Howard Webb, the head of referees, has come forward to robustly defend the call to nullify Virgil van Dijk’s goal in the match against Manchester City on Sunday.

The Dutch defender initially believed he had equalized for Arne Slot’s squad with a header past Gianluigi Donnarumma in the 38th minute. However, the goal was controversially annulled.

Upon review by VAR, it was decided that Andy Robertson, who moved out of the way of van Dijk’s attempt, was offside and had interfered with the Manchester City goalkeeper. This decision allowed Pep Guardiola’s side to maintain their lead, eventually securing a 3-0 victory.

Webb has stood by the contentious decision, describing it as ‘not unreasonable’ to disallow the goal. He also addressed Liverpool manager’s complaints, pointing out that City had benefited from a similar ruling last season.

During his appearance on the Match Officials Mic’d Up show, Webb explained: “Determining interference by an offside player, who doesn’t play the ball, involves judging if their actions impact an opponent, which is highly subjective.”

Howard Webb has launched a staunch defence of the decision to disallow Virgil van Dijk ‘s goal against Manchester City on Sunday

The referees’ chief said it was ‘not unreasonable’ for the goal to be disallowed on the Match Officials Mic’d Up show

‘Therefore, it’s no surprise that some people believe this goal should have stood, so I think it’s important that we look at the facts of what actually happened in this situation.

‘We know the corner comes in and the ball reaches Van Dijk. As the ball’s coming across the penalty area, the Manchester City players move out, they leave Robertson in that offside position in the heart of the six-yard box.

‘When Van Dijk heads the ball forward, that’s the moment when we have to make an offside judgment about Robertson and about what he’s doing there.

‘We know he doesn’t touch the ball but what does he do? Well, as the ball moves towards him, three yards out from goal, right in the middle of the six-yard box, he makes that clear action to duck below the ball.

‘The ball goes just over his head, and the ball finds the goal in the half of the six-yard box where he is. Then, the officials have to make a judgment – did that clear action impact on Donnarumma, the goalkeeper, and his ability to save the ball? And that’s where the subjectivity comes into play.

‘Obviously that’s the conclusion they drew on that. They looked at that position, they looked at that action, so close to the goalkeeper, and they formed that opinion.’

Footage from the show, which is hosted by Michael Owen, provides a peek behind the curtain of the VAR room during the moment the call was made.

As van Dijk scores, the AR2 (Second Assistant Referee) can be heard exclaiming: ‘Robertson, Robertson, Robertson. Robertson’s in line of vision, right in front of the keeper. He’s ducked under the ball. He’s very, very close to him. I think he’s line of vision. I think he’s been impacted, mate.’

Virgil van Dijk thought he had equalised for Liverpool against Manchester City on Sunday

van Dijk nodded beyond Gianluigi Donnarumma after Andy Robertson ducked out of the way

But the goal was disallowed by VAR and there has been ongoing controversy ever since

Referee Chris Kavanagh then responds: ‘Ok, so offside then?’ to which the AR2 says: ‘I think offside.’

The VAR team led by Michael Oliver are then brought in – and they rule that Robertson is in an offside position before they consider if he has blocked Donnarumma’s vision.

Speaking to the referee, Oliver says: ‘Confirming the on-field decision off offside against Andy Robertson. He is in an offside position, very close to the goalkeeper, and makes an obvious movement directly in front of him. Check complete. Offside.  

Webb said while he understands his opinion to support the decision is ‘not a view held by everybody’ he argues that ‘it’s not unreasonable to understand why they would form that conclusion’.

He continued: ‘The player is so close to the goalkeeper, the ball’s coming right towards him and he has to duck to get out of the way of the ball – and they form the conclusion that that impacts Donnarumma’s ability just to dive towards the ball and make that save.

‘And then, of course, once they’ve made that on-field decision, the job of the VAR is to look at that and decide, was the outcome of offside clearly and obviously wrong?

‘Only Donnarumma truly knows if he was impacted by this and, of course, we have to look at the factual evidence, and when we see that factual evidence of that position of the player ducking below the ball, so close to the goalkeeper, the VAR determines that the outcome of offside is not clearly and obviously wrong, and they stay out of it.’

The Reds contacted PGMOL as they did not accept that Donnarumma was impeded by the presence of Robertson and the Scotland captain was not in the goalkeeper’s line of vision. 

Arne Slot was not happy with the decision but did not blame the decision entirely for the defeat 

Speaking after the 3-0 defeat, Slot said a ‘clear and obvious error’ had denied his side pulling level in the first half, though the Dutchman was reluctant to blame that decision for the defeat.

The Liverpool boss said: ‘He didn’t interfere at all with what the goalkeeper could do.

‘Immediately after the game someone showed me the goal that the same referee allowed – City against Wolves last season (when Bernardo Silva was on the line for a John Stones header).

‘So it took the linesman 13 seconds to raise his flag to say it was offside. So there was clearly communication, but as I said that (goal) could have influenced the game in a positive way for us.

‘I would like to emphasise the fact that being 2-0 down at half-time was a fair reflection of how the game went.

‘This can happen in football. For me it was a wrong decision that this goal was not allowed, but I will not say because of that we lost the game.

‘After 1-1, if City kept on playing like they did then we would have struggled as well.’

On the Mic’d Up show Webb disagreed with Slot’s comparisons to the decision City were awarded against Wolves, when a goal was initially ruled out for a similar offside against Bernardo Silva but overturned after a VAR review.

The referees’ chief said there was a ‘clear difference here’, adding: ‘The ball goes directly over the goalkeeper Jose Sa’s head. It doesn’t go over Bernardo Silva.

‘Bernardo Silva is an offside position when John Stones heads the ball forward. Importantly, he moved to the left, away from the flight of the ball, and the ball goes straight over Sa, it doesn’t go over the head of Bernardo Silva in the way that it went over the head of Robertson, who ducked below it.

‘So, I think it’s difficult here to see this and think in any way that Jose Sa is impacted by an action of Bernardo Silva. If the ball had gone over Bernardo Silva’s head, maybe causing Jose Sa to hesitate in case it hits Bernardo Silva, then we’d come out with the same outcome of check complete on the on-field decision of disallowed goal.’