Ipswich boss McKenna expresses frustration over Everton goals and VAR decisions

"Afterward, McKenna expressed his disappointment, saying, "It was a tough day for us. I believe that the fine margins in the first half made a difference between a strong performance and being in a favorable position at halftime, especially with missed opportunities."

“Of course, the goals they scored, which from our point of view are poor goals and, of course, the penalty decision, which I find really hard to understand.

“The margins were very small between how we were going in at half-time. They didn’t go our way and we go in at half-time 2-0 down.

“And in the second half we weren’t able to produce a response that was good enough against a strong, experienced Premier League side, and we weren’t able to get ourselves back in the game.”

On Clarke's denied penalty, he continued: “My view of it was exactly as I saw it at the time and I find it inexplicable how it can be overruled, it’s inexplicable how you could debate the penalty.

“At the time, it looked like a penalty, it felt like a penalty. Of course, I’m seeing that through an Ipswich lens, but Jack dribbles a couple of players into the box, he’s about to shoot, there’s every chance it’s a goal, and Dwight McNeil lunges across the line of the ball right when he’s on his back-swing.

“Of course, you can say then that Jack’s foot is what strikes Dwight McNeil, but Dwight McNeil lunges across the line of the ball in the penalty area, which I don’t think you can do as a defender. He hasn’t touched the ball, he probably hasn’t even made an attempt to play the ball, he’s stopped Jack taking his shot.

“I think it’s a penalty, I understand how it’s one you could possibly debate but what I can’t understand is how all the directives we’ve had and everything that I’ve experienced so far are that unless it’s a clear an obvious error, then it won’t be reviewed, the referee’s decision on field will stand for a good reason because the referee has the best view and the referee can also feel the action at full speed.

“I think it’s a really poor decision for that to be identified as a clear and obvious error. I spoke to Michael downstairs on it, we had a respectful conversation.

“To be honest, he saw it as I saw it, it’s a debatable action. We both agreed that Dwight O’Neil stepped across the line of the ball as Jack Clarke’s about to shoot and he agreed that I’ll think it’s a penalty and (Everton manager) Sean (Dyche) probably won’t think it’s a penalty, but it’s at least a debatable decision, so it doesn’t fall in the category of a clear and obvious (error and) so I don’t understand why it’s been (overruled).

“I think it’s disappointing and I think everyone who knows me knows I very rarely speak about referees, I don’t want to spend much of the season talking about VAR. It’s one thing I am conscious of at the club because I don’t do it, it can’t stand against the club, as against other clubs and other teams who do speak about it a lot.

“That’s the only thing I’m conscious of at the moment but I think we had a really poor one go against us today.”

McKenna continued: “I spoke to Michael about it downstairs and his reflection was that it’s very difficult when you’re hearing in your ear, ‘OK, this is what we’re seeing, Jack Clarke has struck the back of Dwight (McNeil’s leg)’, he said when that’s being fed into your ear, it’s very difficult to go against that, but he still agreed it was a debatable decision.

“So in that instance, for me, again it’s not something I’ve too much interest in talking about apart from protecting the club, but I think it’s one where he shouldn’t be putting that decision by the VAR.

“I think he felt the right decision in the game from a good position at full speed and there’s nothing that I’ve seen, and I’ve watched a lot of replays and a lot of angles, that you could tell me that it’s clear that it was the wrong decision.”