VAR disallows Van Dijk's goal: the paradox at Man City and Liverpool.

The moment Virgil van Dijk put the ball into the net at the Etihad on Sunday seemed to open the way for Liverpool to equalize, but referee Chris Kavanagh and assistant Stuart Burt ruled Andrew Robertson offside and involved in the play. VAR checked and upheld the decision. A goal was disallowed, and the debate flared up again: the same situation, two conclusions can still be valid.

Match events and decisions on the field: Robertson was offside.

According to the refereeing team, Robertson was in an offside position and bent down to avoid the ball right in front of the goalkeeper in the situation leading to the goal. This was considered interference with the opponent's ability to play the ball, therefore Van Dijk's goal was disallowed. VAR reviewed the case and agreed with the on-field refereeing team.

This is the most subtle and interpretive aspect of the rules. When a goal is disallowed, the team, the player, and the fans rarely accept it. Commentators also tend to object – even when the decision is based on legal grounds.

IFAB Rule 11 and the concept of 'explicit action'

The offside rule (Law 11), applied by the IFAB for the 2025-26 season, states that any action that could affect an opponent's access to the ball is considered interference. The Premier League's matchmaking center published a graphic along with the announcement: "Liverpool's offside decision and disallowed goal were checked and confirmed by VAR – Robertson was in an offside position and was deemed to have clearly acted directly in front of the goalkeeper."

The concept of "clear action" encompasses movements that are not directly related to playing the ball but can distract an opponent: feints, letting the ball slip between the legs, or – in this case – bending down to avoid the ball in front of the goalkeeper.

Discussion in the VAR room: 'very, very close to the goalkeeper'

In the audio exchange, it was assistant coach Stuart Burt who offered the assessment. Liverpool fans noticed that he mentioned twice that Robertson was within goalkeeper Gianluigi Donnarumma's line of sight. But the key detail Burt emphasized was: "He bent down to avoid the ball. And he was very, very close to the goalkeeper."

VAR assistant Tim Wood moderated the discussion: "I agree with the on-field decision. In my opinion, it was offside. This was a clear action and clearly affected the goalkeeper." VAR principal Michael Oliver requested a replay of the goalkeeper's view before confirming: "He was in an offside position, very close to the goalkeeper and clearly acted directly in front of the opponent. Reviewed, offside."

Howard Webb and the 'subjective corridor' of law

Howard Webb – CEO of PGMOL – described the decision regarding Robertson as "not unreasonable." He did not claim it was absolutely correct, as that would negate a valid interpretation in the opposite direction. According to Webb, the situation falls within a "subjective corridor," where both options could be considered correct depending on the interpretation.

One question that arises is whether VAR's failure to analyze the goalkeeper's line of sight influenced the conclusion? Webb argued that the "clear action" and the very close distance to the goalkeeper provided a reasonable basis for disallowing the goal. He also emphasized that goalkeepers often make incredible saves, making it difficult to dismiss the assertion that the goalkeeper was fouled.

The inherent paradox of VAR: when right and wrong aren't just a straight line.

The complexity of the rules and their interpretation means that most viewers don't realize that even a simple ducking motion to avoid a ball can be considered an "obvious act." But that's precisely the clause designed to cover situations involving distracting an opponent, even without actually playing the ball.

In reality, this could be considered a "40-60" decision leaning towards disallowing the goal. However, VAR doesn't operate on a tight, balanced basis; it only intervenes when there's a clear foul. Therefore, in the same situation, two perspectives can both be valid, and there will always be one side feeling unfairly treated: one side sees it as "reasonable," the other as "unreasonable."

The match will eventually end, but the inherent paradox of VAR – where rules open up space for interpretation, while emotions are difficult to measure – remains. It reminds us that there are moments when football isn't just black and white, but also a gray area where reason and emotion clash.