Howard Webb’s defense of why Virgil van Dijk’s goal against Manchester City was ruled out on Tuesday’s Match Officials’ Mick-Up is unlikely to appease Liverpool fans who are still unhappy with the decision.
But while the focus naturally shifted to the “rational” explanation of Webb’s call, there was another, much more salient insight into the decision-making process of match officials during the show.
This means that the decision to invalidate the goal was effectively made by assistant referee Stuart Burt, rather than referee Chris Kavanagh, VAR Michael Oliver or VAR assistant Timothy Wood, contrary to Sky Sports’ previous reporting on the incident.
This previously unrecognized distinction was made clear in the audio transcription of the officials’ discussion on the program.
Assistant referee: “Robertson is in sight, right in front of the keeper. He’s ducking under the ball. He’s very, very close. I think he’s in sight. I think he (Donnarumma) is in shock, mate.”
Referee: “Then it’s offside.”
Assistant referee: “I think it’s offside.”
It is clear from the record that not only was the assistant referee the instigator of the decision to invalidate the goal, but from Kavanagh’s passive response that he was effectively the primary decision maker.
This insight is important in providing a complete picture of what happened, but it also raises new questions about the legitimacy of decisions.
Assistant referee Stuart Burt is marked in the top right corner of the screenshot
From his position near the corner flag, assistant referee Stuart Birt determined that Liverpool’s Andy Robertson was in the line of sight between Man City goalkeeper Gianluigi Donnarumma and Liverpool’s Virgil van Dijk.
Ultimately, simply put, the totality of the incident above shows that the assistant referee was singularly misplaced in making such a decision regarding the line of sight between City’s goalkeeper Donnarumma, Van Dijk and Robertson – with the obvious inference that if Robertson was in his line of sight, it was likely to influence the City goalkeeper, if not decisively.
However, as pictured above, the assistant referee is at a 90 degree angle to the action.
Kavanagh himself is in a much better position to determine whether Robertson is in his sights and influencing Donnarumma’s actions. Of course, the same goes for Oliver and Wood from VAR.
However, despite this flaw and uneven position, the assistant referee’s immediate verdict – that Robertson is in sight – is a central and crucial part of the decision taken, judging by the flow of communication between the four referees.
Use Chrome Browser for a more accessible video player
Following Virgil van Dijk’s canceled goal against Manchester City, Arne Slott compared it to John Stones’ goal against Wolves last season – both games were refereed by Chris Kavanagh.
The decision to rule out the goal was initiated immediately, with Kavanagh reduced to the role of a passenger and it left to VAR to decide whether a clear mistake had been made.
However, as Mr. Webb rightly points out, in the context of the “subjectivity” of decisions regarding offside where a player did not play the ball, a very high threshold would need to be set for a “clear and obvious” error in a non-factual decision. In other words, from the moment the assistant referee declares “in sight,” there is no going back.
It certainly seems odd that VAR would fault Robertson for making a “direct and obvious movement” in front of Donnarumma, when in reality he was ducking away from the ball. It’s also not at all conclusive how this clearly egregious act fits into the “committing an overt act that clearly affects an opponent’s ability to play the ball” rule.
But even if VAR’s reasoning is flawed, the superiority of on-field refereeing makes it largely irrelevant.
None of this is to say that Mr Webb was wrong in claiming that the decision to exclude Goal was “not unreasonable”. There are certainly valid reasons for rejecting it.
But it is also fair to wonder whether Robertson should have diluted his goals and reached a verdict immediately, and whether the argument should have been made by parties far out of sight.
Full statement from officials…
Assistant Referee: Robertson is in line of sight and directly in front of the keeper. He’s under the ball. He’s very, very close. I think he’s in sight. I think he (Donnarumma) is under the influence, mate.
Referee: Then it’s offside.
Assistant referee: I think it’s offside.
Referee: The on-field decision was offside.
VAR: Confirm on-field decision for offside against Andy Robertson. Delay, delay.
This means you have a clear offside position.
AVAR: I agree with the decision on the field. I think it’s offside. This is clearly an obvious move that affects the goalkeeper.
VAR: Chris, this is Michael. Confirmed on-field offside ruling against Andy Robertson. He is in an offside position very close to the goalkeeper and makes an obvious movement in front of him. Check completed, offside.
