Controversy Surrounds Van Dijk’s Disallowed Goal Against Manchester City

In the aftermath of Liverpool’s match against Manchester City, a contentious decision regarding Virgil van Dijk’s disallowed goal has prompted significant discussion. Howard Webb, who has been overseeing Premier League referees for nearly three years, understands that defending the officials’ ruling will not quell the conversation surrounding the incident.

During the match, Van Dijk believed he had equalized for Liverpool at the Etihad Stadium, only for referee Chris Kavanagh and assistant Stuart Burt to rule the goal out due to an offside violation by Andrew Robertson. The decision was supported by the VAR team, which indicated that Robertson was in an offside position as he ducked beneath the ball.

The offside rule, as outlined in Law 11 of the IFAB Laws of the Game 2025-26, is often a complex and subjective area of officiating. Following a disallowed goal, affected parties—including teams, players, and fans—typically express dissatisfaction, leading to widespread criticism from former professionals and pundits, regardless of the legal merits.

Webb described the offside decision regarding Robertson as “not unreasonable,” carefully avoiding a definitive statement of correctness. He acknowledged the existence of alternative interpretations while stressing that both outcomes could be viewed as valid.

Had Van Dijk’s goal been permitted, Liverpool would have equalized, but Manchester City ultimately secured a 3-0 victory. The Premier League’s match center clarified that the VAR had confirmed the offside decision, noting that Robertson’s position and actions were deemed to have impacted the goalkeeper’s ability to play the ball.

In the VAR audio, it was evident that assistant referee Burt articulated his reasoning, specifically noting Robertson’s proximity to the goalkeeper, Gianluigi Donnarumma, and stating, “he’s ducked under the ball. He’s very, very close to him.”

Moreover, Tim Wood, the assistant VAR, emphasized his agreement with the on-field decision, arguing that Robertson’s actions constituted a clear impact on the goalkeeper. VAR official Michael Oliver was in the process of reviewing the line of vision when Wood asserted that the offside call was justified. Oliver subsequently validated the on-field ruling, affirming Robertson’s offside position and the obstruction caused.

Webb addressed the relevance of not analyzing the line of vision, affirming that the reasoning behind the disallowed goal was sufficient. He pointed out that goalkeepers frequently make remarkable saves, complicating the decision-making process regarding perceived interference.

However, fans often overlook these detailed explanations, focusing instead on specific phrases that indicate their team has been wronged. The nuanced language of the law can lead to misunderstandings; for instance, not everyone recognizes that ducking away from the ball may be classified as an “obvious action” affecting opponents.

Refereeing cannot rely solely on the written Laws of the Game, as much of the intended interpretation is found in supplementary guidance provided to officials. The decision regarding the goal could be seen as a narrow margin favoring no goal, but VAR is designed to address clear mistakes rather than subjective calls.

This situation underscores a significant challenge with VAR: the existence of two valid outcomes invariably leaves one side aggrieved, as perceptions of reasonableness differ among supporters.