The Reds imagine they have been robbed of a rightful objective 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 objective in Sunday’s 3-0 defeat to Manchester Metropolis.
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 objective 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 immediately 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 potential to play the ball.
Liverpool, nevertheless, have disputed that interpretation. The membership imagine the choice doesn’t meet the standards set out in Legislation 11 of the sport’s offside laws.
They argue that Robertson’s motion didn’t impede Donnarumma’s line of sight or forestall him from trying to make a save, and due to this fact the objective ought to have stood.
After reviewing all accessible footage from a number of digital camera angles, Liverpool preserve that the Italian goalkeeper’s view of the ball was by no means considerably impeded.
They’re additionally mentioned to be pissed off that the VAR course of didn’t finish with the objective being reinstated regardless of what they imagine 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 move with out accountability or dialogue, particularly given its implications for future interpretations of comparable conditions.
In line with the official wording of Legislation 11, an offside participant ought to solely be penalised in the event that they develop into energetic by: “interfering with play by taking part in or touching a ball handed or touched by a team-mate, or interfering with an opponent by stopping an opponent from taking part in or with 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 power of an opponent to play the ball.”