**A difficult first half but a deserved result and point in the end?**
RM: I think we had good moments in the first half but not enough. We were just a little bit passive really once we conceded the goal.
I understand that when we're in a position we're in. We made it a bit more difficult for ourselves. Didn't take the ball in duels and didn't smooth the game out.
It was just a bit tentative out of possession, not enough contact made. We showed a few clips at half-time and asked them for a bit more aggression.
We wanted more belief in what they're doing and they showed that. I'm really proud of them. It was a tough place to come at a team that's gone second.
We were so good I thought in the second half, really good. We scored two brilliant goals. One's been disallowed, but I thought it was toe-to-toe with them.
We were every bit as good as them in the second half for sure. I'm proud of the performance and hopefully, the players will take a lot of belief from that.
**VAR is going to be the talking point again - disappointing decision?**
RM: Yes, on Sunday we should have had a penalty for sure. This is my problem with VAR. I can really accept it from the guys on the pitch.
The referee and assistants, it's such a difficult job. I wouldn't do it. It's crazy. It's not difficult to understand why they would give it in the heat of the moment.
Cam maybe looks offside, Arma the same. So the point of VAR I thought was to take out the subjectivity a little bit and make it really clear.
They set the bar higher and all that this season for clear and obvious and the definition of it. So on Sunday, I was told it wasn't clear and obvious.
In my opinion, Arma nicks the ball past the goalkeeper and has big contact from the goalkeeper and can't then get the ball to the other side of him.
Regardless of what defenders are there, anywhere else on the pitch is a foul. That's my interpretation. But it's not clear and obvious enough.
Then tonight I go in and speak to the guys and like I said, I understand why they would maybe make that decision. I'm not angry with them. It's difficult.
They make the right call with the offside. Then it's about interpretation and how much he affects the keeper, which is why we've been told it's been disallowed.
Understanding [football](/sport/football/), it affects the goalkeeper if he can't come for the cross because of Arma's position or if Arma's run has made him move.
It's behind Adam and is too far away for the goalkeeper to come for the cross unless he's Superman, which he's not. He's tall but he ain't that. He can't fly.
Does he move because of Adam Armstrong's position? No, he doesn't. He actually takes a step away to Cam Archer because he recognises that's the threat.
If we are disallowing the goal because the goalkeeper is impeded by Adam Armstrong or affected, then is it an error because he hasn't moved.
He can't get across and it goes behind Adam. That's my frustration. We spend four or five minutes waiting in the stadium when it's cold and tensions are high.
Then that gets given because the on-pitch decision carries weight. I'm sure in the match report because it is interpretation it will get given as a correct decision.
I went to a manager meeting in the summer and the Premier League and I was told there was only one wrong decision (last season).
If we want the process to get better, let's really understand the decisions we're making and why and let's be really honest about it.
In my opinion, and other people might feel differently, I'm sure Brighton fans do, but if it's given because it affects the goalkeeper, it doesn't.
So that's a bad decision. It's like a logical process to try and understand, but because it's not clear and obvious enough it's wrong and it's interpretation.
They're looking at Cam Archer for four minutes, which we can see on the iPad next to the dugout is not offside. That takes us 20 seconds on the iPad.
They have to draw the lines and do all that and then it's like what we had at Wolves, they looked at the first foul on Matty Fernandes, which wasn't a foul.
And the second foul on Cam Archer, which was a foul from Craig Dawson, was completely like brushed off in about three seconds.
If you're going to spend time and look at the whole thing... this is my frustration, we've had that decision at Wolves, that decision at Liverpool, and now this.
I don't want to be here being a moaning git about decisions all the time. It's a tough job but I thought VAR was brought in to help that.
If it takes that long, it takes the fun out of celebrating, because you can never celebrate properly, then what are we doing? The game is about fun and enjoyment.
So it's either there for all the decisions or it's not. Offside is still interpretation tonight. When it's a clear thing, fine, but I don't know.
**Three players were unavailable through injury, when did you know that?**
RM: Before I spoke to you in the press conference. I think we knew after the game that Paul and Adam wouldn't be available.
Paul really tried, but just wasn't quite there and we are really hoping to have him back Wednesday. We could have maybe risked having him on the bench.
Then the temptation to bring him on and maybe make it worse is not good. We knew Adam was out and Alex took a whack on the knee before Sunday in training.
He had to inject it on Sunday, which we admire Alex for and we're grateful for that but just wasn't right. He had to strap it up heavily at half-time on Sunday.
Now we have a few guys missing on Wednesday as well. It's difficult for us at the moment but the people that stepped in have taken their opportunity.
Joe Lumley was great. Ryan Manning came back in and did well, grew into the game. Now with people out, others are going to have to take an opportunity.
**Quite unusual to lose three key players to yellow card bans at once?**
RM: I think the frustrating thing for us is a couple of them are for dissent and stuff on the pitch, which shouldn't happen.
If they are good fouls and good yellow cards for the team, which Tyler Dibling's was, then you can accept it. We asked for more aggression and we got that.
**Dibling admitted after the match he was not happy with a point at second place?**
RM: I don't think any of us are after the performance. To come here and be as good as they were, I think we're all disappointed to walk away with just a point.
I think it shows the sign that the lads are really growing and starting to feel that they can impact things here and belong. There's so long left in the season.
I know we've been written off by everyone but we have to keep performing to the level we have done over the last few weeks.
Wolves was a level of control but not enough aggression with the ball. But now we've started looking a bit more dangerous. The shape has helped.
They are so adaptable. They built up in different shapes tonight, the guys. They never looked really any different. We have to just keep working.
**What did you make of Joe Lumley's Premier League debut?**
RM: Yeah, proud of him. Proud of Joe, yeah. He deserves it. He's a brilliant team-mate. Brilliant character. And it's not like a charity, he deserved to play.
Al was struggling with his knee and Lummers is here, he played in the cup so well last season. I'm really proud of him and I'm really happy for him.
**What was your disagreement with Fabian Hurzeler about?**
RM: Respect is reciprocal. It's mutual. The amount of times in the opposition dugout that was asked for a booking for one of our players.
I've never known it to be to that level... It's no problem. We are both trying to win a match so it's no problem.