Ex-PGMOL Chief: VAR Made Clear Error as Dominic Solanke Footage vs Man City Re-Analysed

In a heated re-analysis of Tottenham Hotspur's dramatic 2-2 draw with Manchester City, former PGMOL chief referee Keith Hackett has slammed VAR officials for a "clear error" in allowing Dominic Solanke's controversial first goal to stand. The incident, which ignited fierce debate, saw Solanke appear to kick through City defender Marc Guehi before bundling the ball past goalkeeper Gianluigi Donnarumma in the 53rd minute.[1][3][4][7]

Manchester City had taken a commanding 2-0 halftime lead at Tottenham Hotspur Stadium, thanks to Rayan Cherki's early strike and Antoine Semenyo's finish, leaving Spurs fans booing their team off the pitch. But the momentum shifted dramatically post-interval. Conor Gallagher's low cross from the right deflected off Guehi—initially ruled an own-goal—before VAR reviewed for offside and foul, ultimately awarding it to Solanke after deeming he touched the ball first. Referee Robert Jones upheld the decision, booking a furious Pep Guardiola in the process.[1][3][6][7]

Guardiola vented post-match: "If a central defender does that to a striker, it’s a penalty." He claimed the call created an "emotional issue," causing City to lose momentum as Spurs surged. Solanke then sealed his heroics with a sensational scorpion kick back-heel in the 73rd minute off another Gallagher cross, leveling the score and erupting the stadium. Late City pressure from Tijjani Reijnders, Guehi, and Erling Haaland was repelled by Spurs sub Sarr, securing a vital point that left City six points behind leaders Arsenal.[1][2][3][4][5]

Hackett's forensic breakdown of fresh footage insists VAR missed a blatant foul, arguing Solanke's challenge warranted disallowance. "Where was VAR?" he raged, echoing widespread City frustration. Guardiola dismissed further debate with a curt "once again," hinting at recurring officiating woes. The draw dents City's title hopes, boosting rivals Arsenal amid a thriller that showcased Solanke's magic.[2][4][5]

(Word count: 298)