**Newcastle United's 2-1 win over Manchester City on Saturday was not without its controversy, with the visitors claiming for no less than three penalties and also feeling aggrieved that Harvey Barnes' winner was allowed to stand.**
Fabian Schar left a foot in on Phil Foden early in the first half, which many feel should have resulted in a penalty. And of all of the contentious decisions, this is the one that we feel City had the best case for.
VAR determined that the contact was a result of momentum rather than anything reckless, and the fact that Foden got his shot away before the foul somehow let Fabian Schar off the hook. We're not sure we agree with that being used as a reason, but we'll take it as we benefited from it.
Former referee Dermot Gallagher was happy enough with the decision [when he covered it on Ref Watch on Sky Sports](https://nufcfeed.com/jay-bothroyd-clashes-with-dermot-gallagher-over-manchester-city-penalty-appeal-versus-newcastle-united-1705193) on Monday morning, but Mark Clattenberg, another former Premier League referee wasn't as convinced.
Whose side are you on, Mark Clattenburg?
----------------------------------------
Speaking on the Beyond The Back Four Podcast, Clattenburg, a Newcastle fan, by the way, says he feels Newcastle got away with one there.
> “The big frustration for City fans is how Schar’s challenge was not deemed a foul by VAR. The only decision that needed to be checked was if ball was still in play – if it’s out of play, it’s not a penalty but the ball was in play so it’s irrelevant if Foden’s got his shot off or not.
>
> “Schar took risk, came sliding in to try to block ball and that was his only intention – as he slides in, he catches Foden so City should’ve been given the penalty and Schar a yellow card.”
Mark Clattenburg says technology gave Newcastle the winner on Saturday
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Clattenburg went on to say that Newcastle were also fortunate with their winner, as technology granted the goal and without that, it would likely have been ruled out.
> “Technology decided the offside call, and that is calibrated before the game to the smallest millimetre. Under previous regulations, this might’ve been deemed offside by a human doing it but technology decided that Bruno was onside.
>
> “The discussion about where Harvey Barnes fouled Donnarumma just before the winner, too – I don’t think he did, Donnarumma should’ve been stronger.”
We agree with this one [as we mentioned earlier today](https://nufcfeed.com/dermot-gallagher-weighs-in-on-newcastle-uniteds-winner-var-checked-three-incidents-before-allowing-goal-1705649). There seems to be a disparity between how the lines are drawn with the semi-automated technology and the official rules, but again, we benefited, so we're fine with it ... this week.