Premier League referees’ chief Howard Webb says it was “not unreasonable” for Virgil van Dijk’s goal to be disallowed for offside against Manchester City on Sunday.
Van Dijk thought he had equalised for Liverpool in the 38th minute, but referee Chris Kavanagh and his assistant Stuart Burt decided Andrew Robertson had committed an offside offence by ducking under the flight of the ball, which had impacted goalkeeper Gianluigi Donnarumma.
The Video Assistant Referee, Michael Oliver, checked the incident and supported the on-field call, with Manchester City going on to win the game 3-0.
On Monday, Liverpool contacted Professional Game Match Officials (PGMO) – the body that oversees refereeing in English professional football – to raise their concerns, as they believe the relevant criteria for the offence were not met and the goal should have been allowed.
Offside decision ‘not clearly and obviously wrong’
Webb, speaking on the Match Officials Mic’d Up show, said that while he accepted there would be a difference of opinion, there were valid reasons for the goal to be ruled out.
“Interfering with an opponent where the offside position player doesn’t play the ball and the officials have to make a judgment whether the actions of that player impact an opponent, are some of the most subjective decisions that we have to make,” said Webb.
“Therefore, it’s no surprise that some people believe this goal should have stood, so I think it’s important that we look at the facts of what actually happened in this situation.
“We know the corner comes in and the ball reaches Van Dijk. As the ball’s coming across the penalty area, the Manchester City players move out, they leave Robertson in that offside position in the heart of the six-yard box.
“When Van Dijk heads the ball forward, that’s the moment when we have to make an offside judgment about Robertson and about what he’s doing there.
“We know he doesn’t touch the ball but what does he do? Well, as the ball moves towards him, three yards out from goal, right in the middle of the six-yard box, he makes that clear action to duck below the ball.
“The ball goes just over his head, and the ball finds the goal in the half of the six-yard box where he is. Then, the officials have to make a judgment – did that clear action impact on Donnarumma, the goalkeeper, and his ability to save the ball? And that’s where the subjectivity comes into play.
“Obviously that’s the conclusion they drew on that. They looked at that position, they looked at that action, so close to the goalkeeper, and they formed that opinion.
“I know that’s not a view held by everybody but I think it’s not unreasonable to understand why they would form that conclusion.
“The player is so close to the goalkeeper, the ball’s coming right towards him and he has to duck to get out of the way of the ball – and they form the conclusion that that impacts Donnarumma’s ability just to dive towards the ball and make that save.
“And then, of course, once they’ve made that on-field decision, the job of the VAR is to look at that and decide, was the outcome of offside clearly and obviously wrong?
“Only Donnarumma truly knows if he was impacted by this and, of course, we have to look at the factual evidence, and when we see that factual evidence of that position of the player ducking below the ball, so close to the goalkeeper, the VAR determines that the outcome of offside is not clearly and obviously wrong, and they stay out of it.”
Webb explained that there were a number of issues that had to be weighed up by the officials.
“You do hear the assistant [on the VAR audio], in this case, talk about line of vision. I agree with you, the line of vision normally would relate to the view being blocked of the ball,” he said.
“On that one, he does see the ball all the way, but the assistant also talks about other things, ducking below the ball, being close to the goalkeeper.
“Those in themselves can be enough to penalise a player for offside, [by] interfering with an opponent. Even if the keeper can see the ball coming all the way along, he’s still in front of the goalkeeper, he still makes that ducking action that could still cause hesitation from the goalkeeper.
“Goalkeepers work on reactions that make it possible to pull out some incredible saves and that’s the judgment formed on the field. So, [apart from] the line of vision, there’s other aspects that can also say that this is an offside offence, and that’s why the VAR left it alone.”
Liverpool boss Arne Slot had made comparisons to a goal scored by Manchester City at Wolves last season, which was initially ruled out for a similar offside against Bernardo Silva but given through a VAR review.
“I think there’s a clear difference here in that the ball goes directly over the goalkeeper Jose Sa’s head,” Webb explained. “It doesn’t go over Bernardo Silva.
“Bernardo Silva is an offside position when John Stones heads the ball forward. Importantly, he moved to the left, away from the flight of the ball, and the ball goes straight over Sa, it doesn’t go over the head of Bernardo Silva in the way that it went over the head of Robertson, who ducked below it.
“So, I think it’s difficult here to see this and think in any way that Jose Sa is impacted by an action of Bernardo Silva. If the ball had gone over Bernardo Silva’s head, maybe causing Jose Sa to hesitate in case it hits Bernardo Silva, then we’d come out with the same outcome of check complete on the on-field decision of disallowed goal.”
- President Commissions 36.5 Million Dollars Hospital In The Tain District
- You Will Not Go Free For Killing An Hard Working MP – Akufo-Addo To MP’s Killer
- I Will Lead You To Victory – Ato Forson Assures NDC Supporters
Visit Our Social Media for More
About Author
