Liverpool contact PGMOL over Virgil van Dijk's disallowed goal in Man City defeat to raise significant concerns

Liverpool have contacted PGMOL to raise significant concerns about Virgil van Dijk’s disallowed goal in the 3-0 defeat at Man City.

Van Dijk's header was ruled out after Andy Robertson was penalised for impeding goalkeeper Gianluigi Donnarumma from an offside position.

The decision was made on-field by referee Chris Kavanagh after the assistant referee raised his flag for offside. A check from the video assistant referee (VAR) determined that Robertson had interfered with play from an offside position and the goal was disallowed.

Liverpool accept the result of the game but feel a mistake was made on this occasion and the goal should not have been ruled out, which is why they have contacted PGMOL.

While they accept officials have a difficult job, they do not understand how the VAR checks and balances in place did not result in the goal being awarded.

Van Dijk's header would have made the score 1-1 in the 38th minute of the game, which Liverpool went on to lose 3-0.

After viewing multiple camera angles of the incident, Liverpool do not believe Donnarumma's view was impeded in any way by Robertson as the defender was not in the City goalkeeper's line of vision.

The Premier League Match Centre explained the decision in a post on X: "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."

The offside law states a player is considered to be interfering with play when they "make an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball".

This Premier League Match Centre's post was community noted on the social media platform.

The community note explained the law around offside and added: "Just making an obvious action, as claimed here, is not sufficient on its own for an offside offence."

Arne Slot disagreed with the decision, telling Sky Sports after the game: "I think it's obvious and clear that the wrong decision has been made, at least in my opinion. Because he [Robertson] didn't interfere at all with what the goalkeeper could do.

"That could have influenced the game in a positive way for us because in the first half we were so poor."

PGMOL have been contacted for comment.

Ref Watch: Why Liverpool's disallowed goal wasn't 'clear and obvious error'

The incident was discussed for over 15 minutes on Monday's edition of Ref Watch, where former Premier League referee Dermot Gallagher explained why the decision had not been reviewed by VAR.

"It is subjective without doubt and it is a grey area because it's all about the interpretation.

"Everybody sees things slightly differently and that's why you can throw up an incident from last year or the earlier this season and say, 'well they made a different decision'. I don't think there are hard and fast rules.

"I'm not trying to defend [referee] Chris Kavanagh, but we shouldn't hang him out to dry because he didn't make the decision yesterday, that was made by the assistant.

"This was an on-field decision, which was no goal. So VAR looks and says: 'Is Robertson in an offside position? Yes.

"'Is he impacting on the goalkeeper?' They obviously felt yes, because he was close. That's why people are going, 'it should be this or this'. It's open to interpretation."

When asked if the referee should have been sent to the monitor, Dermot said: "No, VAR is not there to judge. It's not going to say, 'you've got this right, you've got this wrong'.

"If VAR says, you need to go and look at this', then you're re-refereeing. They didn't think this was a clear and obvious error. He can only be sent to the screen if it's a clear and obvious error or if it's a subjective offside which they have to go through.

"The on-field decision was 'no goal' so what can you do? It can be backed up by the video - he was in an offside position, he is close to the goalkeeper, so they say he's impacting."

But Jay Bothroyd disagreed with the assessment, adding: "This should have been given as a goal. When you look at Donnarumma, he is coming across slightly to his right but then he pivots to the left, so that means he can see where the ball is going.

"Robertson has ducked but, if anything, the person who would be in his eye-line more is [Man City's Jeremy] Doku.

"'A player making an action' is in the rule. A player making an action, in my opinion, is if he moves towards the ball or he tries to make contact with the ball. Robertson has ducked. He's made no effort to try to deflect the ball or get his head on it. He's just got himself out the way of the ball.

"That's why I think it should have been given and was a poor decision."

Analysis: No sour grapes from Liverpool

Sky Sports News' Kaveh Solhekol:

I don't think this is a case of sour grapes. Liverpool accept the fact they lost the game but are saying, 'we believe a big mistake was made in this instance and we want to make sure the mistake is not made again'.

Liverpool have looked at this incident from multiple angles and cannot understand why the goal was disallowed. From their opinion, it is clear Andy Robertson was not in Gianluigi Donnarumma's line of vision, and he made no attempt to play the ball at all - he actually ducked.

They believe the score should have been 1-1 there and then - although it's quite possible they would have gone on to lose the game anyway.

...