The controversial decision to disallow Virgil van Dijk’s 38th-minute header in Manchester City’s 3-0 victory over Liverpool on November 9, 2025, continues to divide opinion, with the Premier League’s Key Match Incidents (KMI) panel delivering a split ruling. In a 3-2 vote, the independent five-person panel—comprising three former players/coaches, one Premier League representative, and one from PGMOL—deemed the on-field offside call against Andy Robertson incorrect, suggesting the goal should have stood. Yet, in another 3-2 split, they upheld VAR’s choice not to intervene, arguing the error was not “clear and obvious.” PGMOL chief Howard Webb defended the officials as “not unreasonable,” highlighting the subjective nature of interference judgments. Liverpool’s formal complaint to PGMOL reflects ongoing frustrations with VAR consistency, as Arne Slot’s side saw momentum halted in a match that exposed title vulnerabilities.
Key Points on the Disallowed Goal Ruling
- Panel majority (3-2): On-field decision wrong—Robertson’s duck did not sufficiently impact Donnarumma.
- Panel majority (3-2): VAR correct to stay out—no clear/obvious error.
- Webb’s View: “Subjective but understandable”—proximity and action justified call.
- Liverpool Stance: Criteria not met; no vision block or hesitation proven.
- Contrast Case: Man City vs Wolves 2024—Silva offside, goal awarded (ball over GK, no duck).
- Impact: City led 1-0 (Haaland 18′); eventual 3-0 (González 44′, Foden 67′).
This paradox—goal “should have stood” yet VAR “right not to overturn”—exemplifies football’s fine margins and VAR’s high bar.
The Incident: Robertson’s Duck Sparks Offside Chaos
November 9, Etihad Stadium: Liverpool trail 1-0 (Haaland header). Salah corner—Van Dijk powers home. Celebrations erupt… flag up.
Assistant Stuart Burt: Robertson offside, “ducking under ball” in six-yard box, impacting Donnarumma (1.5m away).
Referee Chris Kavanagh: Initial yellow review to red (violent conduct risk? No—offside upheld).
VAR Michael Oliver (72-second check): “Obvious action directly in front”—no monitor referral.
Webb (Mic’d Up, November 11): “Ball passes inches over head—central, close. Duck causes hesitation? Subjective—officials formed opinion.”
Donnarumma’s dive: Late start—Webb: “Subconscious pull-back possible.”
Liverpool: Robertson evaded—no vision block (Donnarumma tracked ball); duck to avoid contact.
Slot: “Obvious wrong—Robertson interfered nothing.”
KMI Panel’s Split: Incorrect Call, Justifiable VAR Inaction
Premier League’s weekly KMI panel (November 20 ruling):
- 3-2: Assistant wrong—goal award better (no clear impact).
- 3-2: VAR right—no “clear/obvious” error; on-field justifiable.
Panel logic: Robertson’s position/action debatable—not blatant reversal threshold.
Webb: “Only Donnarumma knows 100%. Factual: Proximity, duck, flight—supports opinion.”
Liverpool’s PGMOL complaint (November 10): “Subjective overreach—no criteria met.”
Panel’s dual split: Validates frustration yet upholds process—VAR’s “minimal interference” mantra.
Webb’s Defence: Subjective Interference Explained
Mic’d Up audio (November 11):
- Burt: “Line of vision… ducking… close to keeper—impacted.”
- Kavanagh: “Offside then.”
- Oliver: “Confirming—obvious movement directly in front.”
Webb: “Most subjective decisions—interfering without touch. Proximity + action = hesitation risk.”
Law 11: Offside if “impacts opponent” (not just vision/touch).
Webb on Wolves-City precedent (2024, Silva offside goal awarded): “Ball over Sa’s head—no duck, Silva moved away. Different—Sa unaffected.”
Liverpool: No hesitation proof; Donnarumma dived left (ball right).
Webb: “Not unreasonable conclusion—understand disagreement.”
Broader Implications: Title Race and VAR Trust
City’s 3-0: Momentum killer—Liverpool 0 shots on target post-disallowance.
Table (post-MD11):
| Pos | Team | Pts | GD |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Arsenal | 33 | +19 |
| 2 | Man City | 29 | +17 |
| 8 | Liverpool | 25 | +12 |
Eight-point gap; Liverpool’s fifth loss (2025/26).
Slot: “Wrong decision—obvious.”
Webb: “Subjectivity inherent—only Donnarumma knows.”
Fan poll (YouGov, November 12): 68% goal should stand.
VAR 2025/26: 96% accuracy; set-piece subjectivity up 40%.
Verdict: Split Ruling Highlights VAR’s Grey Areas
KMI panel: Goal “should have stood”—vindication for Liverpool. Yet VAR “correct”—process upheld.
Webb: “Not unreasonable”—proximity/duck justifiable.
Paradox fuels debate: Better on-field call needed; VAR threshold protects flow, frustrates.
Liverpool: Title hopes dented; officiating trust tested.
Football’s truth: Fine margins define legacies—this duck did.
