Ref Watch: Dermot Gallagher explains why Liverpool’s canceled goal at Man City wasn’t a ‘plain and obvious mistake’ | Soccer News

Former Premier League referee Dermot Gallagher has explained why Virgil van Dijk’s header against Manchester City was not recognized as a “clear mistake”, but Jay Bothroyd believes Liverpool’s goal should have stood. Read the latest from Ref Watch…

Man City 3-0 Liverpool

Incident: Virgil van Dijk’s header against Manchester City was ruled out after Andy Robertson was ruled to have blocked the goalkeeper’s line of sight from an offside position.

Dermot said: “This is definitely subjective and a gray area as it’s all about interpretation.

“Everyone sees things a little differently, so you can take what happened last year or earlier this season and say, ‘They made a different decision.’ I don’t think there’s a hard and fast rule.”

“I’m not going to defend (referee) Chris Kavanagh, but he shouldn’t be hung out to dry just because he didn’t make a decision yesterday because it was his assistant’s decision.

“It was an on-field decision and there was no goal. So VAR looks at it and says, ‘Is Robertson in an offside position? Yes.’

“‘Is he influencing the goalie?’ Obviously they felt yes because he was around. That’s why people think, ‘This is how it should be, this is how it should be.’ That’s open to interpretation. ”

Asked whether the referee should have been sent in front of a monitor, Dermot said: “No, VAR is not there to make decisions. It doesn’t say ‘this is right, this is wrong’.”

“If VAR says, ‘We need to go and check this,’ you’re re-referring. They didn’t think this was a clear mistake. They can only send him on a screen if it’s a clear mistake or it’s a subjective offside that they have to go through.”

“The call on the field was ‘no goal’. So what can we do? That’s supported by the video. He was in an offside position and was close to the goalkeeper, so they say he had an influence.”

Bothroyd said: “This should have been awarded as a goal. If you look at Donnarumma, he’s coming slightly to the right, but then he’s circling to the left, which means he could see where the ball was going.”

“Robertson has bowed down, but if anything the person who is more in his line of sight is[Man City’s Jeremy]Dok.

“‘A player in action’ is in the rules. In my opinion, a player is in action if he is moving towards the ball or trying to make contact with the ball. Robertson ducked. He didn’t try to deflect the ball or put his head on the ball. He just pushed himself out of the way of the ball.”

“That’s why I think it should have been given and it was an inappropriate decision.”

Incident: Manchester City were also awarded a penalty in the first half after a VAR review. Jeremy Doku was considered a stumble to Giorgi Mamadashvili.

That’s a high threshold we’re talking about, but is there enough to call this an obvious mistake?

Dermot said: “I think it was a penalty. I don’t think he had enough legs. Not every contact is a penalty. But he caught him with his knee and he lost his stride and he lost the opportunity to shoot.”

Brentford 3-1 Newcastle

Incident: During Newcastle’s trip to Brentford, Dan Byrne commits a foul on Dango Ouattara, but no penalty is awarded and Ouattara is subject to simulation.

But as we saw with Etihad, there was contact. VAR’s Paul Tierney said “minimal contact”, but is there a lack of consistency?

Dermot: “This is a place where the referee can’t win and there was contact, there’s no doubt about that.

“I understand why the referee would give a yellow card and then go back to whether it met the criteria for a penalty. VAR said no.

“There is contact, there is contact with Doc, they are the exact opposite, one side has a penalty and the other side has a yellow.

“That’s the life of a referee. It’s very difficult. They thought Ouattara was cheating a penalty to get a penalty and gave him a yellow card. VAR says it’s not enough to give a penalty.”

Incident: Byrne and Ouattara reunited again later in the game. This time Byrne was sent off and Brentford were awarded a penalty.

Dermot: “That’s right. I thought it was a foul at the time, but he had already been given a yellow. When he got the second yellow, he said to the referee, ‘I concede,’ so I knew.”

WSL: Arsenal 1-1 Chelsea

Incident: There were many controversial moments in the WSL when Chelsea drew with Arsenal. Stina Blackstenius was awarded a handball when she found the back of the net, but replays showed the ball did not hit her hand.

Dermot said: “From the referee’s angle, she could see the arm coming back and it was an optical illusion. She thinks Black Stenius cushioned it with his arm.”

“If she was at an angle like we saw her, you would see her come off the thigh. Her arm almost comes back to regain balance, but the referee is fooled because she puts her arm back in.”

Incident: Arsenal could have been reduced to 10 players when Viktoria Perova challenged midfielder Keira Walsh.

Dermot says: “In this game, with VAR, you could have made four different decisions. People say she lunged. When I first saw it, she wasn’t lunging, she was overrunning the ball and she got it.”

“But if you look at the point of contact again, with the luxury of slow motion and freeze frame, it’s studded and well above the ankle, well within the category of a red card.

“At normal speed I didn’t think it was a red card. But if it was VAR they would have recommended a red card. That’s the difference.”

Incidents: There were also two major offside calls. Alessia Russo’s goal gave Arsenal a point, but Frieda Mahnum’s goal was canceled out.

Bothroyd said: “Russo was clearly offside and that’s why we need VAR in the women’s game.

“The women’s game is getting bigger and bigger. Things need to evolve and there’s no point in having prehistoric rules. The men’s game is evolving and the women’s game needs to follow suit.”

Sunderland 2-2 Arsenal

Incident: Dan Ballard catches Mikel Merino with an elbow as he heads the ball out of Sunderland’s penalty box. Mikel Arteta complained of a foul but nothing was conceded.

Coach Dermott: “VAR looked into it. I don’t think it was a foul. He used his arm for leverage. If anything, Merino comes in on him. There are collisions, but there are always collisions in football. It’s a strong defense.”

Incident: Martin Zvimendi tackles Wilson Isidore in midfield. He appeared to touch the ball, but beat a Sunderland player. Zvimendi was shown a yellow card and Sunderland eventually scored from a free-kick.

Dermot said: “I didn’t know there was such a law! I think it was unlucky that we gave away the free kick, and I think it’s even more unlucky that we got the yellow card. Maybe the referee misread it.”

Jay Bothroyd said: “If he touches the ball even a little bit, he’s won the ball. It shouldn’t have been given as a free-kick. We saw him play against Saka against Fulham, where he took the ball and went through the players. The same thing happened there.”

“It doesn’t mean that every time you win the ball it’s okay. But Saka, Gokeres…unless the Umpires’ Association says the rules are different in the box, it should be given as an okay challenge.”

Incident: A VAR check was carried out on Brian Brobbey’s late equaliser, but there was no issue with a potential high foot in the build-up.

Dermot said: “It’s a really good goal. He just has his eyes on the ball. The (Arsenal) players ducked in and came in. It’s a good goal for me.”

Aston Villa 4-0 Bournemouth

The incident: Aston Villa achieved a big win against Bournemouth. They kept a clean sheet thanks to Emi Martinez’s penalty save, but should they have been awarded the handball against Morgan Rodgers in the first place?

Dermot: “You have no choice. Here are the instructions: Are your arms out? Yes, they are. Are your arms at or above shoulder height? Yes, they are.”

“He didn’t mean it, there’s no question about that, but that’s the guideline we’re working with.”

Bothroyd said: “I don’t think a decision like that should be given as a penalty. That’s a harsh penalty. It could have been an indirect free kick. I think that was harsh and unfortunate.”