Coventry boss Frank Lampard questioned why his side were not given a penalty after a trio of decisions went against them in defeat at Everton.

Thierno Barry’s double and Kiernan Dewsbury-Hall’s late goal helped the hosts come from behind to win 3-1 on Friday.

Yann Gboho gave Coventry the lead after the break, yet the visitors felt they should have had a first-half spot-kick.

James Tarkowski tugged Caleb Yirenkyi’s hair while jumping for a ball, with referee Stuart Attwell dismissing the Sky Blues’ claims.

The rules have been relaxed around hair pulling this season and it does not automatically mean a foul or a red card, with excessive force and intent also being taken into consideration – but former Everton boss Lampard believes the officials got it wrong.

He said: “They’re saying it’s not enough of a pull and I think it’s a hard area to be in. What is a hair pull? You’ve decided it is but it’s not enough.

“I have looked at them, sometimes with emotions in the moment you can’t be clear on the sidelines.

“I think the rules are fine. It’s not a red card. I kind of get that because I think in a game of football there’s a lot of stuff happens that’s not absolutely dramatic.

“You know they can happen but I think if the the rule remains that it’s a foul so I felt it was a foul.”

Lampard also felt Taiwo Awoniyi was fouled by Vitalii Mykolenko before Coventry went ahead, although replays showed it was outside the box, and Barry handled the ball before his second goal – although video assistant referee (VAR) Timothy Wood ruled it was not a handball offence.

“Taiwo for me on the line of the box is a penalty. You’ve got to give the foul in real time anyway, the ref did let it go, and I felt it was a penalty,” Lampard added, with defeat leaving Coventry 16th in the Premier League.

“The Barry one is handball, I’ve heard they are saying it didn’t touch his hand but I’ve seen an angle where he has flicked it in with the final touch. VAR is there for that.

“I can’t sit here and say I know everything and they should give all three of them, if one or two of them don’t go our way, but they would clearly change the game.”

Everton boss David Moyes denied Barry handled the ball and also felt the hair pulling rule needs addressing.

After his team moved fifth, the Scot said: “We’ve had plenty [of decisions] which have gone against us. It certainly doesn’t hit his hand.

“The hair pull rule has changed so it would be a booking if it was but I still think it’s ridiculous that rule is in the game. I can’t understand why they don’t fix this completely because I don’t see it as a good rule at all.”

Three big VAR calls, and they all went against Coventry. Lampard must have walked under a ladder earlier today.

There is a strong argument that the Sky Blues should have been awarded a penalty for the Tarkowski hair pull

The law was relaxed at the start of this season to say not all hair pulling should be a red card, after three players were sent off last season.

The idea is that not all contact with the hair should be an offence, and it needs to be an act with excessive force for a player to be sent off.

But, for a penalty, the actions of Tarkowski only need to be a foul, not violent conduct. If accidental, it should not be a spot-kick.

Did the Wood, the VAR, concentrate too much on a possible handball by Tarkowski within the move?

It looked like there was a movement of Tarkowski’s arm to pull the hair which should have led to a VAR intervention. Coventry probably should have received a penalty.

Then early in the second half came a possible penalty as Mykolenko clipped Awoniyi.

The camera positioned level with the edge of the penalty area did seem to show the contact was outside the area, and the VAR cannot intervene to award a free-kick.

It might have been a soft VAR intervention even if the potential foul was inside the box.

Perhaps most controversially was Barry’s second goal, with the ball appearing to touch the striker’s arm before it went into the goal.

We have seen this kind of situation a few times this season, most notably when Nottingham Forest had a goal against Tottenham disallowed.

This time, the VAR decided he did not have the necessary conclusive proof to be sure the ball touched the hand.

Yet it does seem like there is a change of direction after Barry’s hand touches the ball, and that was the reason it goes into the goal. It looked like handball should have been given on video review although others might argue that ruling it out would have been too forensic.

Three decisions, and Coventry can feel aggrieved about two of them.