Robertson row shows the problems VAR can never fix

Howard Webb has been the head of the Premier League referees long enough now, almost three years, to know that backing his officials over Virgil van Dijk's disallowed goal against Manchester City would not end the discussion.

Van Dijk thought he had equalised for Liverpool at the Etihad on Sunday, only for Chris Kavanagh and his assistant Stuart Burt to rule that Andrew Robertson had committed an offside offence, supported by the VAR team, by ducking under the ball on its way to goal.

This is one of the most complex and highly subjective parts of the law. When a goal is disallowed the affected party - team, players and fans - rarely take it well. There is also usually a groundswell of opinion against the decision among ex-professionals and pundits - and that's regardless of the merits in law.

It is telling that Webb described the Robertson decision as "not unreasonable". He didn't directly say it was correct, because to do so would suggest the alternative view of onside would be incorrect - and that just isn't the case.

It falls within a subjective corridor where both outcomes can be deemed correct. There is no "right" decision, only alternative viewpoints based upon an interpretation of events.

Offside is covered by law 11 of the IFAB Laws of the Game 2025-26., external

The graphic below clarifies the law and the Premier League's match centre on X made specific reference to the incident.

"The referee's call of offside and no goal to Liverpool was checked and confirmed by VAR - with Robertson in an offside position and deemed to be making an obvious action directly in front of the goalkeeper," it said.

An obvious action is something which may impact an opponent from being able to get to the ball.

In the VAR audio it is clear that Burt made the decision. Liverpool fans have understandably focused on Burt twice referring to Robertson being in the line of vision of goalkeeper Gianluigi Donnarumma.

Crucially, the assistant also said "he's ducked under the ball. He's very, very close to him."

It was the assistant VAR, Tim Wood, who drove the discussion in the VAR room, saying: "I agree with the on-field decision. I think it's offside. It's a clear, obvious action which clearly impacts on the goalkeeper."

The VAR, Michael Oliver, was in the process of asking for an angle for the line of vision before Wood spoke. Oliver then confirmed the on-field judgement: "He is in an offside position, very close to the goalkeeper and makes an obvious movement directly in front of him. Check complete, offside."

How relevant was it that the VAR team didn't look at the line of vision? Webb addressed it, stressing that the obvious action, and being close to the goalkeeper, were still valid, or shall we say reasonable, reasons for the goal to be ruled out on their own.

Webb also pointed out that goalkeepers regularly make miraculous saves which made it difficult to over-ride the on-field opinion of clear impact on Donnarumma.

But, as is the way with technical decisions, supporters don't tend to be interested in explanations. They pick up on the specific words as proof their team has been wronged. And anything that deviates from the official reasoning is jumped upon.

The wording of the law has such nuance, too, that it was not widely known that ducking out of the way of the ball could possibly be an "obvious action." But this is exactly the kind of movement that it is supposed to cover: something which is not an attempt to play the ball but which could distract an opponent. It could be a dummy, allowing the ball through your legs or, in this case, ducking out of the way.

I often say that you could not go out and referee a game just by reading the Laws of the Game, because so much of the intended interpretation is hidden in further guidance given to referees.

You could say this is a 40-60 call, in favour of no goal, but VAR doesn't work on decisions being on the wrong side of the margins, it works on obvious errors. One side can think it's obvious, and the other might not.

It highlights one of the biggest issues with VAR, that a decision can have two valid outcomes and there will always be an aggrieved party. One side can think it's reasonable, and the other unreasonable.

Click here to read article