Robertson Row Shows The Problems Var Can Never Fix

Howard Webb has been nan caput of nan Premier League referees agelong capable now, almost 3 years, to cognize that backing his officials complete Virgil van Dijk's disallowed extremity against Manchester City would not extremity nan discussion.

Van Dijk thought he had equalised for Liverpool astatine nan Etihad connected Sunday, only for Chris Kavanagh and his adjunct Stuart Burt to norm that Andrew Robertson had committed an offside offence, supported by nan VAR team, by ducking nether nan shot connected its measurement to goal.

This is 1 of nan astir analyzable and highly subjective parts of nan law. When a extremity is disallowed nan affected statement - team, players and fans - seldom return it well. There is besides usually a groundswell of sentiment against nan determination among ex-professionals and pundits - and that's sloppy of nan merits successful law.

It is telling that Webb described nan Robertson determination arsenic "not unreasonable". He didn't straight opportunity it was correct, because to do truthful would propose nan replacement position of onside would beryllium incorrect - and that conscionable isn't nan case.

It falls wrong a subjective corridor wherever some outcomes tin beryllium deemed correct. There is nary "right" decision, only replacement viewpoints based upon an mentation of events.

Offside is covered by rule 11 of nan IFAB Laws of nan Game 2025-26., external

The schematic beneath clarifies nan rule and nan Premier League's lucifer centre connected X made circumstantial reference to nan incident.

"The referee's telephone of offside and nary extremity to Liverpool was checked and confirmed by VAR - pinch Robertson successful an offside position and deemed to beryllium making an evident action straight successful beforehand of nan goalkeeper," it said.

An evident action is thing which whitethorn effect an force from being capable to get to nan ball.

In nan VAR audio it is clear that Burt made nan decision. Liverpool fans person understandably focused connected Burt doubly referring to Robertson being successful nan statement of imagination of goalkeeper Gianluigi Donnarumma.

Crucially, nan adjunct besides said "he's ducked nether nan ball. He's very, very adjacent to him."

It was nan adjunct VAR, Tim Wood, who drove nan chat successful nan VAR room, saying: "I work together pinch nan on-field decision. I deliberation it's offside. It's a clear, evident action which intelligibly impacts connected nan goalkeeper."

The VAR, Michael Oliver, was successful nan process of asking for an perspective for nan statement of imagination earlier Wood spoke. Oliver past confirmed nan on-field judgement: "He is successful an offside position, very adjacent to nan goalkeeper and makes an evident activity straight successful beforehand of him. Check complete, offside."

How applicable was it that nan VAR squad didn't look astatine nan statement of vision? Webb addressed it, stressing that nan evident action, and being adjacent to nan goalkeeper, were still valid, aliases shall we opportunity reasonable, reasons for nan extremity to beryllium ruled retired connected their own.

Webb besides pointed retired that goalkeepers regularly make miraculous saves which made it difficult to over-ride nan on-field sentiment of clear effect connected Donnarumma.

But, arsenic is nan measurement pinch method decisions, supporters don't thin to beryllium willing successful explanations. They prime up connected nan circumstantial words arsenic impervious their squad has been wronged. And thing that deviates from nan charismatic reasoning is jumped upon.

The wording of nan rule has specified nuance, too, that it was not wide known that ducking retired of nan measurement of nan shot could perchance beryllium an "obvious action." But this is precisely nan benignant of activity that it is expected to cover: thing which is not an effort to play nan shot but which could distract an opponent. It could beryllium a dummy, allowing nan shot done your legs or, successful this case, ducking retired of nan way.

I often opportunity that you could not spell retired and referee a crippled conscionable by reference nan Laws of nan Game, because truthful overmuch of nan intended mentation is hidden successful further guidance fixed to referees.

You could opportunity this is simply a 40-60 call, successful favour of nary goal, but VAR doesn't activity connected decisions being connected nan incorrect broadside of nan margins, it useful connected evident errors. One broadside tin deliberation it's obvious, and nan different mightiness not.

It highlights 1 of nan biggest issues pinch VAR, that a determination tin person 2 valid outcomes and location will ever beryllium an aggrieved party. One broadside tin deliberation it's reasonable, and nan different unreasonable.