The Reds consider they had been robbed of a rightful purpose on the Etihad…
Liverpool have contacted the Skilled Sport Match Officers Restricted (PGMOL) to specific their dissatisfaction with the choice to disallow Virgil van Dijk’s goal in Sunday’s 3-0 defeat to Manchester City.
The incident occurred with Metropolis main 1-0 on the Etihad Stadium when Van Dijk appeared to have levelled the rating with a close-range header.
Nevertheless, referee Chris Kavanagh dominated the purpose out, a name that was later upheld following a VAR evaluate led by Michael Oliver.
VAR decided that Andrew Robertson was in an offside place and had interfered with play. The Scottish defender was standing instantly in entrance of Metropolis goalkeeper Gianluigi Donnarumma and was judged to have made an “apparent motion” by ducking because the ball travelled previous him, which officers deemed to have impacted the keeper’s capacity to play the ball.
Liverpool, nonetheless, have disputed that interpretation. The membership consider the choice doesn’t meet the standards set out in Regulation 11 of the sport’s offside laws.
They argue that Robertson’s motion didn’t hinder Donnarumma’s line of sight or stop him from trying to make a save, and due to this fact the purpose ought to have stood.
After reviewing all accessible footage from a number of digital camera angles, Liverpool keep that the Italian goalkeeper’s view of the ball was by no means considerably impeded.
They’re additionally stated to be annoyed that the VAR course of didn’t finish with the purpose being reinstated regardless of what they consider to be inconclusive proof of interference.
Whereas the membership settle for the ultimate results of the match, they determined to formally contact Howard Webb, head of PGMOL, to make sure that the incident receives correct evaluate.
Liverpool’s place is that such a contentious choice can’t be allowed to cross with out accountability or dialogue, particularly given its implications for future interpretations of comparable conditions.
In line with the official wording of Regulation 11, an offside participant ought to solely be penalised in the event that they change into lively by: “interfering with play by enjoying or touching a ball handed or touched by a team-mate, or interfering with an opponent by stopping an opponent from enjoying or having the ability to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of imaginative and prescient, or difficult an opponent for the ball, or clearly trying to play a ball which is shut when this motion impacts on an opponent, or making an apparent motion which clearly impacts on the flexibility of an opponent to play the ball.”
