Was It Correct To Disallow Liverpool Equaliser?

Liverpool whitethorn person been connected nan extremity of a 3-0 conclusion astatine Manchester City, but did a pivotal infinitesimal dramatically change nan people of nan game?

The Premier League champions were 1-0 down astatine nan clip pursuing Erling Haaland's opener conscionable earlier nan half-hour mark.

However, nan Reds thought they had equalised successful nan 38th infinitesimal erstwhile skipper Virgil van Dijk headed home.

The Netherlands centre-back escaped nan attentions of Matheus Nunes and met Mohamed Salah's inswinging area conscionable extracurricular nan six-yard box.

Van Dijk planted a powerful header beyond nan dive of City goalkeeper Gianluigi Donnarumma and ran disconnected celebration.

However, nan adjunct referee past decided to raise his emblem and a cheque by nan video adjunct referee (VAR) wished that Liverpool defender Andy Robertson interfered pinch play from an offside position and it was disallowed.

Robertson had his backmost to extremity connected nan line, down Jeremy Doku, and ducked retired of nan measurement of Van Dijk's header.

Van Dijk said afterwards that "the officials are deciding nan cardinal decisions" and location was "no constituent discussing this from my constituent of view".

He told Sky Sports: "It doesn't matter what I opportunity [about nan goal] because thing I opportunity will beryllium successful nan media and nan full world break will beryllium astir my remark connected nan decision."

But was it nan correct call?

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

The schematic beneath by nan 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.

The determination to disallow Van Dijk's extremity provoked statement among pundits.

Former Liverpool midfielder Danny Murphy said nan extremity "should stand" because Robertson was "not successful Donnarumma's statement of vision".

Ex-Manchester United defender Gary Neville said during Sky Sports' commentary he was "not sure" if it should person been chalked disconnected because Robertson was "to nan near of Donnarumma" and he was "not convinced" nan City goalkeeper "is ever getting adjacent that".

Former Aston Villa guardant Dion Dublin said "Robertson is successful an offside position" but crucially was "not successful his [Donnarumma's] eyeline".

"I person seen it 2 aliases 3 times and if anyone could beryllium successful his eyeline it would beryllium Jeremy Doku," Dublin added.

Ex-Manchester United striker Wayne Rooney agreed that it should person stood and said: "I don't deliberation Andy Robertson delayed Donnarumma diving. The City keeper tin spot nan shot nan full measurement truthful I deliberation that was nan incorrect decision."

Subjective offside decisions, those wherever nan subordinate does not touch nan ball, are ever controversial.

They require mentation astir effect from nan officials, and that is often not straightforward.

And Chris Kavanagh, who was nan referee for Sunday's game, knows each astir them.

As Virgil van Dijk's header made its measurement towards goal, Andrew Robertson ducked to let nan shot to spell into nan net. The Scotland world was stood offside, and nan adjunct raised his emblem for offside.

This determination was not astir statement of vision, but "an evident action which intelligibly impacts connected nan expertise of an force to play nan ball".

The offside rule does not require a referee to deliberation Manchester City goalkeeper Gianluigi Donnarumma would decidedly prevention it, only that his expertise to do truthful has been affected. It is nan ducking mobility which is perfectly crucial.

If Donnarumma had not been stood adjacent to Robertson, aliases if nan Scotland world was not successful nan six-yard area, nan lawsuit for offside would person been weak.

But location must beryllium an statement that Donnarumma had been impacted. For that reason, arsenic nan on-field squad gave offside, it was not apt to beryllium overturned done a VAR review.

It is simply a borderline call, but still supportable arsenic an on-field decision.

A bully comparison is simply a disallowed Everton extremity against Manchester United successful March 2020. Dominic Calvert-Lewin's changeable was deflected towards goal, and an offside Gylfi Sigurdsson, who was sat wrong nan six-yard box, withdrew his legs to let nan shot through. The referee? Chris Kavanagh.

We tin comparison it to a extremity which was fixed done VAR past season. John Stones' precocious victor for Manchester City astatine Wolves was chalked disconnected connected nan section for Bernardo Silva being successful nan statement of imagination of goalkeeper Jose Sa. But while he was adjacent to Sa he wasn't successful beforehand of him and, dissimilar Robertson, he did not duck retired of nan way of nan ball. The referee? Chris Kavanagh.

We person seen a mates of akin situations this play - a Manchester United extremity astatine Nottingham Forest, and 1 for Leeds against Bournemouth - wherever an offside subordinate has made a mini activity distant from nan ball. In those cases it was felt that activity and nan positions of nan players (they were not wrong nan six-yard box) was not capable to beryllium impactful connected nan goalkeeper.