Howard Webb believes it was ultimately wrong for Myles Lewis-Skelly to be sent off against Wolves – but has defended the officials’ decision regardless. 

Lewis-Skelly was handed a straight red card in the first half of Arsenal’s 1-0 win over Wolves in January by referee Michael Oliver, a decision which was upheld by VAR Darren England. 

Mikel Arteta said he was ‘absolutely fuming’ with the decision and pundits reacted with shock, with Micah Richards branding it ‘the worst decision I’ve ever seen in Premier League football history’. It was overturned after an appeal. 

In Tuesday’s episode of Match Official’s Mic’d Up on Sky Sports, the audio from the incident involving Oliver as well as the VAR officials is released. 

And while Webb thinks it was wrong for Lewis-Skelly to be sent off, he insists it was not a ‘horrendous’ decision. 

Howard Webb has given his view on Myles Lewis-Skelly’s controversial red card in January

Former referee Webb said it was the wrong decision but still defended the officials

He said it was an ‘understandable’ decision for referee Michael Oliver to make at the time

‘From the outset, we would prefer a yellow card in this situation,’ said Webb, who refereed the World Cup and Champions League finals in 2010.

Clearly the referee on the day felt the actions of Myles Lewis-Skelly, he saw the player moving in towards an opponent without any ability or intention of playing the ball – with the intention of stopping the opponent. And the referee sees a raised foot make high contact and the opponent went down.

‘The referee felt it was serious foul play, the VAR checked the footage to see if the call was clearly and obviously wrong and he felt it wasn’t – seeing that the contact was quite high up on the leg.

‘But we know that for serious foul play, we need excessive force or brutality and what we see here is that high contact [just] glancing and coming off the leg quite quickly. 

‘So for that reason, everybody pretty much in the game has formed the same conclusion that this is falling short of serious foul play – because of that glancing contact. Because the studs don’t really go right into the leg, they glance in before coming down onto the foot. 

‘There are some considerations that might support a red card, but there are a whole host of others that say it is not quite there, so on balance we would rather this had been a yellow card,’ said Webb.

‘The VAR didn’t want to re-referee the situation, they were mindful of the referee’s call standing unless it is clearly and obviously wrong. They felt it wasn’t at that level on the day and decided to leave it as a red card on the field.

‘I’ve heard this described as a really horrendous officiating decision. It’s not! I understand why the referee saw this on the day as a serious foul-play action.

The Gunners surrounded referee Oliver after the 18-year-old (right) was sent off

Arsenal have admitted the charge of behaving in an ‘improper way’ and have been fined £65,000 for the incident

‘We have to be careful about slowing things down and freeze-framing things. We’ve talked about not doing that, it can distort reality. We have to look at it in full speed, it is glancing [studs] and does come off quite quickly.

‘But it’s an understandable on-field decision. Yes we feel the VAR should have been involved, but at the same time I can kind of understand why that didn’t happen in the moment.

‘We listen to the game, we feed back to the officials to try to ensure that we are in line with the expectations of the game and how we judge these things.’

Despite the red card being overturned, Arsenal were nevertheless fined £65,000 by the FA for their reaction. 

In his extraordinary incident report, Oliver wrote: ‘Following the 43rd minute dismissal, a number of Arsenal players surrounded myself to protest at the decision.’

Meanwhile, Arsenal argued: ‘The wrongful nature of the MLS (Lewis-Skelly) dismissal explains why the AFC players justifiably wanted to speak to the referee and for him to reconsider his decision

‘The players were understandably emotional following the Incident, which explains their actions. The AFC players were civil and not aggressive. They were not gesticulating or accusatory. They did not behave in a way which was offensive, violent, threatening, abusive, indecent, insulting or provocative.

‘The AFC players simply wanted the referee to reconsider the decision and to find out what the outcome would be after any VAR review.’

The decision was later overturned and police investigated threats and abuse aimed at Oliver

Other points included Gabriel being the ‘main representative’ and mostly having a hand behind his back, and that the decision could have impacted their season.

Arsenal did, however, admit the charge.

Police, meanwhile have been investigating threats and abuse aimed at referee Oliver, the PGMOL announced.

The statement read: ‘We are appalled by the threats and abuse directed at Michael Oliver following the Wolverhampton Wanderers vs Arsenal fixture.

‘No official should be subject to any form of abuse, let alone the abhorrent attacks aimed at Michael and his family over the past 24 hours.

‘The police are aware, and a number of investigations have commenced. We are supporting Michael, and all those affected, and are determined to tackle this unacceptable behaviour.’