Webb Defends Match Officials in Goal Dispute
Howard Webb, who has served as the head of Premier League referees for nearly three years, is acutely aware that supporting his officials regarding the disallowed goal by Virgil van Dijk against Manchester City will not quell the ongoing debate.
Van Dijk believed he had just equalized for Liverpool during the match, only for referee Chris Kavanagh and assistant Stuart Burt to determine that Andrew Robertson had committed an offside infraction by ducking under the trajectory of the ball.
This incident shines a spotlight on one of the more intricate and subjective elements of the rules. When a goal is disallowed, the affected teams — players and supporters alike — often react negatively. Additionally, a significant number of former professionals and analysts typically side against the decision, regardless of its legal substantiation.
It is noteworthy that Webb described the decision involving Robertson as “not unreasonable”, although he refrained from labeling it outright as correct. Making such a statement could unintentionally dismiss the opposing view that the play was onside, which remains a legitimate perspective.
The situation falls within a subjective gray area: both decisions can be viewed as valid, reflecting differing interpretations rather than a singular “right” choice.
The Law: What Does It Specify?
Offside is addressed under Law 11 of the IFAB Laws of the Game for the 2025-26 season.
The Premier League’s match center detailed that the referee’s ruling of offside was examined and confirmed by VAR. It stated,
Robertson was determined to be offside and was engaged in an obvious action directly in front of the goalkeeper.
An “obvious action” refers to behaviors impacting an opponent’s ability to contest the ball.
The VAR audio revealed the assistant’s critical input. Liverpool fans focused on Burt’s references to Robertson obstructing the line of sight of goalkeeper Gianluigi Donnarumma. The assistant further noted,
He ducked under the ball. He is very, very close to him.
Tim Wood, the assistant VAR, spearheaded the discussion, agreeing with the on-field ruling:
It’s offside. It’s a clear, obvious action which clearly impacts the goalkeeper.
VAR chief Michael Oliver had begun to assess the angle concerning the line of vision before Wood’s interjection confirmed the original call, stating,
He is in an offside position, very close to the goalkeeper and makes an obvious movement right in front of him. Check complete, offside.
Webb clarified that even without reviewing the line of vision, the reasons of “obvious action” and proximity to the goalkeeper were sufficient to justify the disallowance of the goal.
The Duality of Interpretation
Webb underscored that goalkeepers often execute remarkable saves, making it hard to reverse the on-field assessment of significant impact on Donnarumma.
However, football supporters are typically less interested in nuanced explanations and more focused on specific language that may validate their grievances about a decision. Any deviation from official reasoning is often seized upon.
The wording of the law is exceptionally nuanced, meaning many might not readily grasp that ducking out of the ball’s path could qualify as an “obvious action”. This is precisely the type of action the law intends to address: actions that do not involve attempting to play the ball but could distract an opponent. This could manifest as a dummy or, as in this case, avoiding contact with the ball.
Being a football official involves more than merely memorizing the Laws of the Game; much of the interpretative guidance that referees receive is not accessible in the written rules.
One could argue that the call leaned slightly toward a goal, maybe 40-60 in favor, but VAR is designed to address clear-cut errors rather than marginal calls. Hence, while one side perceives the decision as obvious, the other clearly does not.
This underscores a significant challenge with VAR: a judgment can indeed produce two legitimate outcomes, and there will invariably be a party that feels wronged. One side may find its position reasonable, while the other deems it unreasonable.