may have made contact with Barry’s hand before crossing the line.
Coventry players protested, believing the goal should have been disallowed for handball.
VAR reviewed the incident but ultimately decided that there was insufficient evidence to overturn Attwell’s original decision.
During Friday Night Football, the Premier League Match Centre also revealed the communication between the officials.
VAR official Timothy Wood was heard saying:
“Okay, that’s his side, that’s definitely not hand. Confirming on-field decision of goal.”
Despite the explanation, Hendrie maintained that he believed Barry had handled the ball and that the goal should not have stood.
Lampard also shared that opinion, insisting that the striker’s final contact appeared to involve his hand.
Speaking to Sky Sports, he said:
“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.”
Barry, meanwhile, was not interested in getting involved in the controversy when questioned after the final whistle.
The Everton forward simply responded:
“A goal is a 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.”
Redknapp offered a more measured assessment, admitting that although he believed the ball brushed Barry’s hand, he understood why VAR did not intervene.
He explained:
“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.”
Redknapp further suggested that the incident highlighted the difficulties VAR officials face when trying to establish whether a goal should be overturned.
He added that the contact appeared accidental and that the available footage did not provide sufficiently conclusive evidence to justify intervention.
Lampard Left With Major Questions After Coventry’s Defeat
Ultimately, Everton secured all three points, extending their impressive run of results and climbing to fifth place in the Premier League standings.
For Coventry, however, the defeat was accompanied by considerable frustration over three incidents that Lampard believes deserved closer attention from the match officials.
While VAR supported Attwell’s decisions in all three situations, the debate surrounding Tarkowski’s apparent hair pull, Mykolenko’s challenge on Awoniyi and Barry’s controversial goal is likely to continue.
Lampard’s central argument remains that VAR exists to help referees correct important mistakes and ensure that major decisions are properly assessed.
Whether supporters agree with his assessment or not, the three incidents have once again placed Premier League officiating under the spotlight.
Musa
