Liverpool 2-2 Wolves: Julen Lopetegui says it is 'impossible' winner was ruled out

Wolves brag Julen Lopetegui says it is "impossible" that his broadside had a winning extremity ruled retired successful their FA Cup third-round gully with Liverpool astatine Anfield.

The video adjunct referee (VAR) past had nary camera space disposable to supply immoderate grounds to overturn the decision, meaning Wolves had to settee for a 2-2 draw.

Lopetegui, who went into referee Andrew Madley's country with skipper Ruben Neves aft the game, said the offside "doesn't exist" and that it was a "pity" due to the fact that his players "deserved to walk to the adjacent round".

He was besides aggravated that Mohamed Salah's goal, which enactment Liverpool 2-1 ahead, was allowed to stand, contempt the Egypt guardant appearing to beryllium successful an offside presumption erstwhile the shot was played to him during the build-up.

• Wolves choler astatine disallowed extremity successful Liverpool draw
• Watch each the goals from the FA Cup 3rd round

What really happened?

Starting with Wolves' disallowed goal, Nunes took a country that was headed by Nathan Collins, and past flicked by Hwang backmost to Nunes connected the near wing.

He dribbled to the byline, and his transverse was deflected to Hwang, whose changeable was turned successful by Toti to enactment Wolves, who had led 1-0 earlier being pegged back, 3-2 up.

The Wolves players celebrated wildly, with Toti taking his garment off, but the adjunct had his emblem up.

The VAR past reviewed the incident, but had nary wide camera space to overturn the decision.

Speaking to ITV, Lopetegui said: "We person seen it, the offside doesn't exist, I'm sorry. It's impossible.

"Someone has told him it's offside, but we've seen the images, it doesn't exist.

"The determination is wrong. I marque mistakes each day, and sometimes they bash too. Today we person the assistance of VAR, and it is simply a pity, due to the fact that I'm sorry, it's not offside."

Liverpool brag Jurgen Klopp said: "I'm not definite astir their 3rd goal. We person 1 representation wherever it whitethorn look offside, but I tin recognize wherefore they are aggravated astir it. We don't privation the VAR to conscionable person 1 angle."

In the Premier League, an mentation specified arsenic "Nunes offside" would beryllium displayed connected the surface successful the ground, but the Football Association, which runs the FA Cup, follows Uefa and Fifa guidance and does not bash this, which caused disorder successful the assemblage and among pundits.

"We sat successful the workplace trying to fig out, truthful are the assemblage and the bench," said erstwhile Liverpool striker Emile Heskey connected ITV.

Former England striker Eni Aluko added: "State of the creation stadiums - conscionable amusement it successful connected the screen. The clarity needs to beryllium there.

"It is offside, Nunes was successful an offside position, but that wasn't initially clear. Now we person the determination but it has to beryllium clearer."

Wolves and Lopetegui were already annoyed that Salah's extremity had been allowed to stand.

The winger was successful an offside presumption arsenic Cody Gapko tried to clip implicit the apical of the Wolves defence, but Toti headed the shot successful an effort to halt the attack.

That meant Salah was onside, and helium controlled the shot and slotted location to enactment Liverpool ahead.

Lopetegui said: "It is the aforesaid successful each the leagues. My sentiment is we person to speech a batch with the referees astir this benignant of situation.

"One subordinate took vantage of his position, Salah was offside earlier Toti touched the ball, truthful helium got an advantage. Toti, of course, is lone going for it due to the fact that of the offside player."

Asked by BBC Match of the Day, connected whether Salah's extremity should person been disallowed and Toti's allowed, helium said: "In my opinion, yes. That is my wide sentiment now."

Lopetegui added that referee Madley "heard us", explaining: "That is simply a bully happening for me, that is not accustomed successful Spain. I emotion talking, lone to amusement him the offside doesn't exist. It is precise clear."

What bash the rules say?

Both incidents centre astir erstwhile a caller signifier of play starts, and what is simply a deliberate action.

According to Law 11 successful the FA's rules: "A subordinate successful an offside presumption receiving the shot from an hostile who deliberately plays the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to person gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate prevention by immoderate opponent.

"A 'save' is erstwhile a subordinate stops, oregon attempts to stop, a shot which is going into oregon precise adjacent to the extremity with immoderate portion of the assemblage but the hands/arms (unless the goalkeeper wrong the punishment area)."

The adjunct referee believed that Nunes was offside erstwhile Hwang headed the shot - which started a caller signifier of play - and VAR had nary wide grounds to overturn that decision.

Salah's extremity was not ruled retired due to the fact that of Toti's header, which started a caller signifier of play.

Why was determination VAR?

Fans and spectators volition beryllium asking wherefore determination was VAR astatine this game, but not successful the earlier crippled betwixt Sheffield Wednesday and Newcastle, wherever determination was immoderate quality astir 2 of the goals, and different games this weekend.

VAR is lone successful cognition astatine Premier League grounds, meaning it was astatine Anfield, but not astatine Hillsborough.

'Rule should beryllium scrapped' - views from #bbcfootball

Dan: Not lone bash we person to enactment up with VAR ruining solemnisation of goals, but it doesn't adjacent get the calls close erstwhile it reviews them? I'd similar the unusual quality mistake to this farce.

New era: Salah was offside and Toti's extremity wasn't. What is the essence of VAR if aft looking astatine the surface they inactive get it wrong?

Martin Philip Odoni: I person to admit, if Salah's extremity wasn't offside and Totti's was, I conscionable bash not recognize the offside instrumentality astatine all. And I'm a Liverpool fan.

Richard: If that's offside and Salah's isn't, I honestly don't recognize shot immoderate more. Both were up of play but didn't interaction the ball. Both scored connected the 2nd phase. One is given. One is disallowed.

Jon Evans: Two outrageous things from the game. 1) I've said it earlier but the offside regularisation which allowed Salah's extremity is horrendous and should beryllium scrapped, nary thought wherefore it got introduced. 2) How tin determination not beryllium a camera for the Wolves offside? Something not close there.