Liverpool have lodged a formal complaint with PGMOL over Virgil van Dijk’s disallowed equalizer at Manchester City.
The reigning Premier League champions have escalated their dissatisfaction over Sunday’s performance at the Etihad by lodging a detailed complaint with Professional Game Match Officials Limited
They dispute both the process and rationale that led to Virgil van Dijk’s disallowed equalizer. The club’s correspondence, delivered to PGMOL chief Howard Webb on Monday morning, makes a strong case: the decision was not merely a matter of subjective interpretation, but a misapplication of the rules of the game.
The Premier League Match Center later published a brief endorsing the decision, stating that Robertson’s positioning and proximity to Donnarumma constituted interference.
Liverpool disputes both the interpretation and the confidence implied by the league’s statement. Their submission to Webb emphasized that the law is not ambiguous and that its wording should guide decision-making over subjective judgment.
According to Athletic Anfield officials, following an extensive review of the match footage, the officials believe that the evidence overwhelmingly supports their position that Andy Robertson, who ruled himself in an offside position, had not committed any action that would amount to “obstructing an opponent” under Law 11.
Their assessment is that the Liverpool left-back did not obstruct Gianluigi Donnarumma’s field of vision, nor impede the goalkeeper’s movement, nor make any attempt to play or challenge for the ball. Robertson’s instinctive diving away from Mohamed Salah’s corner, they argue, shows an active attempt to remove himself from the stage of play entirely.
Van Dijk’s header, which came in the 43rd minute, represented Liverpool’s immediate response to Erling Haaland’s opener.
The captain’s celebrations were cut short by an unusually delayed assistant flag and then a lengthy VAR review, led by Michael Oliver, who ultimately concluded Robertson’s position amounted to offside.
Chris Kavanagh, the on-field referee, was advised to award an offside infringement without being sent to oversee an on-field review.
Liverpool’s correspondence queries processed directly indicate this. Their expectation, rooted in the recent PGMOL guidelines, is that where there is subjectivity, the on-field referee should be encouraged to review the incident for themselves. Kavanagh didn’t get that chance.
Internally, Liverpool view that as a failure of protocol, especially as Oliver’s interpretation hinged on whether Robertson had an influence on Donnarumma’s ability to play the ball. According to Liverpool, that is exactly the kind of moment that benefits from the direct involvement of the referee.
Law 11, which club analysts have studied frame by frame in relation to the incident, sets out a clear set of criteria for involvement in offside: touching the ball; blocking an opponent’s view; to challenge an opponent; clearly trying to play a ball close while that action hits an opponent; or making an obvious action that affects an opponent’s ability to play the ball.
Liverpool are convinced Robertson didn’t do any of this. The argument they presented to Webb emphasizes not only that they disagree with the decision, but also that the objective criteria simply do not support the ruling.
Liverpool’s frustration is compounded by the wider context of recent high-profile controversies involving the club. The memory of Luis Díaz’s disallowed goal at Tottenham in September 2023, where VAR wrongly identified a legitimate goal but miscommunicated the decision, remains fresh.
While Sunday’s situation is inherently different, the club draws a parallel in that both incidents stem from what they see as fundamental flaws in the accurate application of the laws overseen by VAR.
Slot’s side eventually lost 3-0, with second-half goals from Nico Gonzalez and an inspired Jeremy Doku securing victory for Manchester City. But within Liverpool’s hierarchy, the Van Dijk incident is seen as a turning point in the match that, if handled differently, could have reshaped the first half and the rhythm of the match.
Liverpool are now awaiting a formal response from PGMOL. Their expectation is not only clarification, but also transparency about the criteria used, the internal communications that underpinned the final decision and how the incident fits within the broader framework that PGMOL uses to assess the VAR’s involvement.
The club’s position is unequivocal: the goal should have stood, and the process that did not allow this did not meet the standards that the officials themselves claim to uphold.
#Liverpool #accept #Virgil #van #Dijks #disallowed #goal #contact #PGMOL #express #concerns