Gary O’Neil’s Psychological Masterstroke with Unconscious Bias Remarks

In the past, O’Neil has tried the infuriated and aghast approach. Shrouded in anger and frustration, he has directly called out abhorrent refereeing decisions that have gone against us. It had little effect, other than resulting in charges and a reputation for getting under the officials’ skin. It may have felt cathartic at the time, but frankly, it was a futile exercise.

After the match against Manchester City, Matt Hobbs strangely took it upon himself to trudge along that same well-trodden path. He made his way to the tunnel to directly confront Chris Kavanagh, blocking his path and telling him in no uncertain terms, “You f***ing couldn’t wait to give that.” Hobbs was then reportedly restrained by a steward.

The result? A two-game ban and a £7,000 fine. Further resentment and bad blood between Wolves and the PGMOL followed.

On reflection, Hobbs’ outburst doesn’t even make sense. Kavanagh, the on-field referee, had originally ruled the goal out for offside. It was the intervention of the Video Assistant Referee that led to him overturning the decision (something that invariably happens when referees are told to go to the monitor).

Meanwhile, O’Neil opted for a very different approach—rooted in wiliness rather than anger.

O’Neil has got quite a bit wrong in press conferences of late. His comments often seem ill-thought-out, reactive, defensive, and full of contradictions.

This was my initial feeling when he came out after the Manchester City match and began spewing whimsical complaints about an apparent unconscious bias. It felt like straws were being well and truly clutched at by a man under immense pressure. Especially when, earlier in the same interview, O’Neil had claimed he had no issue with the goal being given—just as he believed Kilman’s disallowed goal against West Ham last year ought to have stood.

At the time, this led me to believe his comments on the PGMOL holding an “unconscious bias” were yet another misplaced and desperate excuse. But, credit where it’s due—in retrospect, I think it was a clever and calculated move.

O’Neil, up to now, has not been fined or even charged for his comments. Delivered in a calm, conversational manner, he proposed:

“There’s no chance people are purposely against Wolves, let’s be clear. But is there something in the subconscious around the decision-making—without even knowing it, are you more likely to give it to Man City than Wolves?”

Instead, he was merely asked to comment or offer his “observations” on his own remarks.

His words were calculated and considered, ensuring he stayed on the right side of the law, so to speak, all while still putting a clear point across.

The effect has been noticeable in the games since.

O’Neil planted a seed—a seed that has begun to show signs of life inasmuch as it has led officials to think twice before making decisions against Wolves, when perhaps they wouldn’t have previously. They now act with caution and consideration. Ultimately, I think he tapped into something—and it’s worked in our favour.

In the games that have followed, Wolves have had decisions go in their favour that I am convinced would not have had Gary not got into the heads of the PGMOL. Such incidents include (but are not limited to):

•Manning’s equalising goal for Southampton being disallowed for a foul on Semedo in the build-up.

•Mateta’s last-minute winner for Crystal Palace being disallowed for a foul on Sa, who was adjudged to have been in control of the ball.

•Cunha’s goal given against Southampton despite complaints about not one but two potential fouls in the build-up.*

*Ironically, Aaron Ramsdale ran half the length of the pitch to remonstrate with the referee about this. He now faces a spell on the sidelines with an injured finger. I’m convinced it was all that strenuous pointing he was doing.

Whether these were merely just the correct calls or not is irrelevant. I’m convinced they’d have gone against us in the past, purely because they were all somewhat subjective. Wolves had become the fall guys, always on the wrong side of subjectivity. Whether that was the result of rubbing officials up the wrong way (19-1 anyone?) or for some other reason (nobody knows what’s said behind closed doors, after all), it had become a narrative—a self-fulfilling prophecy.

But, for once, we have seen some guile and composure demonstrated by at least one member of the Wolves hierarchy. An attempt to change the tide. To try a different tack. And it has had more effect than any other approach we’ve seen in the past.

The only stain on a job well done by O’Neil was the conduct of Matt Hobbs, who was clearly not on the same page as his manager and ultimately had no business doing what he did. The bluntness won’t work. It takes a little bit of craft and manipulation to get what you want in this life—even if that is just a fair and level playing field, which one would think should be taken for granted at elite-level sport.

So, kudos to O’Neil, who I think showed maturity and composure. Hobbs, on the other hand, let himself, the club, and his manager down on this occasion. The upturn in decisions we’ve seen since has been a direct consequence of O’Neil’s well-judged words. Hobbs’ tirade did little but potentially damage their effectiveness.