Controversy Surrounds Van Dijk's Disallowed Goal
Howard Webb, head of Premier League referees, has been in his role for nearly three years and understands that supporting his officials regarding Virgil van Dijk's disallowed goal against Manchester City will not quell the ongoing debate.
Van Dijk believed he had equalized for Liverpool during the match at the Etihad Stadium on Sunday. However, referee Chris Kavanagh and assistant Stuart Burt ruled that Andrew Robertson had committed an offside offense by ducking under the ball as it approached the goal, a decision backed by the VAR team.
This situation exemplifies one of the most intricate and subjective aspects of the laws of football. When a goal is disallowed, the affected team, players, and fans typically react negatively. Moreover, there is often significant dissent from former players and pundits, regardless of the legal merits of the decision.
It is noteworthy that Webb referred to the decision regarding Robertson as "not unreasonable." He refrained from directly stating it was correct, as doing so would imply that the opposing viewpoint of the play being onside was incorrect, which is not the case.
The situation exists within a subjective framework where both outcomes can be considered valid. There is no definitive "right" decision, only different interpretations of the events.
Understanding the Law
The offside rule is outlined in Law 11 of the IFAB Laws of the Game for the 2025-26 season. The Premier League's match center on X specifically referenced this incident.
According to the match center, "The referee's call of offside and no goal for Liverpool was checked and confirmed by VAR, with Robertson in an offside position and deemed to be making an obvious action directly in front of the goalkeeper." An obvious action is defined as one that may impact an opponent's ability to play the ball.
In the VAR audio, it is evident that Burt was the one who made the decision. Liverpool fans have understandably focused on Burt's repeated reference to Robertson being in the line of vision of goalkeeper Gianluigi Donnarumma. Crucially, the assistant also noted, "he's ducked under the ball. He's very, very close to him." Tim Wood, the assistant VAR, emphasized, "I agree with the on-field decision. I think it's offside. It's a clear, obvious action which clearly impacts on the goalkeeper."
VAR Michael Oliver was in the process of seeking an angle for the line of vision before Wood spoke. Oliver then confirmed the on-field judgment: "He is in an offside position, very close to the goalkeeper and makes an obvious movement directly in front of him. Check complete, offside." Webb addressed the relevance of the VAR team's decision not to examine the line of vision, asserting that the obvious action and proximity to the goalkeeper were sufficient grounds for ruling out the goal.
Subjectivity in Decision-Making
Webb also highlighted that goalkeepers often make remarkable saves, complicating the ability to overturn the on-field assessment of clear impact on Donnarumma. However, supporters typically show little interest in such explanations. They focus on specific phrases as evidence of their team's injustice, and any deviation from the official reasoning is scrutinized.
The nuances of the law are often overlooked, and it is not widely recognized that ducking away from the ball can be considered an "obvious action." This type of movement, which does not involve an attempt to play the ball but could distract an opponent, is precisely what the law aims to address, whether it be through a dummy or, in this case, ducking.
It is often said that one cannot effectively referee a match solely by reading the Laws of the Game, as much of the intended interpretation is hidden in supplementary guidance provided to referees. This particular call could be viewed as a 40-60 decision favoring no goal, but VAR operates on the principle of rectifying clear errors rather than marginal calls. One party may find the decision obvious while the other does not, highlighting a significant challenge with VAR: the existence of two valid outcomes, leaving one side feeling aggrieved.