Ref Watch: Why Liverpool’s disallowed goal at Man City wasn’t ‘clear and obvious error’ says Dermot Gallagher | Football News

Former Premier League referee Dermot Gallagher explained why disallowing Virgil van Dijk’s header against Manchester City was not deemed a ‘clear and obvious error’ – but Jay Bothroyd believes the Liverpool goal should have stood. Read on for the latest from Ref Watch…

Man City 3-0 Liverpool

INCIDENT: Virgil van Dijk’s header against Manchester City was ruled out as Andy Robertson was judged to be blocking the goalkeeper’s line of sight from an offside position.

DERMOT SAYS: “It is subjective without doubt and it is a grey area because it’s all about the interpretation.

“Everybody sees things slightly differently and that’s why you can throw up an incident from last year or the earlier this season and say, ‘well they made a different decision’. I don’t think there are hard and fast rules.

“I’m not trying to defend [referee] Chris Kavanagh, but we shouldn’t hang him out to dry because he didn’t make the decision yesterday, that was made by the assistant.

“This was an on-field decision, which was no goal. So VAR looks and says: ‘Is Robertson in an offside position? Yes.

“‘Is he impacting on the goalkeeper?’ They obviously felt yes, because he was close. That’s why people are going, ‘it should be this or this’. It’s open to interpretation.”

When asked if the referee should have been sent to the monitor, Dermot said: “No, VAR is not there to judge. It’s not going to say, ‘you’ve got this right, you’ve got this wrong’.

“If VAR says, you need to go and look at this’, then you’re re-refereeing. They didn’t think this was a clear and obvious error. He can only be sent to the screen if it’s a clear and obvious error or if it’s a subjective offside which they have to go through.

“The on-field decision was ‘no goal’ so what can you do? It can be backed up by the video – he was in an offside position, he is close to the goalkeeper, so they say he’s impacting.”

BOTHROYD SAYS: “This should have been given as a goal. When you look at Donnarumma, he is coming across slightly to his right but then he pivots to the left, so that means he can see where the ball is going.

“Robertson has ducked but, if anything, the person who would be in his eye-line more is [Man City’s Jeremy] Doku.

“‘A player making an action’ is in the rule. A player making an action, in my opinion, is if he moves towards the ball or he tries to make contact with the ball. Robertson has ducked. He’s made no effort to try to deflect the ball or get his head on it. He’s just got himself out the way of the ball.

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

INCIDENT: Manchester City were also awarded a penalty in the first half following a VAR review. Jeremy Doku was deemed to have been tripped by Giorgi Mamardashvili.

With the high threshold we talk about, is there enough there to call that a clear and obvious error?

DERMOT SAYS: “I think it’s a penalty. I don’t think there’s enough with the foot. Not every contact is going to be a penalty. But he does catch him with his knee and knocks him out of his stride and he loses the opportunity to shoot.”

Brentford 3-1 Newcastle

INCIDENT: During Newcastle’s trip to Brentford, Dan Burn fouled Dango Ouattara, but there was no penalty awarded and Ouattara was booked for simulation.

But as we saw at the Etihad, there was contact. VAR Paul Tierney said “minimal contact” so are we seeing a lack of consistency?

DERMOT SAYS: “This is where a referee can’t win and there’s been contact, there’s no doubt about that.

“I understand why the referee gives a yellow card and then it goes back to whether it meets the threshold for a penalty. VAR says no.

“There is contact and with the Doku one, there is contact. They are polar opposites with a penalty at one end and a yellow at the other.

“That’s the life of a referee. It’s so difficult. He’s given a yellow card because he thinks Ouattara is deceiving him to win a penalty. VAR says it’s not enough to give a penalty.”

INCIDENT: Burn and Ouattara had another coming together later in the game. This time, Burn was sent off and Brentford were awarded a penalty.

DERMOT SAYS: “It is [correct]. I thought it was a foul at the time and he was already on a yellow. When he gets a second yellow, he says to the referee ‘I accept it’ so he knew.”

WSL: Arsenal 1-1 Chelsea

INCIDENT: There were a number of controversial moments in the WSL as Chelsea drew with Arsenal. A handball was given against Stina Blackstenius as she found the net, but replays showed the ball did not hit her hand.

DERMOT SAYS: “From the referee’s angle, she sees the arm come back and she has an optical illusion. She thinks Blackstenius has cushioned it with her arm.

“If she had the angle we saw, she would see it came off her thigh. Her arm comes back almost to give her balance, but because she brings her arm back, the referee is deceived.”

INCIDENT: Arsenal could they have been reduced to 10 players when Victoria Pelova launched into a challenge on Keira Walsh in midfield.

DERMOT SAYS: “In this game, with VAR, you could have four different decisions. People say she’s lunged in. When I first saw it, she hasn’t lunged in, she’s overrun the ball and she’s got it.

“But when you see it again with the luxury of slow motion and freeze framing the point of contact, that’s with the studs and well above the ankle and it falls well within the category of a red card.

“At normal speed, I didn’t think it was a red card. But if I was VAR, I would be recommending the red card and that’s the difference.”

INCIDENT: There were also two big decisions involving offside. Alessia Russo’s goal stood which saw Arsenal take a point, but Frida Maanum had a goal ruled out.

BOTHROYD SAYS: “Russo is clearly offside and that’s why the women’s game needs VAR.

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

Sunderland 2-2 Arsenal

INCIDENT: Dan Ballard caught Mikel Merino with his elbow as he headed the ball out of the Sunderland penalty box. Mikel Arteta appealed for a foul but nothing was given.

DERMOT SAYS: “VAR looked at it. I don’t think it’s a foul. He used his arms for leverage. If anything, Merino comes into him. There’s a clash but there’s clashes all the time in football. It’s strong defending.”

INCIDENT: Martin Zubimendi tackled Wilson Isidor in midfield. He appeared to touch the ball but also brought down the Sunderland player. Zubimendi was shown a yellow card and Sunderland ultimately scored from the free-kick.

DERMOT SAYS: “I didn’t know that was in law! I think he’s unlucky to give a free-kick away, even more unlucky to get a yellow card. It’s possibly a misread by the referee.”

JAY BOTHROYD SAYS: “If he touches the ball ever so slightly, he’s won the ball. It shouldn’t be given as a free-kick. We saw the one against Saka against Fulham, where he gets the ball and goes through the player. That’s the same kind of thing there.

“Not every time you get the ball is okay. But Saka, Gyokeres…unless the referee’s association is telling me it’s different rules in the box, that should be given as a challenge that’s okay.”

INCIDENT: There was a VAR check for Brian Brobbey’s late equaliser, but no issue with a potential high foot in the build-up.

DERMOT SAYS: “A really good goal. He only has eyes on the ball. The [Arsenal] player has ducked in. For me, a good goal.”

Aston Villa 4-0 Bournemouth

INCIDENT: Aston Villa registered a big win over Bournemouth. They kept a clean sheet thanks to Emi Martinez’s penalty save, but should a handball against Morgan Rogers have been given in the first place?

DERMOT SAYS: “No choice. The directive is: Is the arm out? Yes it is. Is the arm shoulder height or above? Yes it is.

“He definitely didn’t mean it, there’s no doubt about that, but that’s the guidelines we work to.”

BOTHROYD SAYS: “I don’t think those kind of decisions should be given as a penalty. That’s a severe punishment. Maybe an indirect free-kick. I think those ones are harsh and unlucky.”